Saturday, January 05, 2013
Disappointed
I am disappointed that the PM threatened yawningbread with libel. I've been going around telling my friends in the US: "Actually, times have changed, the government is opening up to criticisms and as long as you don't say these few things you're gonna be fine." Looks like I was wrong. I have nothing to say to the US critics of Yale-NUS.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Sexism in Tech
I understand that whatever I'm writing here can be used against me. But I still believe that people should be judged for who they are and not who they seem to be, and I hold myself to this standard. I just hope that whoever happens to chance upon this inactive blog in the future understands that I wrote this as a 23 year old and I may have changed by the time you're reading this. If I haven't, then judge me as appropriate.
I read this article recently: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4980350
Before reading this article, I hadn't realized how big of a problem sexism in tech is. Man, I really feel for all the crap the writer had to go through. I can't empathize, but I know it must have felt worse than anything I've been through. But at that same time, I know that I have perpetuated this myself - I remember that at the first day working at BloomReach (a tech company), when Helen introduced herself to me, the first thing that I noticed was that she's cute. And the first question that popped to my mind was, "Are you an engineer?", because I've heard that women are underrepresented in engineering roles in tech and I wanted to check my hypothesis. She smiled and defused the question really well, but it was only after I read some other article that I realized the undertone in that question.
And so I realize I'm part of the problem. I am biased. When I find out that a woman I haven't met before is in tech, it genuinely comes to me as a surprise (especially if she's attractive, but that's another stereotype). Unconsciously, my words reveal my beliefs, and they make them feel a little smaller.
Why is this a problem? After all, stereotypes can serve as mental shortcuts that allow us to arrive at better decisions with less information. It is not factually wrong to claim that since women are underrepresented in tech, if the only information I am given is that this person is a woman, then the conditional probability that she's not in tech is higher than otherwise. So if I were to go up to a random woman(not in the CS department building of course) and say, "you are probably not a CS major", I would be right most of the time. But that makes her feel bad and doesn't achieve anything. So I know not to say it.
Alright, so I shouldn't voice out my beliefs based on stereotypes that make people feel threatened. But if it's likely to be true, I am still justified in believing it, right? Why should I be blamed for attempting to arrive at a belief that's more likely to be correct than not?
I think the problem here lies with priming. I'm not surprised at all when a guy tells me he's in tech - why? The base rate of people in tech isn't really that high in the first place. The difference, I think, is the bunch of concepts that pop into my head (aka the schemata that get activated) when I see a person. Somehow(just guessing), the schema for "probably not a tech person" gets activated when I see a girl but not when I see a guy, even though the belief would be justified for both guys and girls.
I really can't think of a "thinking cure" or "reading cure" for my bias. But I know of one method that has worked for me in the past. I previously held the stereotype that girls aren't good at math. But Elaine blows me out of the water when it comes to math, and working with her on psets has shattered this stereotype for me. I suppose if I had done psets with Irene it would nuke the stereotype into oblivion(along with whatever ego I started with), but I'm not at the level where I'm even taking the classes she's taking.
That might work.
(Unrelated random trivia: Lisa Einstein is currently studying undergrad physics at Princeton.)
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Reconciliation
Yesterday, I saw a video from North Korea about American propaganda. Despite the disapproving tone and wide generalizations, I think they've got some things right. It's an hour and a half long, but I think it's worth watching. (Also note that the translator now has some doubts about whether this film is really targeted at DPRK citizens or are actually targeted at the global population.)
In summary, the video is about how the US uses the media to maintain a consumerist culture and keep its citizens ignorant and "enslaved", so that they don't spend time thinking about things that really matter. It discusses how advertisements, celebrities, the War on Terror, and empty catchphrases are used to achieve this, how the US consumerist culture is unsustainable, and why people in the US are not truly free.
I was intrigued by this video, so I asked people about their thoughts on it over brunch.
"Oh, propaganda about propaganda? Propagand-ception!"
"It's from North Korea? They're not doing so well themselves either."
"What's wrong with a consumerist culture? Is there something that matters more than economics? Anyway you should watch this movie about North Korea invading the US, it's like top ten in the box office."
And they continued talking about their favorite food, sports teams, and the flowers in the middle of the table. Sigh. I guess these things matter a lot to them.
-------------------------
So here are my thoughts.
A preface to talking about "consumption"
One easy trap to fall into when talking about consumerism is using the word consumption to describe anything we do in order to make it sound like it is a bad thing to do, then using a different set of vocabulary to talk about an alternative in order to make the alternative sound like a "solution" to the "problem". The video commits this mistake a lot. Whenever the video talks about consumption, it shows footages of morbidly obese people eating junk food to viscerally cement the point that consumption = bad. But a farmer eating rice with beanstalks after a hard day of work is also consumption. So is taking the train. Many things we do are acts of consumption, and you have to do some of it to remain as a productive member of society. You have to eat something. You have to dress appropriately for your job interview. You have to go school because it helps you make better decisions, and the decisions you make affect others. All these are acts of consumption in some form, but few will argue that they are bad things to do. So consumption ≠ bad. But consumption is a word loaded with bad connotations, so I'll avoid using this word.
Balancing out the video's tone
The video claims that a consumerist culture is the result of a positive feedback loop in a capitalist economy:
1) People want to buy things. People who make and sell goods want to buy things too, so they want to make more money.
2) To make more money, corporations need to sell more goods, so they advertise aggressively. The most effective advertisements have an effect of making people want to buy their things. Go back to 1).
But the implicit message is that in such a culture, when people buy and use/eat things,
1) They are only doing it to make themselves feel better. It implies a hollow and ultimately unfulfilling existence. This is essentially the problem of how one can possibly find meaning in life if one subscribes to utilitarianism. It's a philosophical problem and capitalism did not cause it.
2) They don't do anything else. Since corporations strongly affect what people want to buy, by controlling what people buy they effectively control how people live, and thus the people are "enslaved". Well, this is not true. When someone buys a camera, it's generally for taking photos and not "look I have a camera I am cool". The things you own facilitate what you already want to do. It would take a fantastic leap of reason to argue that an artist who buys a canvas is a slave to consumerism just because he/she bought something from a corporation. Using something that you have bought is also not just a passive act that merely fulfills a hollow desire. You can use a cell phone's text messaging function to meet up with friends. A husband can also use his car to drive his pregnant wife home(shout out!). People want to be nice to each other and will do it in any way they want. There is still a great deal of freedom in a world where almost everything you use has to be bought with money.
3) They mostly buy things they don't need. Technically you don't need a camera to survive. Technically you don't need books either. Or vaccines. But now that technology has granted us such powers, why not use it? Good reasons: You could have spent that money on better things. It's bad for the environment. Bad reason: You don't need it to survive.
So the big problem that the video makes that it assumes that life in a consumerist culture is inherently unfulfilling. It need not be. But one thing they did bring up is: people could, theoretically, live happier and healthier lives with less impact on the environment, so why aren't we doing it? I think this is a good point. But there is the problem of how such a life is going to look like. The next problem is how we get there and stay there. It's hard though, because many people are already used to a certain lifestyle and it would be a very disruptive change. (People have tried disruptive changes before, but it didn't work.)
Is there a point to it though? Even if we are not making cultural progress, there is definitely progress in infrastructure and science. If the Earth is all we have to care about, then if we can find the "meaning to life", not having scientific and technological progress that doesn't really matter either. But we'll all be fucked if an asteroid comes along.
The problem of sustainability is a big problem for capitalism though. Perhaps capitalism causes such a strain on the planet that it doesn't even make sense to worry about asteroids. I don't know. But the technology actually exists to solve our problems, it's just that incentives are currently not aligned correctly for everyone to act in the optimal way. When solar/fusion power becomes available on a large scale, we're going to be okay.
In summary, the video is about how the US uses the media to maintain a consumerist culture and keep its citizens ignorant and "enslaved", so that they don't spend time thinking about things that really matter. It discusses how advertisements, celebrities, the War on Terror, and empty catchphrases are used to achieve this, how the US consumerist culture is unsustainable, and why people in the US are not truly free.
I was intrigued by this video, so I asked people about their thoughts on it over brunch.
"Oh, propaganda about propaganda? Propagand-ception!"
"It's from North Korea? They're not doing so well themselves either."
"What's wrong with a consumerist culture? Is there something that matters more than economics? Anyway you should watch this movie about North Korea invading the US, it's like top ten in the box office."
And they continued talking about their favorite food, sports teams, and the flowers in the middle of the table. Sigh. I guess these things matter a lot to them.
-------------------------
So here are my thoughts.
A preface to talking about "consumption"
One easy trap to fall into when talking about consumerism is using the word consumption to describe anything we do in order to make it sound like it is a bad thing to do, then using a different set of vocabulary to talk about an alternative in order to make the alternative sound like a "solution" to the "problem". The video commits this mistake a lot. Whenever the video talks about consumption, it shows footages of morbidly obese people eating junk food to viscerally cement the point that consumption = bad. But a farmer eating rice with beanstalks after a hard day of work is also consumption. So is taking the train. Many things we do are acts of consumption, and you have to do some of it to remain as a productive member of society. You have to eat something. You have to dress appropriately for your job interview. You have to go school because it helps you make better decisions, and the decisions you make affect others. All these are acts of consumption in some form, but few will argue that they are bad things to do. So consumption ≠ bad. But consumption is a word loaded with bad connotations, so I'll avoid using this word.
Balancing out the video's tone
The video claims that a consumerist culture is the result of a positive feedback loop in a capitalist economy:
1) People want to buy things. People who make and sell goods want to buy things too, so they want to make more money.
2) To make more money, corporations need to sell more goods, so they advertise aggressively. The most effective advertisements have an effect of making people want to buy their things. Go back to 1).
But the implicit message is that in such a culture, when people buy and use/eat things,
1) They are only doing it to make themselves feel better. It implies a hollow and ultimately unfulfilling existence. This is essentially the problem of how one can possibly find meaning in life if one subscribes to utilitarianism. It's a philosophical problem and capitalism did not cause it.
2) They don't do anything else. Since corporations strongly affect what people want to buy, by controlling what people buy they effectively control how people live, and thus the people are "enslaved". Well, this is not true. When someone buys a camera, it's generally for taking photos and not "look I have a camera I am cool". The things you own facilitate what you already want to do. It would take a fantastic leap of reason to argue that an artist who buys a canvas is a slave to consumerism just because he/she bought something from a corporation. Using something that you have bought is also not just a passive act that merely fulfills a hollow desire. You can use a cell phone's text messaging function to meet up with friends. A husband can also use his car to drive his pregnant wife home(shout out!). People want to be nice to each other and will do it in any way they want. There is still a great deal of freedom in a world where almost everything you use has to be bought with money.
3) They mostly buy things they don't need. Technically you don't need a camera to survive. Technically you don't need books either. Or vaccines. But now that technology has granted us such powers, why not use it? Good reasons: You could have spent that money on better things. It's bad for the environment. Bad reason: You don't need it to survive.
So the big problem that the video makes that it assumes that life in a consumerist culture is inherently unfulfilling. It need not be. But one thing they did bring up is: people could, theoretically, live happier and healthier lives with less impact on the environment, so why aren't we doing it? I think this is a good point. But there is the problem of how such a life is going to look like. The next problem is how we get there and stay there. It's hard though, because many people are already used to a certain lifestyle and it would be a very disruptive change. (People have tried disruptive changes before, but it didn't work.)
Is there a point to it though? Even if we are not making cultural progress, there is definitely progress in infrastructure and science. If the Earth is all we have to care about, then if we can find the "meaning to life", not having scientific and technological progress that doesn't really matter either. But we'll all be fucked if an asteroid comes along.
The problem of sustainability is a big problem for capitalism though. Perhaps capitalism causes such a strain on the planet that it doesn't even make sense to worry about asteroids. I don't know. But the technology actually exists to solve our problems, it's just that incentives are currently not aligned correctly for everyone to act in the optimal way. When solar/fusion power becomes available on a large scale, we're going to be okay.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
I remember one year ago, I asked a Romanian, "So Romanian uses the English alphabet?"
The reply: "English uses the roman alphabet."
---------fast forward---------
"Ah I see, so you speak English in Singapore. But where does the accent come from?"
"I don't have an American accent because I'm not from America."
The reply: "English uses the roman alphabet."
---------fast forward---------
"Ah I see, so you speak English in Singapore. But where does the accent come from?"
"I don't have an American accent because I'm not from America."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)