Are you playing with yours now?

There is a lot of concern over privacy issues. It seems that as technology becomes more advanced, the threat to privacy becomes greater. Rest assured that this will change in the future. Actually, it will change as a result of one of two possible paths.

The obvious reduction to the threat is the elimination of technology altogether. This would be some global catastrophe (whether man-made or not is moot). That's the boring, predictable, outcome. The one depicted in comic books and bad science fiction movies where haggard old men live in the ruins of once great cities (or under bridges) and guard the "sacred texts" which they have forgotten even how to read. Yawn.

The second path is actually pretty interesting because it seems almost counter-intuitive. Privacy concerns will be reduced as a result of all the access. To understand why, consider an analogy with memory. An important part of our ability to remember is that we can (and must) be able to forget. Actually, we forget way more than we will probably ever remember. This is a blessing. Imagine the alternative. Remembering, in excruciating detail, every piece of sensory input and random thought you've ever had. Imagine that the memory for all that is equally accessible. It would be nearly impossible to sift through memory to find some specific detail. In fact, you would only be adding to the problem because you would also have a memory of your search through memory to add to your memories every time you searched memory!

The technology for my prediction is mostly here already. One pesky little problem stands in the way of a revolution to humankind that will eclipse anything previously (except maybe language itself). The problem has to do with data storage. Once the introduction of very cheap and very vast data storage occurs, the world will change forever.

The invention of all time will make a great deal of current technology obsolete. This invention is simply called, the pder ("pee-der"). It is an acronym of course, which stands for, "Personal Digital Event Recorder." Doesn't really sound like much for what it is, though. Very humble. But here is how it works.

You will carry around a device (on or around your head, like a hat, or headphones at first, but eventually all sorts of variations will emerge). This device records everything. It records everything in high-definition. It also both receives from and sends to other pders.

Everything is recorded everywhere. Not only that, but you can get special devices to interact more effectively with the data collected from your (or another's) pder. For example, the pder-box. Imagine simply receiving a transmission (not for free of course) from the museum. The pder-box generates a virtual image of whatever artifact you want to examine. This image is complete and highly defined. Zoom in to examine every tiny brushstroke of any painting. Rotate and examine ancient sculptures. In some cases, the data may be dense enough to literally turn your pder-box into a macro-micro scope.

Because of the transmission capability, imagine going to see a play. There is no longer a bad seat in the house. You drop down the pder-vision glasses and get a 3D projection of whatever other pder transmission you prefer. For a fee, you can have a front-row seat. Turn your head and the image shifts to match. You will forget you are wearing someone else's eyes.

There will be so much information being transmitted across so many pders that it would be almost impossible to target any one pder with precision. Not that you will have assured privacy, but with so many "channels" to pick from, there won't be many eyes on you.

Of course you can turn on/off the transmit feature of your pder. But, what if you forget? What if you get home and decide to get busy doing something. . . private? Yes, there is a chance someone might be "visiting" you if you are still transmitting. Fear not, though! You simply install a home pder-defeater! Industrial strength versions will certainly be installed in some areas in public as well as paid arenas. After all, you don't want people getting free pay-per-pder!

The commercial opportunities are virtually limitless here. Most electronic entertainment venues as well as communication devices will become pder-compatible. That is to say, cell phones and TVs will become obsolete. Your personal pder will double as your cell phone and TV will be sent to your pder-box. You can go to the theater or concert, etc. but stay home. You will be able to subscribe to all sorts of educational and entertainment delivery systems. Imagine a pder attached to a robot designed to explore the depths of the ocean; search and rescue operations; rove the moon and planets, etc.

Although the technology will have some clunky aspects at first, these problems will be "solved" in good time (workarounds will be developed and sold). The biggest problem will be to develop an efficient search and retrieval tool given the density of information stored.

Someday, then, either we will all be playing with our pders, or, just looking at the pretty pictures in the musty old books under a partially collapsed bridge outside a radioactive city.

The annoyance of bad feet.

Am I annoying? Well, yeah, I guess I can be. I try not to be; and sometimes it can be a real struggle to hold back.

When I was in high school, I ran cross-country track my last two years. Probably at my best, I was only mediocre. After school, I tried to keep up the running because I actually really enjoyed it. There were days when I felt as though I could just keep running forever without getting tired.

The summer after graduation, I was running along the road about 2-3 miles from home when my left knee SUDDENLY (and I mean that literally – there was no warning) felt as though someone was trying to pop it off with an invisible screwdriver.

This effectively ended my running days.

For a while, I tried various tricks. Extra stretching; creams; very tight ace bandage wraps; cutting back on my running; sneaking to a doctor to get an orthotic (specially fitted support insert) for my shoe which I got into trouble for when my parents got THAT bill!

The ace bandage wrap worked the best but it was unreliable because it wouldn’t always stay wrapped. My last run was pretty much a race in which the bandage loosened up and my kneecap wouldn’t let me do more than hobble to the ambulance tracking the last runners.

Particularly annoying were the old guys running past me with their encouraging “Walk it out, kid!” as if I was simply out of breath. They meant well, I guess. But boy did I hate them.

Over the years, I’ve tried working back into running. Never works. After about a mile and a half, I can feel the knee starting to pop. Even the other knee has started acting up. This can be a problem even if I walk too much. No doubt the extra poundage wrapped around my mid-section isn’t helping.

The desire to run is never far from my thoughts, so imagine my hopefulness at hearing a commercial about this place; let’s call it “Great Foot” so I don’t maybe get anyone in trouble. All I had to do was find one of their many stores, stop in without even setting up an appointment, and have a custom analysis of my feet (for free!) followed by a custom selected orthotic support (which of course would not be free)!

Here’s a portion of a press release: “By taking each customer through a personal biomechanical balancing and foot-printing process, arch supports and cushions are custom-fitted to ensure ultimate comfort.”

Wow, huh?!

So, I entered the store and was immediately greeted by, oh, let’s call her Francis.

I have purchased supports from Walmart in the past, but they didn’t do much to help my running. So I was probably starting off a bit skeptical. Nonetheless, I really WANTED to believe that this could work. I would love to run again.

Right away I got the sales pitch (see summarized version above in the press release quote). Then Francis did an amazing demonstration! She had me hold my fists out, one above the other in front of my bellybutton (it’s an innie, so it didn’t get in the way), then she pushed down on them and I lost my balance. She then had me put my hands behind me, did the same push down and I started to fall over backwards.

Yikes! Apparently my feet were a real mess! It was amazing I was able to stay upright! She clearly demonstrated to me that my footing was not stable. This was certainly alarming.

Next, she pulled out this cool platform thingy with paper in it. I was to walk on it once for each foot so that it could create an ink footprint. Cool! Here’s my right foot (I messed up and had to re-do it, so this was my bad step which Francis let me keep).



With all my “data” (that would include verbal information, the footprints, plus the miserably failed balance test), Francis went into the back of the store to figure out the best type of support for my particular foot problems. As she was gone, I started to worry that they wouldn’t be able to find something to fit my particular foot needs. Maybe I would have to place the order and they would send out to the main facility to custom fabricate orthotics to meet my unique arch support system needs. I was getting more and more worried the longer she was gone. I didn’t want to have to come back a week later, I wanted better support NOW!

Imagine my relief when Francis came back with a handful of plastic baggies each containing different types of supports! She smiled and it was clear to me that she was able to cobble together a solution to my problems.

In my relief, I related to Francis my visit to the clinic when I was a teenager. The excruciating wait resulting from having had a model of my foot constructed and then the almost two months before the doctors were able to create my custom orthotic!

Francis smiled wider because she too knows what a wonderful futuristic world we live in today! Where even custom eye-glasses can be cut and fitted to our heads in less than an hour! What a beautiful day this was turning out to be! I hummed a bit as Francis tore each individually wrapped orthotic out of its sterile packaging, then took my sneakers and ripped out the old sole cushions. I wouldn’t be needing those any more!

Actually, Francis was talking through this, and it was only just starting to penetrate what she was saying. Let me summarize the most important point: These inserts cost $285 dollars.

As Francis started pressing the $upport$ into their new homes, I couldn’t help but to wonder as to what specific foot support my particular case warranted the $285 price tag. I examined the crumpled little baggie that had contained my left support. I was prepared to have to memorize had a unique designator label like XKZ-26-L-RW2-64C. Fortunately, it was easy to memorize. The code printed on the baggie was only a few letters long. The code was “LARGE”.

Hmmm. Maybe you are wondering if perhaps it was “XKZ-26-L-RW2-64C – LARGE”? No, it was simply, “LARGE” on the wrapper.

Fine. Whatever. The $285 cost at least got me to thinking that maybe they would still be better than the ones I got at Walmart. (Coincidently, the code on the ones I got from Walmart were the same as the ones at Great Foot: “LARGE”.)

Francis gave me my shoes and had me put them on. Time for a re-visit of the balancing test. With my hands in front again, Francis was unable to tip me over (she even gave a little grunt of effort so that I knew she was really trying to tip my balance). Even with my hands behind my back, she was unable to tip me over (she did the little “effort-grunt” again, by the way). I was standing on a bedrock of arch supports.

Here is where I began to struggle with the annoying part of me. Even my wife could see my struggle. Both asked what was the matter (with that tone in their voices that made me think they believed I was late for an appointment in the bathroom).

I said, “Nothing” but my wife wouldn’t let it alone (another reason why I love her). So I suggested that perhaps this “balance test” was biased. That is, maybe the salesperson was helping me with the outcomes of each test. Francis was clearly shocked at the idea. This made me feel bad for seeming to doubt her. She had been very nice and helpful. I quickly explained that I didn’t think it was deliberate! This sort of thing happens all the time in research, which is why the good researchers use blind (or “double-blind”) procedures. Unconscious bias can affect test outcomes.

Wanting to end the matter, I again tried to pass it off as a side-effect of my being an idiot. However, the damage had been done. I had thrown down a gauntlet and Francis was ready to do battle. She insisted on the blind test. So, ok. I told her we would do two tests - one with and one without the supports, only she would not know when they were in or not for the balancing tests. For the first test, I decided to leave them in.

After a while of feeling guilty for being annoying, we called Francis back in and I stood up for the test. With hands in front, she pushed (no effort grunt) and I started to tip over. This was NOT what I wanted. Although, I was skeptical about the demonstration, I would have been glad to spend the money on supports if it meant I might be able to run again. This little tip instantly crushed my dreams. Francis, on the other hand, smiled and said, “I think I know that the supports are out of your shoes!”

We did the behind-my-back test and I tipped over even quicker. With obvious confidence in the test, Francis stated that I was NOT wearing the supports.

Now, I was feeling pretty bad already now that I had lost faith in the supports. I wasn’t looking forward to being a real ass and showing her that I still had them on. She was really shocked to see them in my shoes. Right away, she proposed the hypothesis that I must not have had them in correctly. If they are out of position by even the littlest smidge, they are apparently worthless.

Well, if that were true, they were REALLY not going to be very helpful. They had felt ok in my shoes, and if I can’t tell whether they are fitting correctly or not, why buy them? I decided to terminate the study (no second test) to avoid further turmoil. We left with the, “We should really check with the doctor first to see if our insurance might be useful” excuse.

I’d like to think that maybe Francis has been given some food for thought regarding the validity of her test, but I’m skeptical. She was pretty quick to come up with an excuse to protect her belief in the validity of the test. So, I imagine her using the same routine on her customers still. Only I doubt that she would allow anyone to test her again.

Sometimes being annoying can save you money and might even be educational to others (if they are open-minded enough to learn from it). But, it's still annoying to have the foot problem.

The MONTY PAUL Dilemma: How to get a free "six-pack" of Dr. Paul's favorite beer

Exhibit A

On Tuesday, April 15, 2008 I attended a lecture by Arie Maharshak that presented some research he had done with David Pundak. There were three things that got my mind whirring (my wife would say it was “clanking”). First, and among other things, Arie reviewed the Monty Hall dilemma, which I will describe in a moment. Second, how well attended the presentation was by faculty and administrators, including our president! And finally, the conspicuous absence of students.

There are approximately 4500 students at Robert Morris University. None of which found the time to attend the Rooney Scholar lecture. By the way, there was a fantastic spread of delicious snacks, all free for the gobbling, but no students. Why? I have a few thoughts, but first, the Monty Hall dilemma.

There are lots of website discussions and simulations about this puzzle on the web, so I invite the reader to go find some and play around if you do not believe (or understand) my telling. Essentially, it goes like this: Imagine three doors, each leading to a free prize. However, only one prize behind one of the three doors is worthwhile (e.g., a six-pack of Dr. Paul’s favorite beer). The other two doors each hide something worthless (e.g., empty bottles of Dr. Paul’s favorite beer). You get to pick one of the doors. Let’s say you select door number three. Now, before that door is opened, I show you that behind door number one, there is a worthless prize (empty bottle). Now, here is the puzzle: If you like, you may switch your choice to door number two, or you can keep your original door number three. Is it a good idea to switch, a bad idea to switch, or does it matter?

The answer is that you should switch. Door number two is twice as likely to hide the prize than door number three.

All this writing is making me thirsty. There is now only five bottles left of Dr. Paul’s six-pack of favorite beer. Sorry.

Exhibit B

Over the years, I have asked students to write little papers for class. Unfortunately, it seems that the educational value of this sort of assignment has diminished. Instead of doing what I’d hoped; actually putting some thought into the paper topic, students have turned the assignments into scavenger hunts. They pop onto the internet, locate a search engine, type in a few key words, skim some resulting pages for choice paragraphs or sentences to cut and paste into “their” paper. Of course, I do not mean to lump all students into this characterization. So, those of you reading this who actually follow through as intended, nice job!

To combat this plagiaristic trend, I have modified my paper assignments so that they require only self-reflection, personal opinion, and/or basic brainpower. Despite that, I still get scavenger hunt students who turn in papers plagiarized from the internet. Some students, if they cannot find information about the topic on the internet, simply give up! All that they needed to do was spend the same amount of time they wasted searching the internet just thinking about the topic. However, because the internet knew nothing about the topic, neither did the student.

Hm! I see that I’ve downed another bottle and I don’t even recall opening that second one! Ok, a four-pack is better than nothing, right?

Exhibit A

One of the points of Arie’s talk was that students (people, really) tended to rely on naïve intuition to understand the world. Or, put another way, we tend to be lazy thinkers who prefer to derive speedy answers to questions rather than try to think through them using scientific reasoning.

This is, of course, an over-simplification of Dr. Maharshak’s talk. However, in that, there is another point to be made: We prefer over-simplification to complex answers. The trend and general advice is to try to present “sound bite” education. Keep the students’ attention! Entertain! Keep It Simple Stupid! I’ve had students who defended their poor grades by explaining that the class was too “boring” for them to do well in.

As it turned out, though, as much of the attention was focused on student thinking (or lack thereof) I was a bit surprised when the president of the university made a comment. He was referring to a semi-popular book (Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell), in which it appears that intuitive thinking among those with plenty of life -or business- experience is actually pretty good. This point was reinforced by an administrator from the nursing program who claimed that research has shown that seasoned doctors are able to intuit diagnoses with great accuracy (i.e., the “educated guess” effect).

So, what was the point of these comments? To me, they seemed to defend the use of intuition. Or, at least attempt to put “intuition” into a more favorable light by indicating that, under the right conditions, a “lazy” (my bias) approach to thinking might actually be ok.

An obvious fallacy here, and one that seems to illustrate the trouble educators have in trying to bring critical thinking to the masses, is that there is no guideline for when a person has enough experience and knowledge to be able to justify an intuitive approach to thinking. Any defense of lazy thinking reinforces the whole line of thinkers, from novice to experienced, to simply rely on their gut. Lazy thinking wins again!

To make matters worse, because of other biases in thinking (such as the confirmation bias), people are much less likely to seek out anything but confirmatory evidence for their beliefs. They will even go so far as to ignore, outright reject, reinterpret, or even overlook evidence that conflicts with their view.

So, when a seasoned doctor uses intuition to make a diagnosis, or a cigar-saturated CEO makes an important business decision, they may be much less willing to consider additional sources of evidence… especially evidence that might be contrary to their gut reasoning.

People should always strive to make use of the best information available. Sometimes the best we have is intuition. In which case, gamble with the experts. However, unless time is critical, it is rare that intuition is the best information from which to work. So, beware the person who contrives to waste time so that intuition is the only viable option left!

So, how to get my beers? Learn and practice systematic thinking strategies. Familiarize yourself with the “scientific method” and challenge your thinking. It’s better to point to the data as an excuse for failure than everyone pointing at you and your stupid gut. So, to start, work out an explanation for my variation to the Monty Hall puzzle described below. With my apologies to the scavengers, I’ve done my best to come up with a variation that is NOT to be found elsewhere on the web. Please think about it.

I just burped. That bottle went down too fast! There’s not a lot of things more gross than a beer burp. Clearly I cannot give away three beers. That would be an odd number. So, let’s just make it two bottles, ok?

Exhibit C: The Monty Paul Dilemma

Imagine four doors (A, B, C, D). Each door hides a prize. Only one prize is worthwhile (beer). The other doors hide crappy prizes (empty bottles).

You now select a door, let’s go with “D”.

Before I open the door, I show you that door “B” had an empty bottle behind it.

This means that three doors remain (A, C, and your choice: D).

Question: Is it worth your while to switch (i.e., pick either Door-A or Door-C), is it a bad idea to switch (i.e., you should keep Door-D), or does it matter?

Ultimately, it isn't a matter of having to learn anything new so much as making a choice to try. Reason it out. List what you know, list what you don't know but could learn, and list the stuff that is irrelevant but distracting. Those last few items are your gut talking. Ignore the gut, at least for now.

I have one bottle of my favorite beer left! I promise I will not drink it. In fact, I will keep it chilled in my little office refrigerator until someone comes to claim the prize with a correct answer (with defense) to this dilemma.

Professor Holds Students Hostage: Forces Class Participation

Authorities were notified Wednesday that Professor P., a faculty member in the psychology department at a small private university in Pennsylvania, actually attempted to force his students to participate in class activities. Some witnesses reported that Dr. P. even attempted to get some students to answer a question out loud during lecture.

“I wasn’t really scared,” stated Melissa T., a student of Dr. P’s, “That is, not until he tried to make eye contact with me after asking a question about the chapter we were supposed to have read. Then things really started to get out of control. It was like he expected us to have really read it!”

Other victims from the class reported similar odd behaviors from Dr. P. as the early calm of class quickly turned into the ugly hostage crisis.

“I paid a lot of money for this course,” said Scott M. “If I want to talk to my friend about alcohol and sports during class, that’s my right! I’ll pay better attention as soon as the class gets interesting. As I see it, there’s no point in learning something if it isn’t interesting.” Other victims of Dr. P.’s class agreed.

“What’s the big deal if I’m texting my friends during class?” asked James D. “That’s no reason for the professor to pick on me! He should just mind his own business during class and try not to bother the students while he’s lecturing.”

Probably the most stunning report from among the hostages came from Jocelyn G. who was in the room almost by mistake. Apparently, a “friend” had tricked her into taking Dr. P. “It was, like, the worst experience of my life!” Jocelyn explained. “College isn’t about students talking to professors; it’s about the professors talking to the students! Dr. P. was acting all like, ‘you guys need to put some effort into learning this material’ but it’s like he’s the one getting paid to teach us! The whole idea of tuition is that the students are paying the professors to teach. I wouldn’t hire a car mechanic and then expect to fix the car myself!”

Many of the hostage victims reported similar views, but what may be the saddest tale came from poor Nicole A. who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. “Normally, like, I skip this class, but, like, today my dorm room was just too cold to sleep in, so, like, I decided to see if I could take a nap during the lecture. I’ve done it, like, many times before, so I never suspected that the day would turn out this way! There wasn’t more than fifteen minutes of good nap time the whole fifty minutes we were in there!”

Fortunately, students were able to “talk Dr. P. down” at about 1:49pm after a heroic attempt was made to locate a copy of the course syllabus. The hostages were able to remind Dr. P. that he had office hours starting at 2:00pm.

Campus authorities finally caught up to Dr. P. in his office a few hours later. They were relieved to find that he was alone. The fear had been that students seeking extra help outside of class might have been in danger of being required to think while in Dr. P.’s office. However, the security team had no reason to worry. As usual, Dr. P. was left alone the entire one hundred and fifty minutes of his scheduled office hours. Police report that when they asked Dr. P. why he was still in his office even after his official office hours had elapsed, he naively replied, “In case students need help, but couldn’t make my posted hours.”

Professor B., who has an office next to Dr. P., provided this insightful comment regarding the possible cause of Dr. P's breakdown: "He was probably unable to accept the paradox that most students today don't come to college to learn. They come here to get their degrees."

Calls to Dr. P. for his side of this bizarre story were not made. Although his contact information is on the course syllabus. The only student who had kept a copy of the syllabus had to drive home early because her roommate’s grandmother had a sick neighbor.

The boy who cried "Small aquatic bird of the Anatidae family!” (instead of “Duck!”)

Ok, I just figured out that I fell for an internet hoax. Damn! I hate that I did that. At least it wasn’t the one where I send thousands of dollars to Nigeria, or that one where I cash checks for people. Actually, it’s just the one where I thought I could turn Mountain Dew into glow-in-the-dark juice. No real harm done to my wallet, just some loss of self-respect.

This month’s blahg is about something that crossed my mind recently. I’ve been noticing a few things. For example, I was at an all-day faculty event that killed a Friday (so my class got cancelled which instantly put me behind by one day). Anyway, I was trying to tell someone about a gift idea and was almost immediately not taken seriously. At another meeting, I made a suggestion which was brought up later in the conversation and credited to someone else. But at the end of the meeting, I was teased for not having made any more contribution to the group than a joke or two.

Now, am I being a whiny-butt? No. In fact, it makes sense to me. Most of my interactions in these sorts of settings is driven by my insecurity. That is, I really don’t feel comfortable in groups and really hate having to talk. So, two things happen. One, I start feeling worse because I’m being so quiet, which makes me feel like I have to say SOMETHING – anything! Second, my coping mechanisms kick-in.

When I was in high school, I never EVER talked in class unless I was directly called on. My response to being called on was to turn bright red, slouch in my chair, look down, and mumble. Most of the time that got the heat off me. When I eventually got into graduate school (having done my best to navigate through college by taking classes that minimized any class presence) I found out that I’d have to give hour-long presentations to faculty and students. They were pretty awful. Find one of my graduate-student brothers or sisters and they’ll confirm that.

I needed a way to cope with the stress and I quickly learned (through observation – I wasn’t the only person who dreaded these presentations) that being uncomfortable in front of people only made a presenter look worse! So, from then on, 98 percent of my attention was directed toward NOT appearing nervous. What is the opposite of nervous? Well, you might think “calmness” but I wasn’t able to pull that off. Instead, I noticed that people who were calm tended to feel comfortable joking around. When people in the audience laughed, you could see that everyone was everyone’s friend. That helped reduce anxiety! So, over time, I worked at using some of that 98 percent to find humor; get the audience “on my side” in a way. That was over 15 years ago. So, now I can use more than 2 percent of my energy to focus on content (probably close to 60 percent).

Now, do I think that I am funny? Not so much. Actually, most of the jokes I make nowadays are to make ME laugh (if others laugh, great). To be honest, I think my sister has a way better sense of humor than I do. She can make any story hilarious if she wants to. She could be making more money as a humorist than a teacher.

OK, so back to ME.

Do I really really really care if I’m taken seriously or not? Maybe a little. Can I change my department meeting persona to one of less humor? Yeah. Probably. Will I? No. Why? Those things are too boring and of too little real substance and rarely important at all. Plus, I still get nervous talking in groups. What would my coping strategy be? (A) Turning bright red, slouching in my chair, looking down, and mumbling. Or (2) Finding something funny about the moment so the next moment is less painful? Yeah… sorry about that bump on the head… (Ok, that was a vague reference [“call-back”] to the blahg title. It made ME laugh, anyway…)