Drawings that I drew

In the most narcissistic of attempts possible, the following represents the doodles that were made by me when I studied third year pharmacology. They include pictures of a good man, who was certainly my best friend in the course, as well as a few other lovable characters.








































































I drew this one yesterday:

How to be a genius!

The Knowledge vs. Intelligence Paradox

This is the bit that you read so that the main point makes sense. If you can’t be bothered with it, you can skip to the main point and heck! it might even make more sense. Hu-huhk!

I present to you two things – knowledge and intelligence. I don’t mean personally, but theoretically. (God I secretly hope that this gets misinterpreted and people think I am an arrogant twadling).

Knowledge and intelligence. Between these two entities exists a paradox. People think of knowledgeable people as having a special intelligence, yet more knowledge reduces the level of intelligence required to solve a problem.

According to Richard L. Gregory, this paradox can be solved by thinking of intelligence in two different senses:

1. Kinetic intelligence – this is active processing of information, the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests.
   
2. Potential intelligence – this is stored information which is selected and applied to solve a problem. It is this type of intelligence that is measured by say an eighth grade geography test.

Within this way of thinking, the two go hand in hand. Kinetic intelligence is required to select and apply potential intelligence. Kinetic intelligence is required to gain potential intelligence.

Gregory, RL (1997) Knowledge in Perception and Illusion. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 352(1358): 1121-1127.


Now I want to add another element to the paradox, hopefully rendering it even more paradoxical.



The Hollow Face Model

You may have seen this. Look at the picture of the two masks. The left shows the front of the mask. Reality sees a convex face and so should you. The right shows the inside hollow part (the back) of the same mask. Most people see a convex face here too, despite the fact it is in actuality a concave face.



So, one perceives what is in fact a hollow mask as being convex due to potential intelligence (stored information). We see a convex face because this is what we expect to see. This is what our pre-conditioned brain allows us to see. Without any potential intelligence, leaving only kinetic intelligence, I think that one would come to a different conclusion. To me, this is an analogy for many creative and scientific breakthroughs. By this I mean, often people are held back by their preconceptions of how something is ‘supposed’ to be, when if this could only be suspended, a correct or more satisfactory outcome could be achieved. This is also why the use of small doses of LSD were complementary to Francis Crick’s discovery of the DNA double helix structure. The small dose of LSD allowed Crick to escape his preconceptions and visualise the DNA model in a way that others could not.

...


Upon writing this, I found this article on physorg.com, which states that schizophrenia patients are not fooled by the hollow mask illusion. It also mentions a link between this fact and the fact that cannabis users are also less likely to be fooled. Now ignore the link between schizophrenia and cannabis for a second and pay attention to the... Link between cannabis and a large proportion of pop music breakthroughs? Creativity… considered genius… John Nash – schizophrenic and creator of game theory? Creativity… Genius…

Coincidence? I think not.

I find it tremendously interesting how something (stored information) that most people would associate with intelligence can be so inconsistent with genius, something that most people also associate with intelligence. Here’s where I pull my punches, I obviously feel that there still exists a correlation between stored information and genius, thus presenting the strange and lovely field of daisies where the paradox lies.



The significance of all of this is very interesting. How does one eliminate preconceptions so that creativity can prosper without the use of mind altering drugs or mental disabilities?

Fight me!

Or just help me.

A welcomed visit from Aunt Flow.

If you came here thinking that this was about menstruation then I apologise. Funnily, I know a lot more about the ovarian cycle and menstruation than I do about what you may or may not be about to read so if you would like to discuss periods I guess just add me on msn.

Another opener: if you think that you have the propensity to become what is known as a genius then you should really get into this stuff. If you already are a genius then odds are you're not.



Just watched a video (below) about a very interesting psychological theory, a mental state, called ‘flow’, which (in the danger of oversimplifying) can be described as that feeling you get when you are completely immersed in a task and achieving complete focus and success in that task. Wikipedia provides the following colloquial terms for ‘flow’: ‘on the ball’, ‘in the zone’ or ‘in the groove’. I shan't lie or hide from you that these terms do conjure up images of beefy alpha male baseball coaches but it is important for all of us to accept that this concept of flow is relevant in lots of other areas where oceanic proportions of testosterone are not a prerequisite.

The theory of ‘flow’ was proposed by the Hungarian positive psychologist, Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, who is the very man that presents the video…




[via Limbidgit]

This is a transcript of a summary slide he presents:

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE IN FLOW?

1. Completely involved in what we are doing – focused, concentrated.
2. A sense of ecstasy – of being outside everyday reality.
3. Great inner clarity – knowing what needs to be done and how well we are doing.
4. Knowing that the activity is doable – that our skills are adequate to the task.
5. A sense of serenity – no worries about oneself, and a feeling of growing beyond the boundaries of ego.
6. Timelessness – thouroughly focused on the present, hours seem to pass by in minutes.
7. Intrinsic motivation – whatever produces flow becomes its own reward.

Following this explanation he then presents a graph showing different mental states across different levels of skill and challenge. A screenshot is shown below. I have numbered two transitions, which I discuss underneath.





1. In reference to this graph, the first situation I want to consider is one where the person is endowed with a high skill level (far right of horizontal axis), such as is the case when people have mastered a particular subject or area. I think that this is an extremely convenient position to be in and provides support for the importance of specialisation in society – it is through specialisation that enables the acquirement of a high skill level. Anyway, from this position one can make a transition from ‘relaxation’ or ‘control’ to ‘FLOW’ simply by increasing the challenge level (an upward shift in vertical axis). Unfortunately, ways in which this can be accomplished are not explored in this particular video.

From my own point of view, however, and through my own experiences with flow, it certainly rings true that I am much more likely to encounter the shift when I am under pressure. The kind of pressure that accompanies an increase in challenge level. The thing that helps me with increasing the challenge level (and thus increase pressure) is to set myself difficult targets and perhaps even unrealistic time constraints. This sounds like it would be a dangerous idea, and sure I agree it would be if one is on the precipice of a manic episode, but I think it is worth considering. The only reason that you would deem a time constraint ‘unrealistic’ is because you are assessing the possibility or likeliness of completing the task under the assumption that your resources (your mental power and concentration) are at a normal level. It is hence intuitive that under these assumptions one can only achieve mediocrity. By placing ‘unrealistic’ expectations upon oneself, one creates pressure and just to reiterate, I think that pressure is one way in which a state of flow can be induced. It is of course possible that this technique is specific to my own mental state and after all I am no psychologist by any means and have not done any research on this – it is merely a personal account, perhaps rendering it worthless to others. But I would love to receive feedback from people on how they achieve their flow – I am sure that the process leading to the attainment of this phenomenon varies from person to person. Could make for very interesting discussion.

2. Even if you consider a scenario where a person is equipped with an average skill level (middle of horizontal axis), I think my theory is still relevant. This is because a high challenge level would induce a state of ‘arousal’. Mihaly states in the video that it is the state of arousal that breeds the most optimal environment for learning. And correct me if I’m wrong but learning correlates fairly well with increasing ones skill level and thus increasing the likelihood of entering the phase of flow.

In closing, something that I find interesting is that not only do I experience flow in conventional and predictable areas such as my studies or writing, but I also experience it when gaming. I think this is an area that a lot of people could collectively relate to and I’m sure that a knowledge of this psychological theory is utilised in the design of many successful video games.
Again, would love to hear people’s thoughts.

Cynicism vs. Skepticism – Part One: Cynicism is the lazy bear’s hammock!

You may have noticed something missing in your life of late – an unquenchable void mysteriously throbbing, all the while you’re wondering why. Well it is most likely due to the fact there have been no blog entries from little old Sean. This is for a couple of coupled reasons:

1. My mood: downward turn – forces one to take a good hard look at oneself.

2. Battle with cynicism – I have always prided myself on being a critical thinker, however over the years I have somehow allowed that critical thinking to escalate into a particularly potent brand of cynicism, which, for the record, is about as healthy for relationships as… as. As as.

Anyway, it is these two things combined that have forced me to question how critical I am being and in turn how (I hate to say it) hateful I have become. This has guided my thoughts to the nature of cynicism, as compared to the nature of skepticism. (Furthermore, it is this critical thinking, the one that has been put on hold for fairy floss and pictures of woodland animals, that fuels many of my blog entries). A nice description of skepticism (not that I’m denouncing faith in any way – it’s the comparison between cynicism and skepticism I ask you to pay your attention to) I found in an article by Mark J. DiNubile goes like this:

“Skepticism is… less adversarial than cynicism but much more demanding than faith. Under the weight of solid evidence, the skeptic can be moved toward acceptance and even evolve, albeit reluctantly, into a true believer.” (DiNubile, 2000)

I think that a lot of intelligent people start off with skepticism, but it is incredibly easy to slip into seeing the world through a comfortable filter of cynicism. This is a world without hope and perhaps more relevantly a mindset where creative, original and challenging thinking does not exist. I have lately made an effort to stop being so critical, in order to avoid this dreaded cynicism, however this is about as specific a remedy as chemotherapy. So rather than irradiating an entire portion of my mindset, taking a subtle step back to REAL critical thinking (and perhaps skepticism if we must label it) is a better treatment option.



References:

DiNubile, MJ (2000) Skepticism: A Lost Clinical Art. Clinical Infectious Diseases 31(2): 513-518.

BSc > Philosophy and drinking wee

Felt the urge to write a little entry so here it is.

Slavoj Zizek on Philosophy

Wanted to share something I found interesting about the nature of philosophy from the documentary, Zizek!, by Slavoj Zizek

[Personally transcribed from Zizek! (2005)]

“Philosophy does not solve problems. The duty of philosophy is not to solve problems, but to redefine problems. To show how what we experience as a problem is a false problem. If what we experience as a problem is a true problem then we don’t need philosophy. For example, let’s say that now there would be a deadly virus coming from out of space, so not in any way mediated through human history, and it would threaten all of us. We don’t need philosophy there – we simply need good science.”

He explains that philosophy is not needed because the threat is real.


Finalising a degree in science

Funny, too, how philosophy always seems so much more appealing to me when exam times are no longer creeping up, but rather forcing the toes to hyper-extend and the neck to fold backwards like that oh so poignant scene in Titanic when they are about to drown on board. Throughout my entire science degree, not a day has gone by where I haven’t questioned the appropriateness of my decision to study science in favour of other more heart-warming, more fuzzying subjects, like English and philosophy. But now, here I am with a week to go and I am not fond of the eerily whispering voice assuring me that “It’s all too late.” I. Am. Committed. Next year, honours; next decade, a boring old Sean that cooperatively melts into the homogeneous soup of citizens that comprise this city.

I’m not depressed. More like in shock. Everything now evokes a somewhat thwarted level of emotion.

Other things that are graduated include rulers and measuring cups.

Facebook and Privacy

Following on from my last entry, I feel the need to explain further why it is that Facebook does not provide adequate resources for relationships of any depth. To quickly recap, I briefly mentioned how Facebook was not the answer to the problem we are faced with today, which comes in the form of limited time (due to economic growth or whatever you think) with the necessity of relationships still very much present.

When pondering why Facebook wasn’t the answer, it occurred to me through the philosophy of privacy. Alan Westin (1967) defines privacy as “the ability to determine for ourselves when, how, and to what extent information about us is communicated to others”. This is where I came unstuck. The phrase, “determine for ourselves”. It occurred to me that perhaps people’s activity on Facebook was in violation of privacy to a much lesser extent than I had thought (excluding violation through the uploading of photos). News Feeds. It has always astonished me how comfortable people are with having all of their actions reported via News Feeds when there is the option to turn them off.

The anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, argues that each human has an upper limit on the number of people he/she can know at a time. It slides down a tangent of evolutionary biology from apes, where social bonds developed through grooming could only be maintained in groups under the limit of 55 (1). Dunbar says that for humans 150 is a more suitable number, with only 5 of these being ‘close friends’. It has been proposed that Facebook enables this ‘Dunbar number’ to increase, however critics argue that this profusion of weak ties (habitually reading News Feeds) can result in spreading ones “emotional energy too thin”. Danah Boyd, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, argues that News Feeds may well be generating a new class of relationship that is nearly parasocial. The fact that the other person barely knows you exist doesn’t seem to be a big issue, all the while you’re getting all emotionally spread out and you’re margarine's existence has transpired so the breads just getting all torn up.

However, and it is a large however (one that requires a fanciful flip of the old mind), if we follow an alternate definition of privacy by William Parent we can explore a whole different path. He defines privacy as “the condition of not having undocumented personal information known or possessed by others”. Under this definition, we can happily accept that Facebook does reduce ones privacy. This is a problem because, in my view, in order to form relationships of substance privacy is necessary. I will explain through James Rachels.

Rachels argues that to maintain different sorts of social relationships with different people, one must be able to exhibit different patterns of behaviour (2). Privacy is key in doing so. Some may propose that this is hypocritical or dishonest, but what are they? Eight? Remaining on the feet of Rachels (you know that skillful thing where you can walk people around on your feet), how do you act around your children? Playful, affectionate and sometimes firm. Employees? Businesslike. (As an interesting aside, a survey of 500 colleges indicated that 10% of admissions officers have viewed applicants' Facebooks (3)). Mother-in-law? Respectful and polite. And ultimately, how do you act around (just) yourself? Obviously the mask comes off to some extent and the mere fact one would accept the existence of said mask confers to an acceptance of variation in behavioural patterns around different people. But what's more - isn't it wonderful, this idea of relationships and releasing small pieces of information to another human being - the information transfer that occurs through a voluntary sacrifice of privacy. Thus, privacy is necessary for the maintenance (and development) of rich, chocolatey relationships.

I sincerely hope that this entry hasn’t been too boring and that some people have appreciated the brief exploration of how the philosophy of privacy interacts with the phenomenon of Facebook.



Here are some references that I couldn't hyperlink to:

(1) Thompson, C. (2008) I'M SO TOTALLY, DIGITALLY CLOSE TO YOU, New York Times Magazine, 42.
(2) Rachels, J., 1975, “Why Privacy is Important”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 4: 323-33
(3) Hechinger, J. (2008) College Applicants, Beware: Your Facebook Page Is Showing, Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 252, D1-D6.

A Virtual Blogging Community 2

* Warning: this might require a new web browser (room for tabs) *

I really wanted to blog but there is currently somebody hammering something next door and it is slowly going to make me furious. The only thing is, I can NOT understand how it is pulsating so fast.

Okay I have to check.

No visual signs of chaos, a lack of sensation very much made up for via the ear holes. I asked Katie and she informed me from her cup to my cup, via a string of nonchalance, that it was an electric hammer. An electric hammer? The internet says they exist and that I am ignorant. But I'm not so sure it sounds mechanical enough... there exists the odd peak and trough of intensity, possessing the resemblance of a man masturbating his prosthetic member against an alloyed steel shed. Maybe they have different settings or something. I just hope that I can stop thinking about it and that I don't go out on a mystery solving adventure.

What does everybody think of Skype? It is one of those things that, despite how very big it has become, I have somehow managed to bypass any shape or form of relationship with it, no matter how professional, no matter how platonic. Like Stephen Fry said, it has achieved that ultimate accolade of mass-market penetration - being used as a verb. "I Skype, you Skype, he/she/it Skypes, we will have Skyped, they would have been Skyping".

The purpose of this entry is to convey how extremely eager I am to change the way I interact with my friends, essentially along the same vein as the blog I posted last year, in which I attempted to start a revolution amongst my circle of friends, only to realise I hadn’t quite invented the wheel. In fact, it was probably on par with inventing the wheel, allowing ourselves for one second to be endowed with the contextual knowledge of timescape – it was 2007.

If I could put forward two ways in which the ideals underpinning said blog entry can be put into practice... One of these, good. Two, better (I only say this to sound less crazy).

1) Everyone who is my friend should start or continue a blog, no matter how dull.

2) Everyone needs a feed aggregator. Google reader works well for me and combines with the benefits of iGoogle, which I find very helpful indeed.

This will of course sound crazy to the innocent ear, however a read of the referenced entry will clear that all up like a good quality cleanser. Whether we like it or not, if we are going to be productive as a society, regular "hangouts" are becoming as dead as a dodo. Not to say, the occasional party and catch up isn't imperative, because it is, but realistically when time is limited, one must find other ways (OUTSIDE OF FACEBOOK) to stay in close contact. The reason Facebook is NOT an answer to the problem at hand is because generally it is superficial and moronic and in actual fact, counterproductive.

And to prove that the above capital letters are a manifestation of pure and potent passion, the hammering has, as a matter of fact, stopped.