Opinions

Here's another example of how my opinions are different than most people's in many ways.

I have a negative view of the restaurant and agriculture industries.  Restaurants are typically a waste of money, serving food that is loaded with empty calories and little nutrition.  The agriculture lobby is responsible for horrible public policy that wastes loads of taxpayer money while raising obesity rates in our country and causing much pain and suffering for poor people on other countries.

I don't really like the retail industry, except for the parts of it, like Wal-Mart, that deliver needed goods efficiently.  A lot of stores exist to get people to waste money on luxuries in search of social status.

I don't like the sports or film industries either.  I recognize, intellectually, that there is nothing wrong with them, that they are providing a service people want, but to my way of thinking it is a massive waste of money, and that people's time would be much better spent reading books or furthering their education.

I don't see anything wrong with the airline industry.  They don't create the demand for travel, they just serve it as best they can.  People are constantly complaining about bad service, but if they really cared about service they would fly first class or otherwise base their purchasing decisions on something other than price.  Yes, it used to be much more pleasant to fly.  It also used to be a lot more expensive.  You get what you pay for.

I don't have much of a problem with drug companies.  Yes, there is some unethical behavior, but they have been responsible for a lot of good things.  I dislike the attitude of people who want to fix all of their problems with pills rather than changing their behavior, and maybe drug company advertising is responsible for that, but in general the drug companies have caused a vast improvement in health and longevity, while being much cheaper than things like surgery or hospital stays.

Ditto banking companies.  Very few people realize how useful it is to have a good financial system.  When it was working properly, it brought vast amounts of wealth into this country.  The recent mess, while it should have been avoided, is a relatively small price to pay for a long history of economic growth.

And finally, oil and gas companies.  Why on earth would anybody dislike them?  It makes no sense.  They are doing their best to provide us with a resource that we really need.  Any ecological damage they cause is insignificant compared to habitat loss due to farming and development.  Yes, they can cause problems when they work in places where you can bribe and corrupt local officials.  But if we weren't getting our gas from them, we would be getting it from the even worse, and more wasteful, operations of petro-states.

One vague trend I notice is that the population surveyed seems to like the providers of unnecessary luxuries, while hating people who provide necessities.  That seems backwards to me, but I understand it.  People feel entitled to certain things, and they get upset when their expectations are not met.  But when it comes to optional purchases, they only buy what they like and they end up with mainly positive experiences.

I am much more willing to cut people some slack when they are doing work that needs to be done, while I am more critical of anyone that works on optional luxuries.  The former are meeting demands that already exist, while the latter are usually in the business of artificially generating demand for their stuff.

Modeling and Rationality

This is kind of a complicated story, but it is a good lesson in how mathematical or economic modeling can help you realize that people are not really crazy.

I read this article, and my initial reaction was that the people surveyed were insane:

"Unknown to the participants, everyone was offered a fictitious candidate partner who had been tailored to match their interests exactly. The photograph of "Mr Right" was the same for all women participants, as was that of the ideal women presented to the men. Half the participants were told their ideal mate was single, and the other half that he or she was already in a romantic relationship.

"Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not," says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren't bothered whether their target was already attached or not. Attached women showed least interest and were slightly more drawn to single men."

My thoughts were as follows:  How can you possibly expect that anything good will come of getting involved with someone you have convinced to leave a relationship?  That person will have proven him or herself to be unreliable and untrustworthy.  Why would you want someone who will most likely leave you whenever someone better comes along?

But the people were assuming that the people in a relationship were of higher quality.  This makes sense, if you assume that other people want the same thing as you and that all of the singles have been tested by someone else and found wanting.

Ideally, you would want someone who is both honorable and of high quality, but those people are assumed to be unattainable.  So they had a choice of high-quality people with no honor, or low-quality people with unknown honor.  I actually drew out several graphs, with different assumptions about statistical distributions of honor and quality, before I came to the conclusion that it was almost always rational, under those assumptions, to try to poach from the taken people rather than take a chance on the singles.

Now, I will never use this strategy, for several reasons.  First, I care a lot more about honor, both in me and other people, than the average person.  Second, I believe that relationship happiness depends mainly on how well you match each other's personal references, rather than an absolute scale of quality.  And third, I believe that many people are single not because they have been repeatedly rejected, but because they have not felt the need to chase a relationship and/or have not yet met the right person. 

Driving and Control

It is a well-known statistical fact that driving is far more dangerous than flying, on a per-mile basis.  Tens of thousands of Americans die each year in car crashes, while only a few dozen die in plane crashes.

And yet people often prefer to drive.  They feel that driving is safer.  The reason is that they feel better when they are in control of the situation.  Everyone thinks that they are above average, that their chances of dying in a car crash are lower because they are a better driver.  This control fetish shows up in lots of places.  People often have a desire to be in charge of things, and think that things will be better if they are.

I have never understood this.  I hate driving.  I would always prefer to be a passenger rather than a driver, even if I know that the driver is less competent than I am.  The increased chance of getting in a crash is outweighed by the annoyance and discomfort of having to be the one in charge of driving.  I want a car that drives itself, as soon as possible.  Even if the computer driver is more likely to get me killed than I am, I want it.  I would rather sit back and relax, and have something else do the work.

And yet, I know that most people are the opposite.  They want to be the one in control, even if the computer is safer.  They don't want to trust anyone or anything else.  This makes no sense to me.

In general, I have never understood the desire for control.  Why do so many people want it so much?  It often seems that people desire power for its own sake, rather than for anything that it might provide.  Why do bureaucrats fight so tenaciously to have more responsibility assigned to their agencies?  Why do bosses insist on micromanaging things?  They are only creating more work and stress for themselves, and everyone else.

I guess people like to think that they are important, that things would fall apart if they did not personally supervise it.  Just remember: The graveyards are full of indispensable people.  Life will go on, no matter what you do.  And the less you try to do, the more likely it is that you will enjoy life.

(Note: If you have an explicitly assigned responsibility to do something, than you should do that thing to the best of your ability.  I am only talking about things that are not part of your job description.  And if they are part of someone else's job description, than it is especially important not to interfere.)

Health Care and Markets

The more I look at the health care issue, the more I realize that most of the evidence shows that people are happier and healthier with government provision of basic health care.  I have known for a long time that our system is basically rotten, but I had assumed that the socialized systems had just as many problems.  But this was wrong.  Despite what certain conservative groups say, other countries consistently deliver heath care that is better and cheaper.  Almost everyone who has experienced foreign systems likes them better.

Yes, foreigners have worse survival rates for certain cancers and rare diseases.  Yes, Americans babies born extremely premature have higher survival rates, and different standards for what counts as a live birth make our numbers look worse than they really are.  Yes, our health care system is handicapped by having to deal with the consequences of horrible lifestyle decisions by Americans.  But there are mountains of statistical evidence and personal stories to show that their way is far better at dealing with the majority of medical issues.  Their people are healthier, they spend less money, and they feel much better about the experience.

I support free markets, but I have learned that they have their limits.  The general rule seems to be this: The free market cannot deal with anything that people see as a right.  Markets only work when people are willing and able to make choices, and people will not make rational choices about things that they think they are entitled to.

It would be nice if people did not feel entitled to medical services, but that's not the world we live in.  I think that, at some level, this sense of entitlement means that most people are actually happier with rationing than markets.  It is far better (for most people) to be told 'You can't have this because a panel of government experts have decided that it is not worthwhile' than to be told 'You can't afford it' or 'Your insurance company won't pay for it.'  When the denial comes from what is seen as a fair political process, it is seen as the will of society, so the sense of entitlement goes way and people do not feel cheated.

Me and Martial Arts

I was never very athletic growing up, but I was always active and fairly healthy.  I played baseball in elementary school, ran and jogged for almost all of my life, and often went on long hikes with my family.  When I started college, I was tall and had good legs and cardiovascular fitness, but my upper body was weak and I looked scrawny.

I don't remember exactly why I started martial arts training.  I do remember that my college required everyone to take three fitness classes, and I wanted to do things that I had never done before.  I ended up taking several things, including karate.  I liked karate so I joined the club and started practicing with them.

I'm not sure why I liked karate so much.  Looking back, I realize that it was not a good dojo, at least compared to what I am now accustomed to.  Maybe it was because martial arts training, whether good or just mediocre, sits in a unique spot on the health and fitness spectrum.

With any competition-oriented physical activity, newcomers are judged solely on how useful they are to the team.  Anyone who does not come in already possessing the right physical attributes and skill set is quickly made to feel unwelcome.  The goal is winning a contest, not personal development.

By contrast, almost all dedicated fitness programs have no clear goal.  You show up and go through the motions, and nobody else cares how well you do or makes any effort to help you develop, aside from nagging you to keep going with whatever the workout of the day is.

But martial arts training accepts anyone and helps them on a path of personal improvement that results in real skills, not just calorie burning or muscle toning.  I must have been attracted to that spirit of development, the culture of self-improvement and mind over matter.  Here was a group of people that was willing to teach me how to make my body do new things, and was focused on something more than winning the next game or burning up calories.

Martial arts training will improve your life in a variety of ways that normal exercise routines cannot, even if you never get in a fight.  The improved balance, coordination, and knowing how to fall can prevent many injuries.  And the blocks you learn can stop more than punches and kicks.

Several years ago, my father and I were building a shed in the back yard.  We had finished the walls but not the roof, and there was a 4x4x16 piece of lumber resting on the walls that was to be used in the roof.  I was working inside the frame when my dad bumped it.  The massive chunk of wood slipped off the walls and came directly at my head.  I did a basic one-handed hard style upper block, and then caught the wood after it hit my arm and guided it, soft-style, into an underarm carry.  I was holding the lumber safely under my arm before I consciously realized what had happened.  My karate-developed reflexes had saved me, working faster than thought.

When I started grad school, martial arts was already part of my life and I wanted to continue it.  I checked out several of the martial arts programs there before settling on Cuong Nhu.  I chose Cuong Nhu because I liked the people and the culture.  They were people I wanted to hang out with, and they focused on safety, fun, and personal development.

I have seen a lot of growth and development in my time at Tiger Dojo, not just in myself and in the other students, but in the senseis as well.  I know that I am part of a style that emphasizes lifelong learning.  One of the tricks to living a good life is to accept yourself as you are now, without anger or negativity or shame, while still recognizing that you can always be better.  Martial arts in general, and Cuong Nhu in particular, is a great way to learn and practice this skill.

Movie Review: House of Flying Daggers

There is a noticeable trend in Chinese martial arts movies: The further back in time a movie is set, the more magical the martial arts will be.  Movies set in the modern day or near past, like Fearless, generally obey the laws of physics.  If the plot is set in the far distant past and involves something like the Monkey King or Buddhist relics, then you should expect anyone and everyone to throw around mystical chi powers at will while treating gravity and other physical laws as a mere suggestion, like speed limits.

House of Flying Daggers is set about a thousand years ago in historical China, so it falls halfway between these two extremes.  The melee combat is generally realistic, but everyone is acrobatic enough to climb up bamboo stalks like a monkey, and anyone with martial arts skills can use bows, throwing knives, and other projectile weapons with impossible accuracy.  There are plenty of 'yeah right' moments, but the setting, visuals, and choreography are so beautiful that you accept it as magic and go with it, like Legolas's arrow-shooting in Lord of the Rings.

In many ways, the movie reminds me of the epic Technicolor fantasias of 60's Hollywood, like Cleopatra.  Everything is beautiful and colorful, the characters are larger than life, the plot is driven by their passions, and historical accuracy is simply not a priority.  The ending is not a happy one, and feels like it came from some Shakespearean tragedy.

Chinese movies often remind me of old Hollywood history.  While Japanese films are on the cutting edge both artistically and culturally, it always feels like the Chinese are stuck in some period of our past.

One nice thing about the movie is that there is no obvious propaganda.  While the narration at the beginning says that the government is corrupt and the rebels are noble, the policeman turns out to be the good guy while the rebels are all either corrupt or heartlessly vicious.  There is no nationalistic message, aside from a message that war and chaos ruin people's lives and prevent them from being happy.

Outside Looking In

It is always amusing and educational to see a foreigner who haa lived here for a long time talking about the USA.