Rants

The value of hunger

Towards the end of The Godfather (1972) Vito Corleone has handed over his business to his son and he admits to getting more tired, older and less interested. He sums it all up with the words: “I like to drink wine more than I used to.” What the old man was saying was that he had lost his edge, his competitiveness – his hunger.

Not long ago I blogged about the importance of failure on daring to fail and learning from failure, instead of trying to forget it ever happened, but what is needed before this is the desire, drive, hunger to move ahead. Now hunger in situations like this is a strange thing since it is not really the same thing as wanting something – these are easily confused.

Wanting something is easy and requires no effort. I want to run a marathon, pass an exam, write a book or travel the world. Wants are cheap and plentiful. Hunger on the other hand is the drive that is required to acheive a want. It’s easy enough to quote Nike’s old slogan: Just do it! but actually doing it is not that easy.

Hunger comes and goes – there are plenty of tips and tricks around not to let your hunger be frizzled unneccessarily due to lack of some other need (sleep, food, exercise or time) but what can be done to ensure that the hunger remains within us?

Sorry if this seems like a strange rant – its just something that bugged me today.

Posted on by mklang

Professionals and amateurs

The distinction between professional and amateurs within many cultural fields is rapidly evaporating. Without being negative towards the amazing professionals out their I would just like to point to the many resources where amateurs are sharing material as a proof of the great work being done for love rather than money.

So what is the difference between a professional and an amateur? This is actually a tricky question which is usually fobbed off with the response that professionals get paid for their work or professionals live off their work. But this is problematic since it says nothing of the quality of the work.

Also many of us do more than what we are paid for – does this mean that we are unprofessional? Van Gogh was a painter but he could not support himself… does this mean he was an amateur? Another question is whether it is better to be an amateurish professional, a brilliant amateur or a maybe even a professional amateur?

One of my photos was published in a magazine recently (ok so it was the university staff magazine) does this mean I can call myself a professional? Should this title come from one lucky shot or the hundreds of photographs that I am more proud of?

Posted on by mklang

Parallel Production Sucks

Despite being totally aware of the consequences I am now stuck (again) with the job of writing several things in parallel. In the next two weeks I need to finish my open access report for Lund, two book chapters and a licensing booklet. The actual content is not the problem – what is the problem is despite all efforts to the contrary deadlines have a tendency to expand and contract to finally collect themselves in nasty little clusters that force the whole writing process into an attempt to beat text from the dead mind of the writer.

So how does this happen and can it be avoided? To answer the last question first: Of course it can be avoided. The simple trick is to only do one thing at a time. The cost of this approach will be to radically diminish my writing output. So this does not feel like an option.

The first question (why?) is more complex. It can be attributed to bad planning but this is only part of the truth. For many years I would explain my deadline stress with the words bad planning but I have come to realize that this is not the whole truth. No matter how good my planning is life has a way of throwing small surprises (not all pleasant) dates change, new tasks are assigned and often unrealistic work loads lead to delays.

The results of these insights should maybe be to attempt to change – but how can you change the unforeseen? How much planning must be included for that which you cannot know? And in the end isn’t it all a waste of time? After all:

Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans – John Lennon

Posted on by mklang

Function creep and systems abuse

In recent news a US pilot accidentally shot his gun in the cockpit of the plane. Since 9/11 pilots have been given guns to increase safety and this is the first time a gun from this program has been discharged (ABC News). Using this as an example Obsessed writes a very clear argument about the flaws inherent in arming pilots.

We can assume that a trained pilot, when facing piloty thingies, will act like a trained pilot. WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT A TRAINED PILOT WILL ACT LIKE A TRAINED LION-TAMER WHEN FACING A WILD LION.

The example also shows that once installed, any social or technical system has the potential to fail. All the right intentions were present in the arguments to supply pilots with guns and, I will venture a guess that the pilot really regrets the incident. Despite all these regrets and good intentions the pilot is to blame for the shot and will most probably be seriously punished.

But what about those who advocated and argued for the system itself? They will most probably be able to swear themselves free from legal, social and moral responsibility by blaming all the results on the pilot. This is not an untypical response from those who create and regulate systems. But it is also a way of shirking responsibility. Those who create and regulate systems must become more aware of the effects of their decisions and not be allowed to hide behind good intentions. The side effects enabled by the system – in this case the gun being shot at the wrong time – must be factored into the decision.

This is not the same as requiring that systems builders prepare for every impossible situation but only that they be required to take into account the added risks entailed by system abuse. Stated simply, the pilot would not have been able to discharge a gun in the cockpit if there was no gun in the cockpit.

Posted on by mklang

Online Friendship

Over at The Guardian Tom Hodgkinson has written about the people who bankrolled Facebook in an article called With friends like these… and it is not a pretty picture. Hodgkinson’s original beef seems to be that he actually does not like social network sites because they tend to isolate rather than connect people and that any form of social connections they create are inherently shallow. So far I am in agreement with him.

But the main beef of the argument is that the people financing Facebook are ultraconservative greedy capitalists who are unconcerned about the privacy of the users. Sure he is right and it is a shame. But how does this differ from almost every other corporation? I would have been more shocked if an online venture had been bankrolled by altruists.

I was skeptical to Facebook, indeed as I am to all social networking sites. But I decided not to knock it without trying. Early on I aired my skepticism by asking my friends the question: If I don’t get facebook – does this mean I am too old? Is this a mid(?) life crises? The answers were predictable which is unsurprising considering I was asking the question to other Facebookers.  I muddled along. Collecting friends adding applications but still unconvinced.

I joined causes and added applications. Recruited friends to causes and compared everything from movie taste to strange dating preferences. None of which revealed who I was. As with all online behavior it is a persona or a dimension – it is not me. Anyway, so now I have 136 friends. What does this mean? Am I popular yet? I still don’t get it. Isn’t a double espresso or a beer with a live friend infinitely better than all the online notes? Hodgkinson really puts his finger on the whole thing

And does Facebook really connect people? Doesn’t it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?

Rather than silly comparisons and online games I want real connections. Of course I cannot easily drink beer with friends in other countries but Facebook is no solution to this problem. I don’t have the interest or the energy to try to reform Facebook through campaigns or to attempt to leave it by deleting each contact one by one. So I will let Facebook be and let the activities continue. The whole thing will eventually just go the way of the dinosaurs when users find something new to amuse themselves with. Until then the advertisers will believe that they know something about potential customers, the researchers will believe they know something about online communities, the investors will believe that they will be rich forever and the users will believe that friendships exist online.

Posted on by mklang

Arrogant, Daring & Right

Found a new voice of wisdom (to call it vox populi would probably be wrong) today. Alf Rehn writes an excellent rant about the research article in the context of the UK RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) system:

Now, what I find absolutely horrendous and directly unethical is that all this denigrates the scholarly book, the research monograph. The way I was raised into academia, this was what you meant by research, and now a bunch of foreign bureaucrats with language problems are saying that this does not count? Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Writing a journal article, to me, is mainly an exercise in typing. There are rote formulas to get a journal article done (well known such, looking at the shite that gets published), and it frankly bores me a lot of the time. A book, however, is another matter. A book takes time to craft, and the sheer length thereof forces one to work in an altogether different manner. I was taught by my Doktorvater the following: If you haven’t written a serious monograph, you shouldn’t be made a PhD. If you haven’t written two, you’re not a serious scholar. “—And never let one who hasn’t written three serious books become a professor! It cheapens the title.” And damn good advice it was too.

It’s provocative, it’s daring, maybe it could be a bit reactionary, it’s definitely bold, ballsy and forward. It also happens to be correct. Go Alf!

(via Imaginary Magnitude)

Posted on by mklang

Avoiding copyright extemism…

Lessig presented a very interesting talk entitled Three stories and an argument at TED recently. It’s well worth watching for both it’s content and delivery. The basic argument is familiar. Since digital technology and tools are becoming cheaper and easier to use the cost of producing and remixing copyrighted material is becoming very cheap. Add to this the cheap availability of an efficient communications platform (the Internet with its applications) large groups of people are moving from cultural consumers to becoming consumer/producers.

Professional creators in the past (musicians, authors, filmmakers etc) have always taken culture and remixed it. Taken different ideas and re-packaged them in order to create something new. Most of our ideas have not emerged in great leaps but in many small (inevitable?) steps. Today the technology is making this process more democratic in that the amateur is invading the realm of the professional – and, as Lessig puts it, this does not mean that the material produced is amateurish. It refers to amateur in the true sense of the word it is done out of love rather than money.

The major barrier to all this is copyright law. The problem with this is that the ability to take parts of our culture and remix them is an accepted form of communication among large groups of people and the institutional response has been criminalization. Copyright law has produced the presumption that remixing is illegal in particular in the digital realm. Since every use of culture in the digital realm entails a copy therefore every use should require permission.

This is an inefficient system that goes against the way in which people act. We are developing a system where people are aware that they are acting in violation to the law but they do not feel that this is wrong. Lessig warns about the growth of copyright extremism on both sides: One side builds new technologies to protect copies while the opponent cry out for the abolition of copyright.

Much of my time is spent advising university lecturers on the ways in which they can and cannot use new technologies in the classroom. The university of today is required to connect and compete with a generation of people who are connected and digitally sophisticated. In our attempts to connect and educate we provide students with laptops, wireless connectivity and digital material.

In all this copyright is creating a barrier to effective use of ICT in education. Lecturers and students attempting to benefit from online material are being driven to acting against the law. Copyright law limits the use of web2.0 technologies such as Blogs, YouTube and Flickr in the lecture halls, but the need to connect and educate is driving dedicated lecturers to circumvent, avoid, bend and break the law. This is not a good situation.

The problem is that the law has become inadequate for our needs. In order to ensure copyright control the legislator has forgotten to allow people to remix and to allow educators to use copyrighted material to a greater extent. This is not an argument for making mass copies of the latest Hollywood film – “pure” copyright “piracy” is, and should be, illegal.

But there is a need to allow access to culture beyond the passive consumer role. It also makes good business and democratic sense since it takes the edge away from the extremist positions, which threaten to push the discussions into chaos – as extremism, does. It is an argument to allow non commercial uses of copyrighted material without the fear of reprisals which exists today.

Posted on by mklang

Scientific Impact and Scientific Books

Maybe it’s the approach of the first winter snows or maybe it’s just the most recent PhD cartoon (probably a combination of factors). But I began to think about my scientific impact.

phd111207s.gif

Jorge Cham PhD Comics

It’s been a year since I defended my thesis so I guess a little thought on the topic may not be entirely out of place. Since 1999 I have written over 40 academic texts (journal and conference articles, book chapters, reports and more). Besides my PhD I have also acted as editor to a book, taught an endless amount of classes and given countless guest lectures.

Despite all this “scientific” or “academic” production my impact on the scientific community is negligible. Ok so I realize that my field is not high profile. But I have the sneaking suspicion that the impact of my work is not what it should be or could be.

If we choose to set aside arguments that my impact is low because I am unreadable – since they provide no help – then there may be another reason.

The focus of scientific/academic work has become the journal article. We are not measured in research but in publication. The problem with this system is that it creates a desire (intentional or unintentional) to manipulate the system. What we have seen over the last thirty years is the explosion of the number of journals and the publication hungry academic is always in the market for yet another place to deliver an article to.

The purpose of the journal was to provide an avenue where scientific work could be published quickly and in a focused manner. Well while some journals have longer time-to-print than books this is no longer an advantage. And the dance between authors, editors and reviewers has become so stylized that it resembles a kabuki theater (complex, ornate & beautiful but incomprehensible).

So where am I going with this? Not very far. The process of academic work entails journal publication – we are locked into this system. But to achieve true recognition and impact, in my field, I think your either need to be a cartoonist – or to write books.

Posted on by mklang

Don't believe in (cyber) war

Once again one of Sweden’s largest daily papers refers to a report about the state of Swedish national IT security. Apparently we are totally unprepared and vulnerable to everything that’s out there. Two things really annoy me about reports like this:

Firstly, very few people seem to question the motives of these “expert” reports. Most of them are written either by companies attempting to provide systems intended to solve the problems they discover, or (as this latest report) is provided by organizations (often governmental bodies) that need to show that there is work to be done. The implication is that the organization should be funded to carry out the work.

Secondly, if the world was so unprotected and vulnerable to cyberwar and cyberterrorism then why is it that most of our technology related collapses, disasters and problems do not originate from bad people, purposely intending to do us harm but rather by faulty systems, incompetent staff, greedy management and pure incompetence. Just look at technology related disasters such as Five Mile Island, Chernobyl, Bhopal and Exxon Valdez.

Terrorism and war remain on the primitive level of bombs and rockets – incompetence and greed accompany high level technical systems.

Posted on by mklang

On Happy Danes, Morose Finns and Liberal Swedes

Since attempting to explain the differences in personality between Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Finns to my Greek flat mate in Lund last night I have not been able to drop the concept of geography and personality.

Naturally this is an old and distinguished discussion including such greats as Montesquieu and Hegel – so I will not go into an argument with these guys!

Montesquieu posited (in Esprit des Lois) that since the laws are a based upon the ways in which people live their lives and the way in which people live their lives “has as much to do with geography as with climate”. Therefore both law and personality are part of a complex function of nature, geography & climate. Of course Montesquieu believed that geography and climate are constant (no global warming back then!) and therefore do not play a part in social change. Hegel also followed the same ideas

The unchangeableness of climate, of the whole character of the country in which a nation has its permanent abode, contributes to the unchangeablness of the national character. A desert, proximity to the sea or remoteness from it, all these circumstances can have an influence on the national character (Hegel – Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Part III; Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind).

But what I wanted to add was this.

Not only are people different in different locations but also I behave differently in different locations. But is this just a coincidence? Is my behavior in Lund and Göteborg conditioned somehow by climate? Or is my personality changed by distance from my well-known surroundings? And how important is the fact that I am (literally) surrounded by good espresso houses in Lund affect my behavior? If I could transfer Lund physically to Göteborg (or vice versa) would behaviors (my own and others) change?

If the answer is yes then would that mean if we could physically transfer the northern Finnish town (of slightly depressive people) Sodankylä (67°22′ N, 26°38′ E) to coastal region Denmark (57°22′ N, 9°42′ E – the present location of the happy people of Løkken) that the people would all become extroverted and jovial?

Am I on to something or have I just had too much strong coffee on a Wednesday morning?

Posted on by mklang