So, I became a little curious and pondered the question of ‘what controls emotions in humans?’. Some quick Wikipedia research pointed me to some helpful links (I almost never trust the actual content from a Wikipedia article, but the links at the bottom that are listed as sources are usually pretty good) that described how the brain controls emotions. This article in particular was particularly helpful, and is the sole source I’m using as a reference for the rest of this post.

Emotions are thought to be controlled by a brain structure known as the amygdala. The amygdala is a small, almond shaped structure located in the bottom half of the brain, not too far from the cerebrum. The amygdala is connected to many other parts of the brain by bunches of fibers that are used to relay information to and from the amygdala. For example, there is a bundle called the stria terminalus which connects a part of the amygdala to the brain stem where it can influence hormonal states such as sex drive etc.

Furthermore, there are parts of the amygdala that are shown to be more responsive and controlling of external environment (responding to sensory data such as visual information) and parts that are responsive to the internal environment, which if I’m interpreting the source correctly means that it responds to information we already have and conclusions we are reaching using internal information.

Unfortunately, the exact functions of the amygdala and mapping of it’s regions to exact emotional states is not possible due to the fragmented bits of information that scientists have gathered from experiments (usually those which basically involve cutting out portions of the amygdala from monkeys and the like and watching how they change their responses to their environment). Some interesting interpretations have been made, however based on these experiments. Specifically, the amygdala appears to be closely related to feelings of fear, in that it’s removal seems to remove healthy inhibitions to unbridled lust and curiosity. These experiements have also seemed to indicate that other emotions such as joy, pleasure, guilt, anxiety and paranoia are centered in other brain structures. More complex emotions such as sense of self and feelings are thought to be too complex to be centered in a single brain structure, but rather involve multiple other structures in the brain.

So, what can be concluded from this research? Well, sadly it seems as if there are still a lot of unknowns due to the raw complexity of the brain. Luckily, I have a very intelligent reader (and close friend) who just happens to be studying neuroscience so maybe she can shed some more light. But, according to her Facebook status, she’s currently giving birth so we might not hear anything for a while.

In any case, the next time somebody asks you why you seem to be overly joyous, you can reply with a fair amount of confidence that ‘my globus pallidus is stimulated!’

I think the most interesting aspect of this ‘rediscovery’ is that I am finally reaching the ‘don’t care’ stage where the societal pressures that normally having us chase the latest ‘cool’ fads have no affect on me. I am who I am, there’s no sense trying in vain to change things to fit some trends. This is also the point in life where I am figuratively circling the wagons as I discover who my real friends are. I’m very thankful for the relationships I’ve had and the friends I’ve made over the years. I’m saddened by those that failed, and grateful for those that have perservered over the years.

I look forward to year #34. I have some goals that have been percolating for a while that are just now starting to become clear. While the year will no doubt be challenging because of events in the world around me, my stubborn sense of optimism leads to believe that there is a world of opportunity out there to be had and little reason for me to fail  in the uniquely American pursuit of happieness.

So tonight, I was telling my friend about a new post I made to my security blog that explains how simple math is used as the basis for cryptography. For those not familiar with cryptography:

The art and science of keeping messages secure is cryptography – Bruce Schneier, “Applied Cryptography”

When I finished explaining the concepts behind my post to my friend, she responded with “Ok, I get it. That’s pretty cool”.

After I heard her say that, I realized that her understanding what I had explained was a tremendous compliment. The ability to distill complex topics so that they can be understood and used by people that aren’t in the same field is an incredibly important skill. When you think about it, technology that cannot be adequately explained to non-technologists is at a serious disadvantage. Even more importantly, as an engineer, if you are unable to distill your ideas and make them accessible to a larger audience, you will find your potential limited. When talking to customers, investors, VCs etc., you need to be able to explain your idea quickly, clearly, and accurately. The users of your output (be it software, hardware, technical requirements, or documents) are really what matters. If your users cannot understand what you are building or what you do, you will be at a constant disadvantage.

So, for you engineers out there, consider an ‘accessibility test’ as part of your thought process when inventing a new technology out there. Can you explain it to your grandmother so she can use it? If not, think again about what you are building and how you present it to the world. We will all appreciate it!

As I considered why I gave up on the goal, I realized that there are several different reasons why one would do this:

• The goal itself may become less important to you or obselete as compared to other goals.
• The things you need to accomplish the goal are too far beyond your capability to reasonably be achieved, implying that the goal is not a realistic goal.
• Mistakes made while working to achieve the goal shake your confidence in your ability to actually meet your goal, implying again that the goal is not a realistic goal.

In my situation, I realized that the third reason was the main cause for me to give up on my goal. Self confidence is obviously a key attribute that one needs in order to overcome the invariable obstacles we run into as we go about our daily lives. When this self confidence is bruised or otherwise doubted based on mistakes we make, it makes us naturally more cautious and unwilling to extend ourselves beyond our comfort zone.

As I thought more about this, again in my specific circumstances, I realized that perhaps rather than immediately give up on the goal just because I made some mistakes along the way, I should think again about the goal and how important it really is to me (what are the benefits to me if I actually meet this goal)? I’m now fairly certain that it is premature for me to give up on my goal and I should actually work harder to correct the mistakes I made and keep working to attain that goal.

So the lesson learned for me is that it is in fact healthy to re-evaluate your goals once you do make mistakes trying to achieve them. Sometimes making those mistakes will tell you that the goal is not a realistic goal for you. Other times, those mistakes should be recognized as just that; mistakes you make along the way. It is not fair to yourself to just give up on a goal because you make mistakes. Your focus should not be on the mistakes you make along the way to achieving your goal, but rather should be focused on how important the goal is to you.

Main Entry:

kar·ma

Pronunciation:

\ˈkär-mə also ˈkər-\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Sanskrit karma fate, work

Date:

1827

1often capitalized : the force generated by a person’s actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence

Recently I was having a conversation with a friend about the concept of karma. From the Webster’s dictionary definition above, karma is a force is created by a person’s actions that is later stored and tapped upon in a future existence. As we were discussing the concept, I gave an example of how karma, as defined above, is similar to the physics concepts of potential and kinetic energy. Potential energy is defined as stored energy that is created as a result of an object’s position or state. An example of potential energy, as given here, is a heavy wrecking ball that is suspended from a crane. The ball is not moving, but has the potential to generate a lot of force by releasing it from the crane (gravity kicks in and forces the ball to hit the ground with substantial force). Kinetic energy, as given here is defined as the energy of motion. The wrecking ball described above, when it is released and is speeding to the ground is expending kinetic energy.

Now, mapping these concepts of energy back to the definition of karma, I drew a parallel to acting in a certain manner (either acting to help someone or acting to harm someone) to kinetic energy. Performing some action (such as assisting a person with changing a flat tire) essentially adds to some ‘pool’ of positive goodwill (known as good karma) that is stored somewhere. This pool of stored goodwill can be thought of as potential energy. The idea is that at some point, if you’ve built up a positive balance in the ‘goodwill pool’, you can withdraw from this pool to counter something bad that is happening to you or to just simply have something good happen to you at some point in the future when it is not expected. Note that the same thing applies to bad karma as well; if a person performs evil actions, those actions are added to a pool of ‘bad will’ that later will serve to cause bad things to happen to the evil doer.

That being said, let’s examine if the very concept of karma is possible based on what the requirements are. From the definition of karma, the ‘pools’ of goodwill and badwill are stored in such a way that they are carried on to a next life. Consider what would need to exist in order for the good/badwill pools to work. For the purposes of discussion here, let’s also assume that reincarnation is possible (that concept can be debunked in a future post. There would need to be some sort of container, unique to each person, that is filled up based on the actions that you perform. This container would need to be filled by some entity that spans across a man’s life and is capable of observing and judging whether or not a man’s actions belong in the good or bad will pool. This same entity would also necessarily need to be able to dispense from the good/bad will pools as needed based on it’s judgement of a man. In short, the karma pools would need to be maintained by something like a god or some other being that has providence over mankind. Therefore, the argument for karma’s existence boils down to whether or not there is a god.

With that, I leave it as an exercise to my readers to prove to me that there is in fact a god that has providence over all of mankind

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

Sometimes, it is easy to take the thought process for granted and overlook the fact that you have made key errors in your reasoning that cause you to arrive at the wrong conclusions. Without getting into the specifics, I’ve recently found myself in a situation where I made significant errors in my thought process. These errors caused me to arrive at the wrong conclusions which I then based my actions on. It turns out that performing those actions has in fact cost me dearly. As I find myself struggling to recover emotionally from this situation, I decided to go back and think about how the rational thought process works.

A rather simplified description of the thought process reads something like this: gather facts, analyze those facts using existing knowledge using inductive/deductive reasoning, and arrive at new conclusions. Each of us performs these steps continuously whether or not we are actively conscious of it or not for any mental process which requires more than a simple retrieval of information we already possess.

It is extremely easy for one to make a mistake during one of these processes which can lead us to reach erroneous conclusions. For example, if your method of perceiving a fact (be it from observing another person, listening to what they are saying, reading body language, or measuring something using a scientific instrument) is flawed, you may mistakenly identify something as a ‘fact’ when it is nothing of the sort. Another example is misusing inductive/deductive reasoning. Here’s a trivial example of this type of mistake:

Fact: It is winter

Fact: During winter, it is cold outside

Fact: I feel cold right now

Deductive Conclusion: It must be winter

The key mistake made here is the deductive reasoning (e.g. it is possible to feel cold in the summer if you are inside and the air conditioner is turned on full blast). There are other facts that have not been taken into consideration that caused the thinker to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.

So, how does one detect that there is in fact a problem in your thought process? The quote above provides the answer. Think about the conclusions you arrive at and consider whether or not 1 or more of those conclusions seem to contradict each other. If you find that you arrive at contradictory conclusions based on the same set of facts, go back and reconsider your premises (which are your facts). Are you absolutely certain that each of those facts are correct? Do the facts themselves contradict each other? Have you gathered the complete set of facts? If the facts seem incomplete or hard to believe, have you went back and attempted to gather more facts? Only after you are certain that you have validated all of your facts to the best of your ability should you progress to the next step of the thought process and arrive at new conclusions.

In closing, don’t rush to conclusions, especially those which seem on the surface to be hard to believe or contradictory with other information you have. Don’t act on those conclusions until you are certain that you are right. Even more importantly, have the strength and assertiveness necessary to confront the source of your facts to make sure that you have them right.

You won’t regret it.

The attack occured in the Logan Square neighborhood here in Chicago, not too far from the blue line stop. Sadly, this attack is yet another statistic that is likely going to be added to the growing number of battery cases in this neighborhood (651 reported so far this year per public records that track crime statistics found here).

While there is really nothing a friend can do to help someone get over an attack like this other than to just be there for them, I was inspired to do a little research into what makes someone decide that it’s acceptable to commit assault and battery for monetary gain. As the statistics show, it’s a frighteningly common crime in the neighborhood so there seems to be plenty of people around that think it’s OK to attack people for monetary gain.

So, to start, we first must define precisely what it means to commit battery. From the Illinois Criminal Code:

(720 ILCS 5/12‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑3)
Sec. 12‑3. Battery.
(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.”

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer by any means, so I cannot claim that this is in fact the crime that was committed by these attackers. However, for the purposes of discussion, I’ll assume that this crime accurately describes what happened to my friend.

This definition of battery essentially amounts to initiating force against another person without reasonable cause. So a key decision that the attackers made was that it is acceptable to initiate force against another person for some monetary or other gain. What makes a person make this decision? Or, perhaps more significantly, what kind of values does such a person hold if they clearly do not hold human life as a value?

To answer this question, I’ve been trying to find statistics on criminals that have committed assault/battery to see if there are common characteristics that these criminals share.  The source of my data is the US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistic’s website found here. There are no specific statistics that are kept about criminals who commit assault, but there are a wealth of statistics on characteristics that convicted offenders have. Here are some select statistics that provide some useful insight:

Characteristics of jail inmates

Demographics

* Women were 12% of the local jail inmates in 2002, up from 10% in 1996.
* Jail inmates were older on average in 2002 than 1996: 38% were age 35 or older, up from 32% in 1996.
* More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.
* An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

Conviction Offense

* Half of jail inmates in 2002 were held for a violent or drug offense, almost unchanged from 1996.
* Drug offenders, up 37%, represented the largest source of jail population growth between 1996 and 2002.
* More than two-thirds of the growth in inmates held in local jails for drug law violations was due to an increase in persons charged with drug trafficking.
* Thirty-seven percent of jail inmates were convicted on a new charge; 18% were convicted on prior charges following revocation of probation or parole; 16% were both convicted of a prior charge and awaiting trial on a new charge; and 28% were unconvicted.

Criminal History

* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Four in 10 jail inmates had a current or past sentence for a violent offense.
* Thirty-nine percent of jail inmates in 2002 had served 3 or more prior sentences to incarceration or probation, down from 44% in 1996.

Substance Use and Treatment

* Half (50%) of convicted jail inmates were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense, down from 59% in 1996.
* Three out of every four convicted jail inmates were alcohol or drugs-involved at the time of their current offense.
* Alcohol use at the time of the offense dropped from 41% (1996) to 35% (2002), while drug use dropped from 35% to 29%.
* Average sentence length of inmates serving their time in a local jail increased from 22 months in 1996 to 24 months in 2002.
* Time expected to be served in jail dropped from 10 months in 1996 to 9 months, in 2002

Family background

* Thirty-one percent of jail inmates had grown up with a parent or guardian who abused alcohol or drugs
* About 12 percent had lived in a foster home or institution.
* Forty-six percent had a family member who had been incarcerated.
* More than 50% of the women in jail said they had been physically or sexually abused in the past, compared to more than 10% of the men.

While the data is not nearly complete enough to draw significant conclusions that are generally applicable across all criminals, the data does strongly suggest that criminals 1) form incorrect values based on how they were raised and who they are exposed to and/or 2) the use of drugs clouds the criminal’s judgement sufficiently that they willingly ignore any values that they may hold while committing a crime.

In conclusion, while it may not be possible to fully understand the criminal mind and gain insight into the values that criminals hold, it is evident from the data that many people who become criminals are not given the tools to develop good values at a young age. Note that while it is each individual’s decision to form their own values based on their own individual judgement, it takes a significant amount of willpower, self-esteem and personal strength to develop correct values when surrounded by people with incorrect values.

We just launched the new blog last week and are starting to add content as I write this. The new blog can be found here. Many thanks to the readers who found content here useful and left insightful comments. I hope to see those readers visit the new blog!

• When first getting a phone number, wait at least a day or so before calling – Now while this particular ‘rule’ sounds like something straight out of Swingers or some 90′s movie targeted at 30 somethings, in my experience it’s still a rule that I implicitly follow. My personal reasoning behind this ‘rule’ is that a healthy amount of anticipation should build up in both people before a call is made. However, an important exception to this rule is that if there was a lot of interaction when you first get the number, you should call right away. The anticipation will have already been built up during the initial meeting.
• When given an email or some other form of electronic communication as the first means of communication, make every effort to switch to a more personal method ASAP – As many people are no doubt aware, communication via email/IM/Facebook/Tweeter etc. restricts your method of expression to written words only. While you can learn a lot about a person via written word, there are too many other ways people express themselves, either via body language or vocal inflections. Extending a conversation via email/IM just shows the other person that you are not confident enough to meet face to face or at least talk over the phone which is a major turnoff.
• First dates should NOT require a dress code – I learned this ‘rule’ the hard way by setting up a first date at a very nice Italian restaurant here in Chicago. The first time I met this girl, it was a random encounter at a neighborhood coffee shop (which sadly has closed now). Great conversation in person, even better phone conversation later. But that first date was horrible for both of us. We were both dressed to the T as required by the restaurant, but we were the most uncomfortable people in the restaurant by far. Conversation was strained and we shortly became aggravated with each other. After that first date, we never spoke again.
• Don’t ask out people who are friends of your friends without telling your friend about it first – While it is normal and expected for you to meet people who may be potential ‘date material’ through your friends, doing so without letting your friends know what your intentions are is risky. If you don’t at least tell your friend that you are thinking about asking one of their friends out, you run the risk of your friend finding out about it later and potentially sabatoging the incipient relationship. Now while such a thing would probably tell you that your friend is perhaps not a good friend, there are more innocent reasons for your friend to sabatoge the relationship such as unknown romantic interest between your friend and the ‘dating material’ or even interest in you!
• When approaching someone that you think you might be interested in, be sure to get them alone in 1 on 1 conversation – Another tough lesson I learned from being in a situation where I saw 2 people I might be interested in engaged in conversation. While I was lucky enough to get myself somehow involved in the conversation, I soon found myself in a dilemma: which person should I try to get a number from first? While pondering this dilemma, I was clearly not indicating signs of interest to either person and soon felt the conversation drift towards awkwardness. In the end, one of the people picked up on what was going on and excused herself from the conversation, effectively making a decision for me. Not a good thing…
• Finally, DON’T AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME INTEREST WHEN SOMEONE IS NICE TO YOU!! – I emphasize this rule because this rule is probably the #1 rule that, if broken, causes disappointment and confusion. The line between flirting and being nice is razor thin. However, I’ve found that erring on the side of ‘flirting’ is a mistake. There are clear signs that people can show to each other when there is real interest,  usually involving physical (non-sexual!) contact, extra effort to stay in contact, obvious efforts to dress up etc. to impress you etc. If you are just not sure what signals the other person is sending, assuming that they are being ‘nice’. If they are interested in something more, they will let you know soon enough. The only risk with this strategy is that you can be seen as ‘aloof’ or ‘disinterested’ if you treat them only as a friend. However, if the person is genuinely interested, I have found that they’ll switch to more direct means soon enough.

I’m sure that there are other ‘rules’ that I implicitly follow without necessarily realizing it, but these are the 6 that are the most hardwired.

While I was visiting her at the hospice, I talked to the woman in charge of the home about her approach and thoughts on what people at risk of Alzheimer’s can do to improve their chances of avoiding the condition (recognizing that the disease itself is incurable). The answer that she gave me was ‘spirituality is the key’. I didn’t quite understand what she meant by this so I asked her to clarify. She told me that her belief is that patients that are very spiritual will have a much stronger will to live which will enable them to fight the disease and accept the limitations that the disease places on them. Readers of my blog will already be very aware of my views on religion and faith etc. so I was of course very skeptical of her reply.

However, rather than challenge her claim I decided to take some more time to observe my grandmother and the 5 other patients that live in the hospice. By any rational standard that I could think of, there was no doubt in my mind that these patients and my grandmother were very well taken care of. The owner of the hospice obviously values the patients (she refers to them as clients so I’ll switch to that term) because of the effort she puts into each client to allow them to live with their condition with as much dignity as possible. She also has a very strict but simple criteria used to evaluate whether or not to accept a new client: the client must express a will to live. She measures this by talking to the family of the clients and observing the clients before accepting them. I then asked the owner why she does the work that she does, especially given the difficult nature of the work. Her answer? “God has set this path for me and I love all of my clients”.

After the visit was over, I replayed the conversation in my head over and over to try and understand the role of religion and spirtuality as a motivation used by people to do what it is that they do. In this case, the strongly religious views of the hospice owner directly result in what I objectively consider to be excellent care for my grandmother, much better than anyone in the family could give her (motiviated by a false sense of duty and unearned guilt) and by state run nursing homes. On the other hand, I also consider how religion and spirituality has been used as a reason for people to do horrific things to each other over the ages.

The question I find myself struggling with after today’s experience is, can I, as an athiest, accept the role of religion as a motivation for others to use to act in ways that I objectively judge to be ‘good’? Since I reject religion in my own life, should I not reject others that use religion to drive their own actions? Or do I accept the role of religion as another form of philosophy and be grateful for people that use their religion as a motivation to do their work benefits me directly? I’m not sure yet how to answer this, but my initial thoughts are focusing on how I decide to value other people. While sharing views on philosophy and religion are key in certain relationships, those views aren’t nearly as important in other relationships (casual friendships, family relationships etc). I’m leaning more towards the view that I don’t really care what motivates the hospice owner, be it religion, philosophy, money or some other factor. What I do care about is the level of care my grandmother gets. As long as the religious views don’t manifest themselves in some strange form of ‘holistic healing’ where legitimate medical care is eschewed in favor of prayer, I don’t care what their views are.