.eraflew

In case you couldn't read the first line it says "welfare" backwards. Alot of people think this is how dyslexic people write words, and I suppose some do. Personally, I'm lucky if I can even remember what letters are in welfare, forwards or backwards. Back in 1990 I was diagnosed as being stupid. If you dislike me you're probably saying "well that figures," and you aren't exactly wrong. In time they diagnosed me with the dreaded disorder Dyslexia (along with ADHD and some other disorders who I didn't pay enough attention to to remember). Personally I think those are just more sophisticated ways of calling me stupid. Yes, dyslexia is a neurological disorder, and yes I didn't do anything to deserve it (neither did my parents, actually there is a long history of dyslexia in my mother's family). However, my having dyslexia doesn't prevent me from acting like a moron from time to time.

A couple of weeks ago my misspellings came up in conversation, and I admitted to my dyslexia (a fact I am not ashamed of) and was admonished for it. Rightfully so I might add. While I had accepted my disability as a fact of life I had forgotten that like all disabilities I have to compensate for it. Instead of being the problem it was in my life, I had made it into the crutch I wanted it to be. Thankfully I was reminded of my mistakes and my transgression was caught before too late.

Now most of you will read these last two paragraphs and think they are an attack on Panther (actually they were written a while ago and had been sitting around in my drafts section), but they're not. In fact, they aren't about me or dyslexia in general. Instead, they are about welfare. Welfare, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is money given by the government to the less fortunate in society. Obviously this redistribution of wealth by the government is socialistic in nature. In fact, the main problem people have with welfare is the same problem I had with my dyslexia. They believe that welfare is a crutch which the less fortunate come to depend on and thus never rise to a point in their lives where they can be free of it.

In March of '03 there were 4,986,914 people on welfare, 4,955,479 in June of the same year. This represents a -.6% shift from the previous year (ie. no shift). The yearly totals from month to month for the year of '02 only change by a margin of 406,193 during the course of the year (less than 10%). It seems fairly obvious to the quick thinker that this means people on welfare tend to stay on welfare. It becomes a crutch to them, and what they really should do is buckle down and get a job. After all, its my tax dollars supporting them.

What the mathematicians say isn't true. Numbers lie, and quick thinkers aren't always the smartest thinkers. It might come as a surprise to anyone reading those last two paragraphs that in a ten year period less than 2% of people on welfare were on welfare were on it again in that ten year period. This means 98% of people on welfare are only on it for a year at most. Not much of a crutch is it now? In fact, the more you scrutinize the welfare system the more you realize that very few people are reliant on it. These people are out there looking for jobs and are unable to either find them or find ones that support them and their families. The welfare system instead begins to look more and more like a net if one is falling.

This brings us back to my dyslexia (full circle if you will). About 90 some odd percent of the time I correct my dyslexia, and find my mistakes, and so when a few slip through people should take that into account. However, that doesn't make my bringing it up any less self indulgent. Instead, it is like Godwin's law, effective unless mentioned.

taken from: Statistics, the Book of Lies by Jim Tzenes

Colors and Liars, but not Colored Liars.

The human eye is a vastly complex thing, and while those proponents of Intelligent Design will tell you there is no use for half an eye, the human brain shows otherwise. Apparently, when your eye first started developing the only light waves that were provided were the blues. As a result blue makes up the smallest portion of what your brain determines the luminance of an object to be. Later on your brain developed red and finally green to give you what you see today. As a result of this order, luminance can be broken down into ratios as follows: Y' = 0.299 R' + 0.587 G' + 0.114 B'(the modern HDTVs use a slightly different algorithm). Given that green makes up the largest portion it should come as no surprise that traditional fighter jets used Red for the HUD display and Green for targets. Less than a decade ago the air force did a study to find out what the best combination is and to their surprise just the opposite has a better reaction time (Green for HUD and Red for targets). Perplexing at best.

When we are young we believe everything we hear, but somewhere in our early childhood we learn to lie, or at least that people do lie. At some point, most of us try to lie ourselves, and if we're smart get away with it. The standard for lying appears to go like so: I did/know/am x, but I don't want so-and-so to know that so I will pretend y. At first this is sufficient, but eventually people ask questions about y (whether they accept it or not), so y becomes Universe y (denoted as Y and Universe x denoted as X). If we are clever we choose a Y such that so-and-so does not have the means at their disposal to disprove Y (things like saying Y is an opinion, or based on opinions, or make Y a very small devation from X). Without the means to disprove Y any attempt to call Y a lie is unsubstantiatible. However, time and again people who have no means to disprove Y end up disbelieving Y. We assume this is foolish and become very adamant about Y being true, because for all they know it is true, and fail to relies why they disbelieve Y.

So now you must be asking yourself "what do these two things, colors for a HUD display on a fighter jet and algebraically analyzing lies, have to do with one another?" And the truth probably is nothing, but I found the answer to one in the other. Why do people respond more quickly to red than the brighter green? It wasn't until I was outside crossing a street that I figured it out. Social conditioning. Red means stop, Green means go. If you mistake Green for Red you've made a type I statistical error (false negative) and the worse that happens is you get honked at, but god forbid you make the opposite error. In fact, the presence of red in streetlights and other stop signs combined with our desire to avoid these type II statistical errors (false positive) as caused a social norm to be attacked to the color red. We are conditioned by interaction with it to see it as a warning sign and thus it finds our attention quicker than any other color, and in fact we'll find the same can be said about liars. Liars, while clever enough to create universes we cannot disprove, are after all human, and thus have tell tail signs. Some stutter, some take too long thinking, others elaborate too much. All of these signs, while having little to do with the lies themselves, are picked up by the so-and-so characters over time, as the lies they have told are revealed to them. These "tricks" allow us to pick out liars based solely on social conditioning.

So, next time someone doubts your lie, remember, it may not have anything to do with the lie itself.

taken from: And then there was Society by Jim Tzenes

Back by Popular Demand.

Ok, give this a try. You have the following three lines:

(X) ------
(A) -------
(B) ----
(C) ------

Now, which line is closest to X?

Chances are you said C, and you're right. A couple years back some psychological researchers gave this same question to a bunch of college students, although instead of just asking them like I asked you, they asked about 16 actors before them. Now the college students didn't know these were actors and when each of the 16 actors before them said A, about two thirds of the time the college student said A as well. Now why would a bunch of reasonable intelligent college students give an answer that is obviously wrong? Have colleges been lowing there standards too far? The researchers in question thought that it was a result of peer pressure, but I'm going to go down a different path. Image for a second that you have tons of data indicating one thing, and only one piece of data indicating another. Which are you more likely to go with? Even if you were the one to personally observer the dissenting piece of data? In fact, those college students were showing a rare trait, humility. They each realized (consciously or subconsciously) that the odds that everyone before them was right, and they instead were wrong (a type 1 statistical error), are very small.

To a certain degree I am writing this in response to a entry by Mercutio ( Be good citizens and stop voting), and he's not alone in his stance. The argument, which he relays to us from Hannah Arendt, goes something like this: If I vote and know little about the people or changes I am voting for, I am better off not voting and leaving such activity to people who know a lot about what they are voting for. He and Arendt may not be wrong. In fact, I have been hard pressed to find a single person who disagrees with this logic. Well, no one besides James Surowiecki, who's work The Wisdom of Crowds shows "The many are smarter than the few." Surowiecki's case example is Francis Galton's description of a busy marketplace where passersby lend their opinion to the probably weight of a cow. While the guesses themselves are very far off of the real value, the average is remarkable close. Closer in fact, than several experts opinions. Surprisingly enough, the crowd as a whole is smarter than the experts who's lively hoods depend on such estimates.

So now, you weigh in. Do we favor popular opinion? or do we leave intellect to the intellectuals?

taken from a verity of sources including: Mercutio's personal weblog "A Precarious Mindset," Wikipedia's entry "The Wisdom of Crowds," and "Rhuminations of a Starving Man" by Jim Tzenes.

Pride and the Down Fall of Jim Tzenes.

I began starving myself this morning. Normally I would describe it as fasting, and probably follow that with a quip about how I had unfortunately not reached enlightenment. However, this abstinence is unrelated to any attempts at transcendence, but rather solely concerned with another intangible, pride. Suffice to say, I am broke, and for various reasons my job has failed to pay me for going on 2 months now. Being the amiable person I am, I have mad every attempt to politely obtain my rightful dues, to no avail. In the mean time I have run out of food and cash to buy food with. This is not why I am starving. I am instead starving because I have refused any charity on the matter. Which brings me back to the subject at hand: pride.

When I was younger I was taught, as you no doubt were, by after school programs that pride is the downfall of humanity. The proud characters always get what's coming to them, and by the end of the 30 minute episode they have to surrender their pride and abase themselves. I have no intention of doing so. These shows always portrayed pride in a poor light; never did they show the positive benefits of pride. The kind of pride that makes you get up at 6am for a work out. The kind of pride that makes you bite back insults when no one will listen to you. The kind of pride that picks you up after falling down. Pride, in short, is the great motivator in my life. Without it, I would be unwilling to dedicate myself to my tasks and instead would procrastinate and do a poor job if any. Given all this, it is not hard to see why I so feverishly hold onto my pride.

But too proud to eat? Perhaps that is taking things just a little too far. Lets look into them deeper. I haven't received my just due, but I believe that I have finally found the people necessary so that I might. So in truth this isn't as large a deal as I make it out to be. What's more I don't want to upset the people who making up the bureaucratic staff as my future may rest in their hands, and they can make things worse off for me. And there are other sources who might lend me money, my father, my girlfriend, my roommate, but each has as reason for being rejected. My roommate I am already indebted to. My girlfriend has little of her own. And finally, I am trying to break the few remaining bond that tie me to my father. In short, I am unwilling to accept there help for a verity of reasons.

Where does leave my pride I wonder. As pride is the reason I claim to be starving myself. If we look over my reasons for starving we begin to see that there are certain conveniences in my life to which I desire. To achieve these desires I need to hold off and fast and wait. And slowly as I battle with my hunger I relies that it is not pride which holds me from my meals, but rather desire for other things. Pride, good or evil, is nothing more than a scape-goat on which to hang my hat. In truth, it maybe nothing more than another farce to get myself to do what is necessary to achieve what I want. But isn't that what I said pride did for me in the first place?

taken from letters between Jim Tzenes and an unknown author

A rose by any other name...

There exist certain words in our society, whom by there very names do effect how people precieve them. I am ofcourse referring to the words: fuck, shit, cock, bitch, damn, and asshole. There is a longer list, but let us pretend those words stand in for all of them. Countless comedians have pointed out how these words, in the sense of what they refer to, aren't to be offensive in and of themselves. However, society at large has deamed them offensive by convention. Obviously there are certain characteristic among these word that make them more likely canidates (such as ending in hard k and t sounds or referring to sinful and blasphemous acts) but these characteristics also exist in other words which are not considered too heinous. So then without any characteristic shared amongst them that could be used to determine them without previous knowledge it becomes elementary that convention alone denotes these words. This has all be said before, my thesis by comparison is that this behavior is not unique and can be found in specific class of society: Children (thus making the behavior childish in nature).

As my argument does not address these words directly it is not limited to these words, or any words of the group they belong, but rather to the nature of society in denoting groups by mear convention, and thus my argument is not really about words, but about human nature in society. This is important to note for anyone who wishes to disagree with me on the basis that these words have a special categorical algorithm which defines them (in which case the first paragraph is mostly moot, however my argument remains untouched).

If you spend any large amount of time around children below the preteen age, you're realize that the vast majority of activities they undertake are for the sole purpose of gaining themselves attention. Now, since the group of words exist only through the basis of convention, we can then assume that their proliferation is a result of flaunting the social norms of the society in question. Or in other words they only reason they are used is due to the conventions which consider them inappropriate. If we then return to the children, we notice this identical behavior. Children will oft times recite phrases that invoke a response for the purposes of gaining attention. And now we've come full circle. The use of these words in society is solely for the purpose of drawing attention (which will be later backed up when the words are demonstrated to have emphatic use ie. drawing attention).

However, at this point we run into another interesting phenomena. The obvious solution to removing these words from the language (as the current social norms suggest we do), is to remove the conventions which make them important. Without these no one would feel the need to use these words, and thus the goal of removing them from everyday speak would be upheld. If you haven't figured it out already the convention is in and of itself circular logic. Now, should these words be de-emphasized from our language the desire to use words that accomplish their purpose will designate new word to take their place, thus proving the hypothesis that these words serve a vital purpose in our language: emphasis. Thus bringing us back to my thesis, that this is a terribly childish thing to do.
QED.

Because undoubtedly after all that you are wondering, well then what should we do now? Let me provide an answer for that as well. Because the need for these words is based entirely in circular logic, but it has already been demonstrated that there is a sociological desire for the functionality it provides. As such the obvious solution becomes clear, we must do what I often advise and uphold the status quo.

taken from: How to Speak Like an Intellectual and Other Useless Things, by Jim Tzenes

Dr. Hypocrisy, or How I Learned to Love the Weblog.

It is a well known fact that I hate 'blogs; I absolutely abhor them. I think that they are meaningless wastes of time that only exist to further the rampant sociopathic behavior already running wild in our society. God I hate 'blogs. Now before you start yelling Hypocrite, let me tell you why I hate them. The majority of blogs, and when I say majority I mean the vast majority, are used as a sort of online diary. It is not hard to see why I might have a problem with this, given my expressed opinions in the past. The Weblog itself (commonly referred to as the 'blog) is in fact a powerful tool to help communicate information across the Internet. Its purpose is to either provided a chronicled basis for in formation or a simplistic method for communication. Now, both of these are valid uses which I have no qualm with, however its is the perverse combination which truly infuriates me. Given the simplicity of the tools at hand, the weblog is available for use in even the most inexperience of web viewers; this is the root of my problems. Instead of being available solely to those who might put it to proper use, the weblog is available to those who have neither the experience, nor the capacity to do so.

And thus the modern 'blog is born. Instead of leveraging the impressive tools at hand for some sort of beneficial communication, the average 'blog user uses it to chronicle the most mundane of all features, his or her own life. This doesn't seem like such a problem until you realize that the vast majority of activities which take up your life are relatively uninteresting. On average a person spends 8 hours of his or her day sleeping. There are numerous studies that indicate the most uninteresting thing to hear about is another person's dream. As such a full third of a person's day is not worth recording in a public venue. Of the remaining 16 hours of your day, the average person spends 2 hours in commute too and from work 8 hours in work, and 2 hour eating. All of which turn out to be rather uninteresting activities (unless something interesting happens at work which it rarely does). This leaves us with a sole 2 hours of the day with which your life may yet interest me. But don't worry the average American watches 4 hours of TV per day, so I can assure you, it won't. I don't care that you ate peanut butter and jeally for lunch. I don't care you sat through a 3 hour meeting listening to someone who has noise hair. I don't care if you think bush is the worst president ever because he "is a stupid man who didn't even win an election lol." I really just don't care; and do you know what? No one else does either.

It is easy to see why I hate 'blogs so much. However, there are a few, and they are very few, who's weblogs actually contain interesting arguments or chronicles of useful information (like building and instillation). You'll notice I refer to their content as weblogs, where as the journalistic filth that other people produce as 'blogs. In my mind there is a difference. But, I was not always convinced as much. It wasn't until I actually found a group of weblogs that tended to produce reasonable content an a consistent basis that I was won over. For those of you who are interested, my weblog reading list consists of:

ClockWorkZen (http://clockworkzen.intellectualelite.com/)
A contrary fellow, who's weblog is temporarily down. While he can be abrasive at times, he generally has interesting insight into a verity of topics, and is worth a read every now and then. Just don't piss him off.

Dem0critus (http://dem0critus.intellectualelite.com/blog.html)
A normally mundane fellow, who is none the less full of interesting information. In addition to being an excellent debtor, Dem0critus' weblog tends to be both helpful and eclectic, and worth a read.

Dr. Dolphin (http://drdolphin.intellectualelite.com/)
In addition to being clever, Dr. Dolphin is well read and able to discuss some of the more interesting aspects of modern society. If you get a chance read his "When Physics and Metaphysics meet..." post.

Jebus (http://family.ncambium.com/jt/)
A journalism major who's posts are on par with my own. Jebus is both whitty and insightful. He will make you laugh and then realize how stupid you look.

Mercutio (http://mercutio.intellectualelite.com/)
Perhaps one of the best weblogs you will ever read, most of the time. While he does occasionally lapse into the bad habits of talking about his own life, Mercutio's more thoughtful posts are unparalleled in both quality and content. A definite must for those of you transitioning over from 'blogs to weblogs.

Muse (http://muse.intellectualelite.com/)
The only 'blog to make my reading list, Muse's life is one of the very few that is interesting enough to hold my attention. Unlike the vast majority of 'bloggers, the idiosyncrasies and frantic self deprecative humor that makes up Muse's 'blog are more than amusing. What's more she is a fun person to get to know.

Last but not least: JCStrider (http://jcstrider.intellectualelite.com/)
Given the gravity and intellectualism of many quality weblogs, it is fun from time to time to read a weblog which can be appreciated for its pure aesthetic qualities. JCStrider's is such a weblog. But for those who like to read between the lines JCStrider can be an excellent read.

And of course there is always my weblog, but if you're reading this, chances are you read that too. You'll notice however I've increased the line length on my weblog so as to allow better viewing, and I suggest you do the same.

taken from the weblog of Jim Tzenes (ie. this)

Social Responcibility.

I believe the right to declare ones own guilt at the beginning of a trial is both very powerful and relatively unused.

Time and again our legal system comes under criticism for letting the guilty go free. I wouldn't want to be part of the problem and neither should you. People are more than willing to vote for harsher penalties and support their local police, but when its their butt on the line, god forbid they accept responsibility for their actions. Everyone wants the guilty to be punished, except themselves. This sort of narcissistic behavior has helped to created the criticism our legal system faces. The good old problem everyone complains about but won't fix.

Lets take a simple example. Someone I know was pulled over for speeding. They appeared at the court date perscribed by their ticket on the off chance the police officer wouldn't show up and they'd get off scott free. They did. Now speeding is a minor infraction and most people dismiss this case as unimportant. It is not. It is anemic of the flaws in the system.

Instead of griping, I propose the members of society hold themselves to a higher standard than society holds them. That or stop griping. You pick.

taken from the trial of Jim Tzenes August 8th, 2005

Nemesis.

Recently I came to blows with someone over an issue. Of course not actual blows, but verbal ones at the very least. Its been a long time since I've ever really felt insulted by someone. However, this is not due to my sociopathic tendencies (which I hope to keep few), but rather because I rarely put myself out there.

I have always found debating to be one of the most enlightening experiences. Its purpose has always been, in my mind, to help both sides better understand the issue. As a result, I never feel the need to argue my own opinion, merely the opposing opinion to someone else. Because of this, I rarely put myself out there to feel insulted. However sometimes even I get caught up in the debate. Mistakes happen. Life goes on.

The Ideal debater has not attachments to their argument. They are merely and advocate of their side of the debate, as lawyers are advocates of their clients cases. It does not matter which side of the debate they argue on as Justice can be served from either side. Take the case where a murderer gets off because the police found the murder weapon through unlawful means. While this is normally a far cry from justice, a greater justice has been served. Once again a person's property has been protected from unlawful government intrusion. Once again the freedom of the innocent has been prioritized over the enchainment of the guilty. We live in a society which is imperfect, and thus vaulnerable to abuse. Thus it is more important for us to protect the members of the society than the society at large. A governing body exists to facilitate cohabitation between its members, but it also must not step over the bounds where the members must be protected from it. Thus by arguing an opposing side the ideal debater lives up to a higher purpose. Preventing the governing body from over stepping itself. I guess you could say they guard us from the guards and each other. Lementible but necessary.

Still, when the day is done and the higher calling has been served, it would be nice to have a Nemesis to compete against.

Excerpt from "For I have seen the Devil and His face was Man" by Jim Tzenes

Service in the Food Service Industry.

I went to the Home Depot the other day. Nothing but giant metal shelves full of supplies, with not a customer service representative in sight. Ahh, the joys of modern shopping. It wasn't always like this though. My father tells me that when he was little hardware stores used to have people around to help you find what you need and answer questions. And if you came in often enough they would even know your name. The guy at the local fast food store doesn't even know my name, even though its always the same guy, and i always come at the same time every day, and order the same thing. In fact, I don't think we've exchanged five words not relating to food. Of course my grandfather tells me that gas stations used to pump gas for you, but when he says such obviously untrue things I can't help but shake my head and smile. The idea that someone might preform such a menial task for me, is beyond me.

But then again, things weren't always this way. Once upon a time people served you food in the food service industry, not just sat there and took your money. A few of these anachronistic testaments to monolithic food service still do exist, we call them restaurants. They used to be the standard, right up until a pair of brothers name: Dick and Mac McDonald opened up a hamburger stand in California. Now, while McDonalds success is attributed to Ray Kroc (the man that franchised the business), its the brothers McDonald who are to blame for the fast food industry it spawned. It was they who had the idea to have people take their food to their own table, and to cook up food ahead of time in anticipation of sale. However, its McDonalds success that spread these principles across America. What's more these businesses could sell food cheaper as they didn't have to pay for the same overhead as a full restaurant. All of a sudden this bargain price idea caught on with Americans. In the 70s Walmart expanded this idea to other industries.

Now people are buying stuff off of giant shelving cases that look like they belong in the storage room, not the front room. All in the pursuit of lower prices. Now there are a number of issues that this raises, from substandard pay, to immigrant jobs, to driving out local businesses and the American dream, but the one that pisses me off the most is there is no one around to help me find my quarter inch ply wood. What have we surrendered in the pursuit of lower prices? Are we really so miserly we've given up self respect in exchange for money?

So, my advice to you all is, every now and then (you don't have to all the time) you go to a real restaurant and pay the little extra for a little service. Trust me, its worth it.

excerpt taken from a speech "Economics, the Modern Philosophy" by Jim Tzenes

People are sociopaths.

There are alot of conflicting definitions of what a sociopath is, however almost all of them share a common theme. Sociopaths are self absorbed and hold themselves above the rules of society. Current estimates place 1-3% of the population as suffering from this disorder, and all I can say to the people doing those studies is "have you ever talked to anyone?"

1-3% is far too low of a statistic, in my opinion the number is better than a third. One in three people are self absorbed and consider them selves to be above the rules of society. These people also suffer from a verity of conditions arising from their pathology, including:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Sound familiar? In fact, on the Internet these people turn up all the time. Of course we merely pass off their "fuckwad" behavior as arising out of the anonymity provided by the Internet, but the truth of the matter is, these people are sociopaths.

It gets worse.

How many times has someone yelled at you while you were driving or crossing the street and had done nothing wrong? How many times have you called someone you didn't know bad names?

These are all sociopathic behaviors, they arise not out of the general apathy we are lead to believe infests our society. Instead they arise from an undo sense of self importance. We believe we are special, that some how the rules don't apply to us. That we are above the rest of society. This is what causes sociopathism, and right now we are raising an entire generation of sociopaths. Kids who grow up on Harry Potter and learn lessons such as, special people can flaunt the rules, and, some groups of people are superior to others. These are terrible morals that we instill in our children without a second thought, and then wonder why they shoot up their schools. Do not mistake me and believe that Harry Potter is the source of evil in the world, far from it, it is merely another symptom of the problem.

I want you to all repeat the following mantra "I am not special. I am not my own perfect unique little butterfly." And if you find yourself relapsing and thinking of yourself as better than other people I want you to stop and take a deep breath, and if you still need help you can talk to me, or any of the other recovering sociopaths, we all know what you've been through.

taken from: Diary of a Sociopath by Jim Tzenes