Here's My Theory

AI and Personality

I’m very interested in artificial intelligence, and I was thinking about an issue that the development of such a thing might have. As much as we can program a computer to have artificial intelligence, an artificial personality is a very different story.

Since personality is widely believed to be a combination of genetics (which is the part we can somewhat emulate) and childhood experience, it would be a daunting task to create one artificially.

When we build a robot with artificial intelligence, we are basically building something which will not develop or grow. It will not have a family and it will not have social interactions with a child-like brain. Because of this, it would have a missing ingredient in personality. Yes, it might be able to understand things, but it will not have any personality bias, so it will be a creature that runs on pure logic.

While I am a huge fan of logic, I’m sure this would make for a very dry conversation. No major breakthroughs or anything here. Just a thought.

It's The Future, You Know What That Means... 3D?

Back in the 1950’s, 3D movies became a fun, futuristic trend. It was so futuristic and fun, especially for that time. Over there years, though, this has grown to be less and less popular and the most common place to see a room full of people in 3D glasses is an amusement park.

However, this seems to be changing suddenly. With the film Avatar being such a huge hit in 3D, everyone seems to be jumping on the 3D bandwagon. This past weekend was the Consumer Electronics Show for 2010 and the common denominator amongst TV companies has been the introduction of 3D HDTV and 3D blu-ray players. Along with this, some 3D channels are also in the process of going on the air in 2010, such as ESPN 3D.

So what does this mean? It means our current HDTV’s and blu-ray players are becoming obsolete and we will soon need to invest in 3D technology. But more importantly than this, it means these companies expect everyone to wear 3D glasses. Yep, still with the 3D glasses.

So far, I’ve heard one company mention that these glasses might be in the range of $100. Is all of this investing really worth it to the average person to see their TV in 3D? I really don’t think it is. The one thing these companies are forgetting is the power of convenience.

Let’s take a realistic situation:

A group of eight people decide after going out to come back to someone’s house and watch a movie. Either the host needs to own eight pairs of 3D glasses (a lovely $800 investment), or this group will need to stop at each person’s house to pick up their own glasses. This isn’t exactly an ideal situation.

I just can’t see this craze catching on, and I’m very surprised that so many companies are investing in the technology. Besides the money aspect, does anyone really want to sit around watching TV with goofy-looking glasses on? This whole idea just screams inconvenience. I was all for HDTV, and I’m looking forward to Ultra HD, but this 3D HDTV business just feels gimmicky.

I'm a Y2K Survivor!

As we begin the year 2010, I would just like to take a moment to reflect on the once dreaded Y2K.

Back in 1999, millions of people panicked as they believed that once the year 2000 came, the world was going to end. Why would they think that? Because somehow, they were convinced that no one foresaw the year 2000 coming and so the computers attached to nuclear weapons were all going to malfunction and launch atomic missiles all over the world. This type of mass hysteria seems silly to us now ten years later, but people were genuinely scared back in 1999.

Does any of this sound familiar? These “end of the world” scares seem to never go away, and people always manage to find a new year to point to in fear. It is now 2010 and I am certain that for the next two years we will have to deal with hearing countless ignorant babbling over the year 2012 being the end of the world.

The fact that a movie has already been created to cash in on this new fear-year is only a precursor to what silliness is to come. Somehow, the Mayan civilization was able to foresee the end of the world with the accuracy and precision of pinpointing an exact year, but they could not foresee the Spanish conquerers coming to end their own civilization. Let’s get real here.

Just as the year 2000 was not the end of the world, nor will 2012 be. If someone tries to start a speculative conversation about it, just change the subject in an effort to stop wasting your precious time.

There's No Such Thing as a Peaceful Alarm Clock

Hearing a beep or buzz as the first thing to bring you out of your sleep is the most unpleasant sound to start your day with. So in an effort to start my day off a bit more peacefully, I invested in an alarm with a CD player built in. I then proceeded to stick one of my favorite albums in there, and went to sleep knowing I would be waking up to one of my favorite songs.

This was pretty nice the first day, and even the second day. By the end of the month, I felt like I was in the movie Groundhog Day and I grew to hate the song. Since I didn’t want to end up hating any of my favorite songs just for the cheap payoff of waking up slightly better, I rethought my plan.

Next, I invested in an alarm clock that had nature sounds built in. What could be more relaxing than waking up to the sounds of waves, or a lake, or even birds chirping?

For the first few months of this new system, I was thrilled with it. I woke up every day with a smile on my face and felt great about my new technique. Then, suddenly, the whole plan backfired. I began to hate the sounds of the ocean, and a long list of other sounds that most people would find soothing.

I had completely conditioned myself to associate these sounds with the unpleasant feeling of being disturbed while trying to sleep. This association was drilled so deeply into my subconscious that I now cringe and feel anxious when I hear these sounds in real life.

It’s a bizarre feeling, but it has led me to a final conclusion:

There’s no such thing as a peaceful alarm clock.

Whatever sound is waking you up will slowly, subconsciously associate itself with feelings of anxiety and turn the sound from calming to clamoring. I hate a bunch of songs now, and I cringe at the sound of waves, but I definitely learned my lesson.

Men Love Each Other Sometimes

Men tend to fear showing any sort of affection for other men. It’s not that they don’t feel anything for each other, but there is some precedent set in society that prevents them from displaying it. Usually, the only time you’ll see this taking place is when they are drunk. That, of course, is because people are much more honest when they’re drunk.

That, however, doesn’t mean that men haven’t come up with a few tricks to get around this, though. Somehow, men have created ways to show affection for each other in a manly way so that society will still view them as strong, heterosexual men.

First up, is the “man hug”:

Men can’t put their arms around each other and hold each other warmly like they can do with a woman, or even like a woman can do with another woman. Instead, they shake hands, pull each other close and “pat” each other on the back. Kind of saying to each other “I love you, but I’m hitting you, so now you know I don’t mean this in a gay way.” But really, who are they kidding? You can easily care about another human being, or even love them, without it being sexual.

The other thing men tend to do to preserve their manhood while showing affection for each other is add the word “man” to the end of any sentence that is remotely sensitive.

The movie “I Love You, Man” captured this concept perfectly. Somehow, men believe that adding the word “man” to the end of a sentence counters the sensitivity of the statement. The addition of the word “man” is the equivalent to the addition of the pat on the back during the hug.

A guy can never say something like “Thanks, that means a lot to me” to another man. They need to say “Thanks, that means a lot, man.” But what does this do exactly? What about these “manisms” makes men feel more comfortable with each other?

I don’t think there’s a logical explanation for this phenomenon besides the simple precedents of social norms. This is what is expected from men, and as long as men follow these manisms, they will not be looked at strangely by the man they are communicating with or the people around them. Even though a hug and a “man hug” are coming from the same emotion, they send different messages.

A “man hug” sends the message “I care about you, man”, while a regular hug simply says “I care about you” which doesn’t specify in what way they mean that. This open-ended gesture leaves too many possibilities in the mind of the man being hugged and that makes him feel uncomfortable. At the same time, it makes the man question the other man’s motives, which is an extremely homophobic line of thinking (but very common).

So rather than taking the risk of their gesture being misinterpreted, men follow the norms and retain their image. I do believe it is very possible for a society to move past these silly insecure manisms, but in our homophobic culture, this is simply the way it is.

Here's My Law: Urinal Etiquette

Situation: You enter a men’s public bathroom. There are five urinals in the bathroom. The one all the way on the end is taken. What do you do?

Well everyone knows you don’t take the one right next to him. That’s the creepiest thing you can do, and you run the risk of being punched in the face before the guy washes his hands.

Next up is the middle one. This is a safe bet because it tells the first guy that you’re giving him his space but also that you don’t feel so insecure with your sexuality that you need to overcompensate by picking one too far away.

The fourth urinal is the tricky one. By picking the fourth one, you are at a perfect balance of space from the first guy, but you’re screwing over potential man #3. The next person who walks into the bathroom enters a dilemma. There’s three free urinals and all three are directly next to someone.

Sure, you two are now both peeing happily with plenty of space, but you’re also pissing all over man #3.

Here’s My Law: Never use the second or fourth urinal.

If the first guy uses the fourth urinal, he forces the second guy to choose one that will screw over man #3. If the second guy uses the fourth urinal, he himself screws over man #3. If the third, fourth, or fifth guy uses the fourth urinal, he is definitely directly next to someone else (granted the first two men are following urinal etiquette).

Don’t be that guy. Please, follow urinal etiquette, and look out for man #3 while you’re doing #1.