Cars in films

Cars in films

It's quite telling how American urban life in the 1950s and 1960s is depicted in films. It must have been a fascinating period for the physical environment, with so much becoming mature and widely available. Recent films seem to celebrate this and depict it in a fond manner. Cars, in particular, have rather gentle presence, being there and serving people well, in contrast to films on more recent times, where motorized traffic can be overwhelming - and not just in bigger cities. It seems that the past we want to remember can be quite different from what was experienced back then, just because the present is worse. Reversely, back then people may have exaggerated the ills of cars because they thought the past was better, more peaceful and tranquil. At least, there are enough films from the period that do not present cars in a positive manner, while horses and horse-drawn vehicles receive more sympathetic treatment. The past is always sanitized.

Citizens

Citizens 

I've been listening to a learned podcast about the future of the world and humanity: politicians, scientists and others seem to agree not just on the challenges that face us but also on the way forward. Either mildly pessimistic or moderately optimistic, they tend to focus on the citizen. Their argument is that if the citizen is aware of the problems and the effects of their choices, then improvement should be expected - even salvation.
I'm filled with doubts. Even if we managed to agree on a common approach, are we powerful enough as citizens? We're far from equal in any society. The one is a fearful employee and the other a powerful employer. Each has their own impact and between the individual citizen and the abstract group of society there are intervening layers composed of interests and hence related to power. How can we ignore them and believe that citizens as voters, consumers, taxpayers and the like can achieve enough just by their choices? Our choices are shaped by the intervening layers, either on purpose or by accident. It's the reciprocal relations between the individuals and these layers (which include ideologies, lifestyles, ethnicities etc.) that I'd focus rather than passing buck directly to citizens.

Data and information

Data and information

Any search for definitions in scientific literature never fails to puzzle me. In this case, I was looking for definitions of information. What I found was often relative to other terms like data, knowledge and intelligence. Interestingly, rather trying to elucidate the relations between terms, most definitions sought to make sharp distinctions, as well as to downplay one term and elevate another. In particular, data were often presented as raw, unorganized facts, permanent object properties, with little if any meaning - base stuff. Information, on the other hand, was elevated and refined: data processed and organized so as to be meaningful and useful. Frequent examples of information referred to statistical techniques, which clearly could purify data to the extreme.
Such definition reek of biases, e.g. that data are dumb or that knowledge is the proper accumulation of information. As a result, they fail to account for things we know about the world and our cognition, from the way information is communication between physical entities, such as a flower sending information to a bee's eyes, to how human creativity affects information. Coming against such definitions leaves me with more questions than answers. Should I therefore just trust the authority of the authors and impose their definitions on my perception of the world?
The answer can be found in rhetoric and its modes: pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos appeals to our emotions: let's save the environment, for example. Even with limited further explanation, it seems a good idea. In practice, however, it can lead to disasters, like saving one species from extinction and, by doing so, disturbing ecological balance to the detriment of more species. So, pathos needs to be accompanied by logos: good argumentation that helps us understand. Ethos relates to authority, such as an eminent professor telling stuff in a lecture. We tend to believe such authorities. It is important, however, that they also employ logos to convince us by explaining and illustrating their statements.
From the perspective of rhetoric, therefore, we have little to gain from definitions merely based on ethos or pathos. We also need to apply logos, both as developers and as receivers of definitions. Beware of definitions given in a couple of sentences, without further analysis and explanation.

Learning motivation

Learning motivation 

I've been using a smartphone app to learn a new language but I'm considering giving it up - the app, not learning the language. Already my frequency of use has dropped so low that the app is giving up on me: it no longer sends me regular motivational messages.
Ironically, it's exactly this motivational approach that's getting on my nerves. In general, I can live with the learning approach of the app and its limitations. I've nothing against the repetition of words and phrases or the abrupt introduction of new stuff that reduces me to guessing, although the further I go, the more evident it becomes that the underlying database of the app is rather limited. I can also tolerate the adverts, even when they interrupt the flow of a lesson. What irritates me is the constant game-like urging to achieve high scores, to compete for a high listing, the silly rewards and the nagging reminders.
My objection is that all that amounts to noise that distracts me from learning and discourages me from using the app. I'm not learning a language to show off by collecting virtual rewards; I want to be able to speak the language. My true reward would be the ability to read or listen to something and understand it. Why not treat me to an interesting short story or a humorous dialogue that I could appreciate with my current, limited appreciation of the language?
The same silliness extends to all kinds of learning, I fear. Rather than empowering the learners and letting them realize it, there are always some trivial pursuits that supposedly modernize learning but in fact distract from the purpose and effects of learning.

Metrics

Metrics 

"I've measured out my life with coffee spoons" T.S. Eliot, The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock

"Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." reported RKO Radio Pictures screen test report on Fred Astaire 

Can we reduce potential, capacity and achievement to a few numbers, however meaningful and validated by scientific research? Does Messi's physique explain why he can be fascinating to watch? I'm sure that there have been earnest explanations of his success on the basis of some physical capacities but equally certain that they don't tell the whole story; they just isolate some features and promote them over others. How about Best? He managed rather little, yet he's remembered as one of the greatest. Which metrics explain his popularity?
Academic life abounds with metrics. Even worse, people take them seriously;  they start from some index of a researcher than from a publication that appeals to them. It's easy to play the game, just like in social media: recirculating trending stuff and connecting to mutual admiration groups does the trick. Having large numbers of PhD students who routinely cite you is quite handy.
My problem is that most heavily cited publications and highly indexed researchers hold little appeal as fundamental sources. They are useful as reference points, as indications of the state of the art, existing tendencies and dominant approaches but they tell little that's new, although this may be an unfortunate side effect of their success. In the end, I have to dig deep to find something I can really learn from. Its metrics are secondary; it's quality primary.

Communication and orthopraxy

Communication and othropraxy

I was listening to the audiobook of a good novel from the beginning of this century while doing something on my smartphone, when the realization struck me. One of the characters in the novel had left a message to another character, announcing a visit. The message was left in an unspecified manner that clearly didn't involve the expectation of confirmation or other direct reaction. If the recipient objected to the visit, he should made it known somehow. That was how we used to communicate before mobile phones and the Internet. In shorter than two decades, new technologies have altered our possibilities but more significantly our attitudes. Communication has become more efficient and transparent but also more demanding: we feel obliged to announce many things and respond to probably even more.

One of the striking things is the multimediality of our communication. Some had expected that the Internet would promote literacy and verbal expression. Others have lauded texting language as a renewal. It turns out that text is less important than they thought. Images and pictorial symbols, from memes to emojis are taking over, turning most forms of communication into something akin to a comic book. Given my love for comic books, I should be glad about this development but I'm rather worried.

The likeness of our communications to comic books is not accidental. There's a combination of economy and expressiveness in comic books that makes them so readable but also rather easy to write (not draw). Telling something in a text, either short or long, can be a daunting task for many. Compiling a comic-book-like sequence of ready-made elements removes much of the difficulty of verbal expression, moreover in a way easily adaptable to the latest vogues - something with obvious appeal to avid users of the new digital media. It's also quite democratic: one doesn't need special skills to use emojis.

The problem is exactly that: it's easy to avoid developing any significant skills in expressing oneself and still be quite active in communication. In many cases, it just amounts to effortless and uncritical use of clichés. People don't learn to write, draw or invent; they just learn to follow.

This reveals a dangerous conflict. On one hand, we are challenging many orthodoxies and asking people to open up their minds, remove prejudices and go beyond old beliefs in order to understand and live harmoniously with each other or to advance science and technology. On the other, we are promoting orthopraxy in most of its forms, not only reducing creativity but also tacitly subjugating thinking to old and new conformities. It's not a new conflict but that it persists despite brave claims about the potential of new technologies for human society is telling.

Dutch balconies

Dutch balconies 

Two Dutch news items on balconies in two days - that must mean something. First, we had a reasonable recommendation to make balconies compulsory for health reasons (https://nos.nl/artikel/2239652-verplicht-balkon-in-zorgwoning-beter-voor-de-gezondheid.html). Then yet another balcony collapsed (https://nos.nl/artikel/2239824-balkon-valt-van-appartement-in-groningen.html).

Neither surprised me: balconies are a luxury item in Dutch architecture (the climate doesn't really favour them but if the weather it's nice ...), therefore are both highly prized and among the stuff that gets easily economized; and if one has seen how balconies are attached to the façade of Dutch buildings (to avoid thermal bridges), it's a miracle that any of them stay up.

The combination is arguably indicative of the inability to achieve the functional and technical performance required in today's society. On the one hand, lifestyle quality has added to the requirements on a building. It's not enough to provide a roof over people's heads; the cost and impact of that roof and the rest that goes with it are such that people rightly ask for better and more. On the other hand, the established solutions may not be good enough: in order to improve thermal performance, stability is jeopardized. Rather than relying on the daily dynamics of temperature change to reduce thermal bridges, architecture seems to have adopted a static, questionable approach.

So, what can one expect from the proposed proliferation of balconies? More disasters? There is a fundamental conflict that remains to be solved.