transparency to life

Where are the Stairs?

on Mar 8, 2010

Often times I’ll walk into a building and find an elevator right by the entrance. I look for stairs but they’re nowhere in sight as they’re typically hidden away at some end of the building. What if it was the other way around? What if the stairs were located right by the entrance of the building while the elevators were hidden off at some far end of the building? People will generally do the more convenient thing, which in this case means taking the stairs. It’s certainly something for building designers to consider.

Here’s another thought on convenience: without a doubt, elevators are convenient to go up multiple stories. But having a fit body is awfully convenient to go up many flights of stairs. And a fit body that uses the stairs helps itself to remain fit.

A strong factor that defeats stair use is social influence. It’s difficult to take the stairs when the friends/colleagues/family you’re with are waiting for the elevator. Why not say something? Even getting one more person on your side is enough to sway the entire group’s decision, and there’s always a possibility that others are willing to take the stairs but are adhering to the group’s default choice to take the elevator. Perhaps if more of us did this, the social norm would be to take the stairs rather than the elevator (I’m sure plenty of places have it like this, and I’m curious to know how these sort of norms developed).

Bonus tip: if you’re looking for the stairs, try following those Exit signs affixed to ceilings. They’ll usually lead you in the right direction.

Dependent on Technology?

on Mar 7, 2010

Some of the naysayers of the generation gap say that the new generation is stupid in becoming dependent on technology. I argue that these folks have fallen into a trap and that it’s the case that this “over-dependence” is occurs in every new generation.

So are people so dependent on Wikipedia that they wouldn’t know where to look for information without it? Are they so dependent on calculators that they can’t do math without them? These are valid questions, but so are these: Are we so dependent on electricity that we wouldn’t be able to get work done without it? The Northeast blackout of 2003 shut down cities.

It’s all too easy to criticize others’ dependence on new technologies while we forget our sheer dependence on other less new technologies. In either case, we should be mindful of the things we take for granted. Our society has grown complex enough that there’s no way, nor any desire, to take off our dependence on many technologies. And technology does allow us to do greater, more incredible things.

So is the current generation of people, adapting to new technology, overly dependent on it? What about the rest of us? Are we not dependent on telephones? Are we not dependent on clean water?

Ease Yourself into Physical Activity, But Be Sure to Sweat

on Mar 6, 2010

So you’d like to get into better shape but perhaps you’re finding it a bit daunting or are concerned with whether you’ll stick with it. If it’s been a while since you’ve done serious (as in, enough to get you sweating and feeling sore afterwards) physical activity , then start off easy. Your body will need to readjust to the motions and intensity. By starting off slow, you minimize the shock factor. If you happen to start off intensely, then your whole body will be utterly sore and things will be very painful. This on its own isn’t a bad thing (assuming no injuries occur from such a drastic change) but you might be less inclined to continue with the training. Now of course this doesn’t mean take it so easy that you don’t break a sweat. You should be pushing it enough to be sweating and feel sore later on. A workout, after all, requires work, though hopefully it’s something you enjoy (or come to enjoy over time, which often happens). Over time, you should ramp up the physical activity as your body (and your attitude if need be) will get used to the change.

Absurd Energy Imbalances

on Mar 5, 2010

We are in the midst of two energy crises. The strange part is that in one crisis, we are running out of energy, while in the other, we have too much energy. The former, obviously, is the global crisis involving oil and renewable energy and yada yada yada. We’ve heard it a million times. We’ve also heard of the other energy crisis as frequently, though not worded as such. It’s the country’s (and beyond’s) ever-growing weight problem! Our fat deposits are really just [very large] pockets of stored energy. There’s constant talk on burning more calories as if it’s an incessant problem that never ends (in a way, it is).

Isn’t it completely outrageous that we face one problem regarding a very limited supply of energy alongside another problem with a seemingly endless supply of energy? Perhaps a good solution would be to wire stationary bikes to the electrical grid and have overweight people pedal all day. I’d advise against that, not because it’s silly (I personally enjoy such silly things) but because that would be approaching the problem backwards.

Rather, there is a way to partially alleviate both problems since a lot of energy usage goes into our food system. Without a doubt, we need to reduce the amount of food produced as the country creates about twice the calories needed by people (some of this is wasted or thrown out but quite a lot ends up in people’s stomach). We ended up with this predicament because players in the food industry have an interest in getting us to buy more and more of their products. And this isn’t an easy problem to tackle as there’s no way to swim up the raging river of interest. Still, it’s something that can go a long way in bettering our health and reducing our demand on energy.

Why Michelle Obama Could Save The Country’s Health

on Mar 4, 2010

Our president is hard at work to help secure the health of Americans. As I’ve discussed before, his ideas don’t stand a chance at being successful if we Americans don’t follow good lifestyle choices. However, the first lady, Michelle Obama, is making excellent strides in promoting better lifestyle through her focus on childhood obesity. Upon moving into the White House, she established a garden to provide fresh, wholesome, nutritious food for her family. This was an extremely symbolic act as it set an example for families in the rest of the country. Recently, she started a campaign called Let’s Moveto encourage parents and kids to eat better and be more physically active. In the video above, she discusses how the health of our children today will determine the cost of healthcare in a decade. She gets it! She understands! It isn’t about the mess with the healthcare system. It’s about how we live. I applaud her greatly on the work she’s doing and I really hope it does reach people to better their lives. For our own sakes, it’s essential to understand that the way we treat ourselves on a day to day basis determines our own health. It determines the load on the healthcare system. It determines how much money we’re putting into it and especially the financial stability of the country.

The Financial Crisis and How We Understand How Things Work

on Mar 3, 2010

The 2008 financial crisis was especially rough because it was so unexpected. This fact raises a couple of interesting points. One is that those within the industry that understood what was really going on were keeping mum as it was in their interest to do so. The other is that so many of our economics experts and whatnot didn’t see this coming. This latter point tells us a lot about how we understand how stuff works.

There are two approaches to understand how any part of the world works. The initial and more accessible manner is to discern patterns from observations without necessarily having an understanding of the underlying mechanisms. This was pretty much the only way humans made sense of the world for most of history. This top-down approach is quick and dirty – immediately useful – and a required process to eventually, if ever, build another method of understanding how something works.

The bottom-up approach is to understand basic mechanisms and build more complex mechanisms from more simpler ones. This approach is very powerful because it works on a system of rules which allows us to make testable predictions. Empirical data, instead of coloring the model, determines whether or not the rules (and their predictions) are valid. This is actually another way of expressing the scientific process.

So a top-down understanding of the workings of a car could mean that you understand that the pedals and steering control the motion of the vehicle and that it requires gasoline to run. This is sufficient knowledge to operate the vehicle. But this doesn’t help you if you’re car begins to malfunction. A bottom-up understanding of machinery inside a car would aid greatly in this case. However, for the sake of efficiency, most of us put trust in specialists that understand cars (auto mechanics) so that we don’t need this knowledge ourselves. Which is fine for this circumstance.

How does this work for understanding something complicated than a car, like the economic system? Surely we have specialists (the “experts” I mentioned in the first paragraph) but what is their approach? For most economists (if not all) it is top-down. They build models from empirical data (and they really do an incredible job of gathering this data). Their models are probably generally accurate but not all the time. The financial meltdown is a very clear, and costly, example of when it is not. So what happened? Well, because top-down understanding is built from empirical data, it possesses the danger of being colored by the data. Over time, the model is tweaked to fit new information, which can bring about even greater surprise if it’s wrong.

So what would be a bottom-up understanding of economics? It’s most certainly difficult to approach it this way; it’s doable though. Since economics is really just social exchange between humans, we can determine a good theory of it if we understand human social behavior. I’ll be sure to discuss this in a future post.

As for our approaches in understanding how things work: each method has its strengths and weaknesses. We should use the top-down approach whenever it is sufficient, as it is very sleek. But we should be mindful of when its disadvantages may spell trouble. Otherwise, a bottom-up approach, if available, proves to be essential.

We’re Great at Adjusting – Use it to Your Advantage

on Feb 25, 2010

We’re actually very good at ‘getting used to things’. Our minds are built to see things in a relative, or comparative, manner rather than on an absolute scale. Our bodies and behaviors also adjust and can change their set-point (much like setting a thermostat) and redefine comfort zones. We’re often not aware of how strongly this works because it takes time, and sometimes a lot of it. Likewise, gradual changes work better than drastic ones since it’s easier and quicker for us to adapt to smaller changes. You can leverage this to reach goals or take comfort in knowing that some challenge will become easier.

So suppose you wanted to eat better. Well if you typically ate processed food and moved on to real food, your body is gonna put up resistance to the change. But only at first. Over time, your mind and your body (including your taste buds) will make the adjustment. At some point, you’ll actually really enjoy your new diet and will become disgusted with process food (this has happened to me and others I know).

There are a couple of things to consider. One is to take things gradually. This limits the mental and physical resistance you’d have to deal with. The other thing is to keep all this in mind and have a proper attitude. Accept that things will take time so you have to keep at it. That things may be uncomfortable but they’ll get easier. Remember that this is progress to reach an respectable goal. And take comfort in knowing you’ll adjust to the new changes and they’ll become your new ‘normal’.

Apparently You ‘Eat Like Olympians’ at McDonalds

on Feb 23, 2010

McDonalds is setting an incredibly bad example with their barrage of commercials for the 2010 Olympics. It’s not surprising for an organization like McDonalds to provide sponsorship for the event but these commercials have crossed a line. The video above shows a series of spots for the Canadian airwaves (a similar set was shown for the US). It’s absolutely ridiculous for these amazing athletes to purport this body-destroying junk. It may be true that some like to eat McDonalds [and occasionally at best if they want to remain competitive]. But the athletes are setting a terrible example for millions of kids, world wide, who idolize them, as one blogger as noted from her personal experience.

There was one commercial that really bugged me: A coach talking to a kids ice hockey team. He said that they played like Olympians today, so today they eat like Olympians. Cut to the shot of them in McDonalds. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is just blatant. And I’m sure it’s a slap to the face to all the Olympic athletes that work so hard to train and take care of their bodies.

All-Around Good Reads on Eating Well and Food Culture

on Feb 21, 2010

Eating well is a confusing mess and much of that is due to bad information purported by self interested parties (more on that in a future post). Fortunately there are a bunch of legitimate resources out there to help you eat better. The NYT Magazine article, Unhappy Meals, blew me away and really got me rethinking the whole notion of eating better. This piece was written by Michael Pollan who has written many other great pieces regarding food culture. One relevant example is In Defense of Food which is an expansion of his NYT Magazine piece.

Another fantastic NYT Magazine piece, written nearly a decade ago, is What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taubes. This piece is striking because it completely upends the notion that fats are the “nutritionary evils” that most people consider them to be. If anything, this article is worth a read because it spurs the kind of thought required to dispel much of the bad advice on eating well.

The following two books are interesting because of their seemingly antagonistic nature. Several reviews for Nina Plank’s Real Food slammed the book for bad advice and the reviewers suggested reading The China Study, by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, instead. Seeing this, I decided to read both and did in fact find a common ground in between them.

In Real Food, Planck argues that foods containing saturated fats and cholesterol are improperly labeled as bad guys and consuming these foods is better than vegan or vegetarian diets. She also argues against “food”, such as soy this and soy that, that imitates other foods.

In The China Study, Campbell argues that the “western diet”, which often put animal products at the center of the plate causes “diseases of affluence” (heart disease and cancer among the biggest of these). Assertions are based on his decades of research that compare diets and disease occurrence between western cultures and traditional cultures (in this case, rural areas in China).

It is very interesting that each of these books addresses the same issue but from opposite ends. Certainly, they both call for eating food that is less processed. Also, they push for food that is closer to what humans ate for hundreds of generations before its transformation in western societies.

There are plenty of other great reads on eating well and our food culture (and I’ll cover some of those in future posts). But I’ve found these five pieces particularly astounding in providing a big-picture view for eating well – between bringing light to the mess of information on how to eat, to the actual process of eating better.

Two Simple Rules to Grow in Whatever You Do

on Feb 18, 2010

These general concepts apply everywhere, from work to physical training to any sort of learning.

1 – Show Up Consistently
Obviously nothing happens if you don’t put the hours in. Less obvious is that you must be a regular. There is a strong correlation between one’s ability in something and the amount of time put into it. Every session adds up, positively for every one you attend an negatively for every one you miss (and more than doubly so for consecutive attended or missed sessions).

2 – Be Conscious in Every Session
Just passively showing up typically brings about slow progress at best. The time put in must be quality time. By constantly and actively evaluating what you do, you find weaknesses and can work on correcting them (this is reminiscent of the scientific process).