The morality of gathering Facebook information

A recently story about HR reps requesting Facebook login credentials caused a bit of an uproar recently.  There's a lot that can be said about this, but here are some of my thoughts, focusing on why HR representatives may be tempted to gain that knowledge and then addressing why it is immoral for them to do so by requesting the login credentials.  I don't let the job candidates off the hook though, as I believer their sharing of the login credentials is also immoral.  Well... here are my brief thoughts.  What do you think?

Generally speaking, the more information we gather about a specific context, the more accurate our judgments in that context.  And the more information we gather about the other individual, the better we can evaluate their trustworthiness.  In business transactions, the establishment of trust is a major condition for trade.  To trade, information must be shared by both parties to establish trust.  In terms of privacy, this means that some personal information may have to be shared to establish a trusting relationship with our trading partners.  This is obviously context specific, as not all personal information is relevant.  Depending on the type of trade, however, different amounts of information may be required.  A security firm, for example, may want to much more detailed knowledge of their job candidates to ensure those potential employees do not violate the high levels of trust required for the job.  That's why some background checks require interviews of a job candidate's family and friends.  So I can make a case that under certain circumstances, a business may want to know how a person behaves on Facebook.  How they obtain that information however is another matter.

This sharing of information is often context specific.  People share information differently, sharing differing types of information and with differing expectations for confidentiality.   Unless it is established prior to the sharing of information, it is impossible to know what information others deem confidential.  On Facebook, it is impossible to know what posts by what people were shared with the expectation that ONLY their friends would see it.  If you indiscriminately share those posts with others, you may be violating a confidential communication.  Letting someone have your login credentials is unjust because you are gaining an unearned friendship.  You are not keeping potentially confidential communications private.  The HR rep is putting job candidates in an unjust position by asking for those login credentials.  They are directly challenging the integrity of the job candidate.

Tenacity in Goal Pursuit

I just finished watching this great video on how to tenaciously pursue difficult goals.

 

There is really little have I have to add to what Dr. Hsieh mentions, except perhaps to expand on one of her suggestions - the usefulness of sharing your goals with others.  Amongst many entrepreneurs and business owners, the concept of a master mind group essentially performs the same purpose.  I don't like the name, but the concept is sound and I have been using it myself over the past year.  Essentially, in a master mind group, you gather together a group of 2-5 individuals with similar goals and regularly discuss progress towards those goals.  It informally creates a system of accountability.  There have been months where, before we met, I start feeling rather sheepish because I did not complete the goals I had set for myself.  Knowing that I was to meet and discuss my failure prompted me to get my butt in gear and actively work in ernest. 

I really liked her disclaimer at the beginning though, about how tenacity is important, but only if you have the right goals.  Tenacity toward bad goals is still bad.  One of the reasons I have written so much about goal setting is because I realize just how important the selection of goals is to a happy, successful life.

What I learned from Power Rangers

Over the past couple months, my two oldest kids have been obsessed with Power Rangers.  Little did I know, there are over 20 seasons worth of Power Rangers available on Netflix streaming.  And my kids are determined to see every last episode.  While they have been watching, I have overheard more than I cared to hear, but I've observed a few things about the shows that seem worthy of sharing (in no particular order):

1) Evil really is quite ridiculous.
2) When surrounded by a bunch of bad guys, knowing some kung fu can help you kick their butts!
3) The good is worth fighting for.
4) The battle for good is sometimes a long fight.
5) You don't need a large budget show to impress 4 and 5 year olds.
6) If you misplace your priorities, the good suffers and evil triumphs.
7) Friends are important for fighting evil.
8) It doesn't matter what color your friends are (blue, green, black, pink, etc.).
9) When evil seems larger than life, you can match it with your own larger-than-life tricks (my personal favorite is logic).
10) Mean people suck.

With lessons like these, I have no problems letting my kids watch the show - all 20 seasons of this show.

IT business value density

While struggling today with an article I'm writing on IS evaluation and Objectivist Ethics, I integrated two ideas that have been on my mind lately, IT business value and value dense living.  If value density is the principle that individuals should seek to maximize values gained from their actions and resources by rationally evaluating synergies across goals and objectives, then IT business value density would be the principle that organizations should seek to maximize values gained from their IT resources and IT activities by rationally evaluating synergies across business goals and objectives.  I believe this concept would help to explain a number of issues in IS evaluation literature, including the productivity paradox, IT infrastructure investments, IT infrastructure flexibility, IT adoption and diffusion problems, and political issues in the evaluation process. There are probably more issues to discuss, but this is just a start to my brainstorming.  However, I can see enough value in this concept to warrant a massive review article for MISQ.  It would require a ton of work and would likely require a co-author or two.  But the reward would be immense.  And all of these issues can be tied to Rand's theory of ethics - at least I see the road map in my mind, I just need to translate it onto paper.

While this could be an exciting paper, I'm struck by the notion that I would virtually have to scrap my existing IS evaluation paper to write about this new concept.  But then again, I'm struggling with my existing paper because I lack a clear take-away.  As one researcher put it, there has to be a "so what?" moment.  I don't have that yet.  And I'm hesitant to put forward half baked article because other researchers will immediately pick up on that and slam the article (as they should) along with possibly Objectivism and me (as I do not want).  So unless I can find my hook soon (other than IT business value density), I may have to put the current article on hold and divert my energies elsewhere.

Reading my kid's mind

This weekend I luckily turned a bad situation into a good one.  It all started when my two oldest kids were playing in the Family Room.  "A" my oldest is a 5 1/2 year old boy who loves to play with other people.  "B" my daughter is 4, loves her big brother, but sometimes gets really pissed at him.  "A" grabbed on of "B"s stuffed animals and proceeded to abuse it, so "B" left the room crying.

After I heard her whimpering down in the basement, I went to go check on her and comfort her.  After she settled down a bit, we agreed to play with her play-dough together.  Then along comes "A".  He came down and asked "B" if he could play too.  She was still mad at him, so she said no.  "A", not letting someone else's answer stop him, proceeded to keep bugging "B" to see if she would let him play now (as if waiting 1.5 seconds between each request makes a difference).  I asked him to find something else to play with as she had clearly made her wishes clear.  He refused and ended up squishing one of her play-dough designs.  At this point, I requested he leave the room and escorted him back up stairs.  That's when things starting deteriorating even more. He refused to stay up stairs and I refused to let him back down because I was afraid he would continue to annoy his sister.  Stalemate!

Then I realized something.

I asked him "You really want to play with your sister don't you?"
A: Crying "Yes"
Me: "And you don't like it that she doesn't want to play with you?"
A: Still crying "No"
Me:  "I have an idea.  Why don't you write a note to your sister saying you're sorry?  Maybe then she'll want to play with you again."
A:  Short silence. "Would you get me a sheet of paper?"

I did!  FAST!  And about a minute later, he came down with his note, cut out in the shape of a heart and handed it too her.  It read "Im sre that I smosed yor plado"  (I'm sorry that I smooched your playdough).  "B" read the note (with my help interpreting), and A and B were best friends again.  Problem solved!

All I had to do was read my son's mind.  Luckily, I know him really well.  I know that he's a people person and loves his sister to death.  I know that he would do whatever is necessary to play with her, but that sometimes he just doesn't know how to articulate his thoughts.  It wasn't until I realized his problem that we were able to solve our stalemate.

Now if only I can remember this the next time...

What is racism and Why the Tea Party is Not

The other day, I wrote a series of comments on a friend's blog about the nature of racism - as I was having a serious problem with his notion that the Tea Party movement is racist.  His comments helped me to think through the issue and better understand our different definitions of racism.  So I'm reposting some of my comments here:

I think we can define racism simply as a type of discrimination based on race. Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. For example, I am very discriminating on who are my friends and who I trust to care for my kids. It is a stupid thing to discriminate based on inessentials, like race. It is an evil thing to promote discrimination of inessentials as law. That's why most racism discussions center on laws and regulations that are designed to negatively impact certain races.

But here's an important differentiation - its not just "negative impact" that defines racism, its legislation that is "designed" to "negatively impact" other races. There must be intent. Without intent, you merely have a law. Perhaps a bad law for other reasons, but not a racist law. So the poll tax and Jim Crow laws can be considered racist because history shows us that the intention for creating the laws were to keep blacks downtrodden.

If you want to show that the Tea Party is racist, you need to likewise show that their intent is to discriminate based on race.

He disagreed that a label of racism implies intent, so I elaborated:

By my definition of racism as a type of discrimination, I'm not sure I could agree that it is something un/sub conscious. The act of discrimination is conscious in nature. I differentiate that from prejudice, which is a conscious or subconscious bias toward some person, group, or class of things without knowing all the facts. You seem to favor prejudice by race as the definition of racism. I favor discrimination by race as the definition of racism.

The reason I favor the latter definition is that the former seems to overly broad and not all that useful. Certainly people have prejudices and they should be careful to eliminate them the best they can. But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse. I could say (and I don't believe this) "Curtis is racist but he doesn't even realize it". I think it cheapens the concept racist to include honest but real prejudices with insidious racial discrimination. Basically, it tries to lump simple biases that may not be consciously chosen with wicked mob lynchings, classifying all under an "evil" tag of racism. That does an injustice to those who may not even want their bias and an injustice to those who deserve the label of "evil" but have it watered down.

After writing this, I imagined some examples that seem appropriate here.  If racism is merely a bias toward or against another race, than any preference/bias/likes/dislikes of anything related to skin color/nationality/origin could be considered racism; a preference for Cuban music is racist, liking German food is racist, choosing sushi over spaghetti is racist, marrying a white woman is racist, or thinking that the Russian language is harsh is racist.  The whole idea that racism is slippery and insidious would make it applicable to everyone with any preferences.

Curtis asked in turn:

"The act of discrimination is conscious in nature."

How? I think that's an untenable position. We now have data that toddlers choose light skinned dolls over dark skinned dolls regardless of the race of the child. Are you saying that is a conscious decision even though toddlers have no conceptualization of race?

I'm not familiar with this research, but if true could be caused by any number of things.  But I seriously doubt this is a conscious decision and hence not discrimination.  According to OED, the definition of discriminate is "1. To make or constitute a difference in or between; to distinguish, differentiate. 2. To distinguish with the mind or intellect; to perceive, observe, or note the difference in or between."  It is in this sense that I use the word discrimination.  Making, constituting, perceiving, observing, and noting are all conscious processes. So no, I would not consider these children racist (discriminating based on race).  But according to his own conception of racism, they would be, which leads me a little bit confused by his question.

Curtis also asks:

"But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse."

If they're racist, then they should be called racist, no? And what recourse would there be? I don't get that part. It seems you have an idea of trying someone in court to determine if they're racist or not. I might be reading too much into it though.

Without recourse refers to the appeal to innocence.  If someone is labeled racist, how would it be possible to disprove that claim?  When the definition of racism is any prejudice toward a race, the answer is - you can't.  There is no evidence that would prove someone is not prejudice, because, as he describes it, the concept is slippery and insidious.  Even Curtis admits as much in the last paragraph of his post "So is there "evidence" or "proof" that the Tea Party is racist? No." If there is no proof they are racist, then there can also be no proof they are not racist, because you can't disprove a negative.  Once the label of racism is thrown at a person or a group, it is impossible to overcome that label.

That, I contend, is a improper way to define the term.  As I noted above, pretty much anyone can be described as racist according to his definition.  Any preferences toward one race over another, whether intentional or not, then you would be racist.  But if everyone is "racist", then I'm left with a big "So what?"  If everyone has these preferences, then everyone simply exists. 

The only idea I can fathom that would motivate this definition of racism is the possibility that biases and prejudices left unchecked could lead to discrimination. This certainly has some plausibility, especially given the anti-conceptual nature of much of our culture.  However, I certainly don't buy that certain biases and prejudices necessarily lead to discrimination.  There is a possibility, no more.  Individuals can consciously identify racial discrimination and reject it, even if certain biases led them to prefer one race or tradition over another.  They can prefer the culture of whites (or blacks), yet consciously choose not to discriminate against another race because they know its wrong.  They could judge each person they meet individually, as a man or woman, not a black man or a white woman or an Asian man or a Middle eastern woman or whatever their background may be.  Where would this situation fit in with his definition?  I don't know, but I would like to find out.

Based on all the evidence I've seen, the Tea Party is not racist.  There may be a few racists that support the group, but nearly every instance where racists have shown up to Tea Party events, the organizers have marginalized their voice or kicked them out.  The Tea Party did rise after Obama came into power, but only after he proceeded to push government spending beyond what even Bush was doing.  Most Tea Partiers were mad at Bush and the Republicans for their spending.  That's why the Tea Party refuses to identify with the Republicans.  Obama promised something different.  Instead, he gave us any even bigger debt.  Of the Tea Party supporters I've talked too, not one has mentioned any sort of intent to hurt or dis-impoverish blacks.  Not one has suggested that they dislike Obama because he his black.  They dislike Obama because he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007.  Maybe, just maybe, people dislike him because of that?  Perhaps the policies they advocate are because they are genuinely worried about our debt, not because they secretly want to hurt some group of people.  Perhaps they think and don't just feel.

I do offer limited approval of the Tea Party.  I believe they are a mixed bag, but mostly good.  They could really improve with a heavy dose of a philosophy respecting individual rights. 

Auburn's Symbol of Victory

Yesterday, very disturbing news hit the airways in Auburn, Alabama.  Someone poisoned the oak trees on Auburn University campus.  Not just any oak trees, but the 130 year old oak trees at Toomer's Corner.  The oak trees that after every significant Auburn sports victory, would be mobbed by ecstatic fans who would decorate the trees with rolls of toilet paper.  Then, fans would celebrate the win for hours after.  The destruction of these trees was an act of hatred of the good for being good.

The trees were more than just a gathering place for celebrating.  They became a symbol.  A symbol of victory. A symbol of achievement. A symbol of pride.  Whenever alumni return to Auburn (myself included), they always visit Toomer's Corner to get a glimpse of that symbol and remind themselves that Auburn is a place where the good is still considered good.

And some pathetic man decided to destroy that symbol.  Don't buy into his claim that he killed the tree over a 30 year old grudge.  Whether his claim is true or not, the claim long ago lost any legitimacy.  No, what this man did was out of pure envy and hatred of the good.  Consider his timing... Alabama, who early in the season was rated tops in the nation, was defeated by Auburn right before he committed his act.  Auburn, who went on to win the 2010 BCS National Championship, displayed the height of achievement in college football.  And Auburn fans rightly celebrated that achievement.  Consider his target... he didn't target just any trees at Auburn.  He didn't target the stadium where the games are played.  He didn't even target the players or students (thank God).  Instead, he targeted the symbol of success.  The symbol of good.  And consider his method... it wasn't done in full day light, proud of this destruction, but done discretely in the dead of night.  This man displayed envy and hatred.  And it wasn't just fan rivalry.

In sports, fans can become bitter rivals.  For many people, it involves light-hearted mocking and taunting.  For some, it even includes cheering when a rival team loses.  Occasionally, fans become overly impassioned and start fights or perform stupid pranks.  But  to stoop to the level of destroying a rival's symbol of success involves depth of hatred that goes beyond pure rivalry.  As Ayn Rand said:

"Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good." ~ Ayn Rand, "The Age of Envy"

This man is the embodiment of envy.  He hated the good because it was good.  What he did was viscous, unconscionable, and unforgivable.  If indeed he is the guilty one, he deserves whatever he finds in jail.

But I will not end on a note of sadness.  Instead, let us re-live one of the greatest moments in Auburn history - the celebration of the BCS national championship at Toomer's Corner.  Let this be our memory.  Let us always celebrate the good for being good.

Selfish Giving

A couple weeks back, someone on Facebook sent me a notice that it was national philanthropy day, expecting, I assume, that I do not give to others.  Oh, but she is wrong.  I give to people, but I do so in a very selfish manner.

Case 1: 
My cousin, unfortunately, has gone through a really tough time the past few years after a fire broke out in her house just before Christmas.  She and her husband were not hurt and were insured.  The insurance company told her to replace what she lost and that they would repay her.  Several years later, the ins. company still has not paid them back.  While this is now in court, they are hurting financially.  Well, guess what... she is now pregnant.  Now my cousin is one of my favorite people in the world.  She is absolutely wonderful - friendly, caring, considerate, rational, productive.  I always have a good time talking with her.  So what have I done?  I've donated much of our baby stuff to her.  Stroller, baby seats, baby toys, bottle warmer, etc.  Anything we could strap to the roof of our car when we drove down to visit them last Thanksgiving.  I didn't do this for any selfless reasons.  I did this because I want to see her and her family do well in life - because that will bring me joy!  The only moral obligation I have to do this is that I value my friendship with her.

Case 2:
When we first moved to Michigan, I emailed a young man just starting his PhD at Univ. of Michigan to ask him about the OAC.  As a PhD student living far from his family, we realized that he probably doesn't get many home cooked meals.  So we regularly have him over to our house for dinner.  That's right, we have fed a poor college student many, many times and not asked for anything in return (nor will we).  I might have said we asked for his friendship in return, but even that is not something we ask for - he freely gives it.  Why do we do this?  Because we love talking with him.  Alex is an incredible guy - extremely bright, honest, hard working, independent, passionate, and happy.  He shares a bunch of similar interests with my wife and me - SciFi, physics, camping, Objectivism, PhD programs, good food, good beer, a distaste for tyranny, etc.  He likes playing with our kids and our dog.  We couldn't have asked for a better friend.  So, yes, we give him our beer and cook him meals and we are happier because of it.

So, in the spirit of Christmas, I encourage everyone to give to those people they love.  Do it until you are fully happy, but no more.

Developing habits

I have been reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin the past couple weeks.  Great book, by the way, written by the man how signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the peace treaty with France, created a success printing business, owned a newspaper, printed and sold Poor Richard’s Almanac for 25 years, discovered lightening was made of electricity, invented the Franklin stove, helped many young men start printing businesses in multiple cities, and dined with a King.  Part of his prodigious productivity stems from his approach to developing good habits.  In his book, he states that he identified thirteen virtues that he deemed appropriate and then each day kept written record of success and failure at maintaining those virtues.  Then, a week at a time, he would focus on improving one of the virtues in his every day dealings – 13 weeks to cycle through all the virtues, repeated 4 times a year.  This idea of regular self-reflection and focus on improvements is witnessed in a variety of self-help books since that time, including the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Reading Franklin’s book and a conversation I recently had with a good friend of mine, made me realize that I can do much more to improve my habits such that I can accomplish my goals more effectively.  To that end, I am considering how to implement the habit of self-reflection for the goal of self-improvement.  Like Franklin, I recognize that this needs to be a daily practice.  For it to work, I need to find a regular time and place to review.  It would be great if I could include my family in on this, just not sure how to implement so that we all could gain value from it.  Maybe start every morning off with a discussion on how to make today a “Great” day and get them to start thinking, not so much about specific goals and activities, but behaviors that will make the day great (not that thinking about specific goals is a bad thing).  But ideally, I should not get any grandiose ideas about developing a self-reflection system.  The bigger it is, the harder it will be for me to develop the habit quickly.  If I start small and work at improving the system over time, the greater chance it will be a success.

What type of habits do I want to focus on in myself?  Here’s a start to the list in no particular order:

• Independence
• Principled living
• Justice
• Purpose driven
• Conscientious
• Self-Efficacious
• Productiveness

A lesson in consequences

Today, my son learned an important lesson about breaking things.  Shortly after I arrived home from work, I changed clothes and went in the back yard to play with my kids.  Thomas, in his usual act before he thinks temperament, decided to go to the front yard, take one of pumpkins destined for carving and bring it to the back yard.  He then proceeded to toss the pumpkin from the deck multiple times until it broke in two.

We had bought three pumpkins for three kids so each could carve one for Halloween.  Since Thomas broke one of those, the only just consequence I could see was that he would be unable to carve a pumpkin.  I told him this and of course he broke down sobbing.  After a couple minutes and brief conversation with my wife, we came up with an alternative.  He could choose not to carve a pumpkin or he could pay for a new pumpkin from his own money.  He, of course, did not like this choice.  After crying for a couple minutes and tackling his sister out of frustration, he stormed up to his room.  We did not hear from him in almost ten minutes.  Worried that he was venting is frustrations in a silently destructive manner (not an unknown with Thomas), I went up to see how he was doing. He had closed his bedroom door and moved his toy chest in front of it.  When I tried to open it, he yelled at me that he wanted to be left alone.  So I let him have his space.  About ten minutes later, Thomas came down stairs and handed me the money for a new pumpkin!  BREAKTHROUGH!!!  He finally, finally, finally accepted responsibility for his behavior.  He had gone upstairs to think and he (as far as I can tell) realized he was at fault for the smashed pumpkin.  He was willing to forgo a new toy in order to replace the pumpkin.  When he came down, he did not complain any more and wanted to go with me to the grocery store to pick a new one. 

All in all, a good end to what could have been an ugly day.

Proactionary principles - an antidote to the precautionary principle?

As Objectivists have noted in the past, the precautionary principle is at odds with rational living.

Precautionary principle:

"If an action or policy has a suspected risk or harm, without scientific consensus that their will be no harm, then the burden of proof lies with those advocating an action or policy."

In Europe, this principle is ingrained in the law.  Many environmentalist are pushing hard to see it implemented in the United States.  As a principle, it negates technological advancement until 100% certainty is obtained.  That is simply impossible to achieve.  The entire notion of scientific consensus is an abdication of rational thought in a field where rational thought is essential.

Philosopher and futurist Max More offers an alternative, Proactionary principle:

"People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictive measures are proposed: Assess risks and opportunities according to available science, not popular perception. Account for both the costs of the restrictions themselves, and those of opportunities foregone. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have a high expectation value. Protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress."

Although More's discussion is a bit rambling, I believe he is on to something significant.  Its a principle that accepts and combines the virtues of rationality and productivity.  It also sounds similar to an approach to the unknown that Peikoff discusses in one of his pod casts (I can't recall which one).

That being said - I am reluctant to tout the More horn.  More has shown a marked deficiency in understanding Objectivism, accepting many of the falsehoods perpetrated by the Brandens and their ilk.

Value-dense life

Updated and expanded at Reason for Success.

Business ethics research

Last weekend, I attended the academic conference Decision Sciences Institute's annual meeting.  There I presented a paper detailing my research in ethics.  I also attended a couple other sections within the business ethics track and came away very dismayed.

Here is a sampling of the research:
In one paper, the author argued that executive pay is too high.  Her solution?  When hiring new CEOs in weak companies, offer the CEO a high salary the first year that progressively diminishes ever year there after.  I couldn't think of a worse "solution".  CEOs would have no motivation for long term return, only a very short sighted view of corporate turn around.  After a year, CEOs would likely look elsewhere for employment. The expense of trying to find a new CEO every year would actually increase CEO pay over the long run, not decrease it.

In another paper, the title seemed to start in the right direction, questioning bribery in undeveloped and developing countries.  However, throughout the presentation the presenter never questioned the underlying cause of bribery.   And so, the presenter tried to justify the "relationship" between business and government, ultimately destroying her argument against bribery.  She did not understand that the government should be a protector of individual property rights, not the regulator of property. 

In another paper, the authors condemned the accounting profession for various fraud cases made public recently.  They argued that accountants conducting external audits on companies should include fraud detection services.  Now, fraud detection is generally a good thing.  However, their arguments rested on the notion that fraud detection would serve the "public good".  That's complete nonsense.  Their argument would have been much stronger if they had appealed to the selfish board of directors, on behalf of the shareholders, demanding fraud detection from external audits.

There were a few snarly comments about selfishness.  But all-in-all, my paper was positively received, in part because I merely introduced a means of measuring selfishness and selflessness, but didn't argue for or against any one perspective.  My long term goal being the demonstration of utilizing various ethical perspectives when making decisions and the ultimate consequence. 

Your feelings are illegal

Last night, my wife and I watched Equilibrium again.  The premise behind the movie is that the people of the near future decide that feelings lead to war, and to avoid war, feelings must be suppressed.  A drug is administered to help suppress those emotions.  Any individual that exhibits any emotion is guilty of "sensing" and is condemned to death.

It struck me, as I was watching this movie, that this may represent the Kantian ideal of "Pure Reason".  I'm by no means an expert on Kant's philosophy and have only read a smattering of his works, so anyone that can correct me, please do.  Kant sees reason has somehow separate from reality.  Accordingly, reason does not have all the messy details of human consciousness, nor the smattering complexities of emotions.  Reason, according to Kant, deals just with abstract ideas and their relationship with one another.

From this premise, Kant argues in his tomb on ethics, that personal values are irrelevant.  This makes sense when we consider that values first originate from our ability to feel.  As children, most of our values are based on pleasure and pain.  But as we age, the concepts of value become increasing more abstract, forming as adults a hierarchy of values that (hopefully) is based objectively in reality.  If, as Kant argues, feelings mess up pure reason, than anything based on feelings should be suppressed.  Our values are a manifestation of our feelings.  Therefore, our values should be suppressed.  This leads Kant to advocate altruism as the ethical ideal.

In the movie, there are hints of the altruist ideal and a profound lack of individuality within this society.  Art, music, and color are missing from the world and any found are immediately destroyed. There is no love, no friendships, and no social interaction.  Everything is for the "father".

What really scares me about this movie is that it is not that far off from reality.  Consider the criminalization of "hate", that has gained so much popularity lately. You know, we can't let these evil feelings out in the public.  Gotta suppress them.  Or rather...maybe we oughta consider the consequences of following Kant's philosophy.  And instead of criminalizing feelings or thoughts, let's live.  Let's live rationally, objectively, and with pride.

Productivity with kids

"The virtue of productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself." - Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

For many years, I built my obsessive drive to be super productive into my norm for living. I worked 40-50 hours a week at a job, then came home and worked another 20-40 hours on side projects. When all of the work was done, I pursued intensive play. Rarely was there a dull moment.

With kids, this all changed. I still have that drive while I'm at work, but that's only 40 or so hours a week. But at home, I now find myself watching more TV, playing fewer games, and wondering what I can do to keep busy. I have even caught myself using the kids as an excuse not to do work around the house that needs to be done.

It is easy to fall into these patterns because kids do require lots of attention and the minute I decide to do something, my kids are immediately demanding attention. I can be sitting in the same room with them - saying nothing, doing nothing - but immediately after the phone rings or immediately after I step out of the room to do some work, they are following me and demanding attention. Sometimes they want to help with work, which is great, except they usually do not know how to do the work. Teaching them makes every job go much slower. And even if I teach them, they still have troubles completing jobs to my standards. So often I'm left thinking, "let me just do it myself." And since I can't do it myself when they are around, it waits until they go to bed or they start entertaining themselves in another room.

There is a different way of viewing productivity with children, however. I see it and am trying redirect my energies to see it to fruition. I still can be super productive, but what I'm being productive with has changed. It is no longer just the immediate goal at hand. With kids, there are now two end products. The first is the project itself - sweeping the floors, cleaning the dishes, building a birdhouse, raking the leaves, designing a garden, planting a garden, weeding a garden, etc. The second end is my child's growth into an autonomous man (or woman as the case may be) - to help them learn the skills and virtues necessary to live happy and successful lives. This new perspective on productivity is more akin to being a coach or manager.

As with managers and coaches, being productive does not mean doing the technical work yourself. Being productive as a manager or coach means working as hard as you can to give others the capabilities and opportunities to excel with the task at hand. An effective manager does not do all the work himself. Instead he delegates. If an employee does not know what to do, it is the managers job to ensure the employee learns the skills necessary by either showing them himself or sending the employee to training. If an employee does not have the necessary tools to do a job, its the managers job to acquire the tools. The manager must also review the work of the employee to ensure the objectives were met with the predefined quality standards. Occasionally a manager may have to settle disputes among employees, but an effective manager does it in a way that enables the employees to settle their own disputes in the future. The goal should be positive discipline.

As a parent, being super productive is very similar. A parent must work hard to give their children the capabilities and opportunities to excel at the child's only job. That job is to learn and grow into a self-sufficient, rational, productive, and happy adult. Being productive for a parent means not letting the background control your life, such as letting the care of your children stop you from the care of your house. Nor letting the current skills of your children stop you from encouraging them to learn new skills. Rather, being productive means changing the background - helping your children to grow in skills, to accomplish projects, to become more autonomous, and to develop into the self-sufficient, rational, productive, happy adults that all children have the potential to be. With this new vision of productivity, it is much easier for me to be satisified with my productivity at home by focusing on coaching and managing, rather than focusing on traditional ideas of productivity that have defined my life.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

It really is amazing how students expect grades to magically appear. Today, I had a student come by my office worried about his final grade in my class. He currently holds a D-. He needs at least a C- to graduate this semester. Because he is an international student, staying another semester may not be an option. He tells me this sob story in apparent hopes I'll take leniency on him and give him an unearned grade. I tell him, your grade is what it is because of you past behavior. I cannot fake a grade for you. My integrity forbids me for giving out unearned grades. If I caved with him, I could not face any other student asking for a higher grade and tell them that their grade means something. I could not face any employer asking why a student who graduated from our program does not have the basic knowledge that my class purports to teach. And yet, here he is, requesting me to destroy my integrity for the sake of his future. The gall!

But wait, there's more! The main reason why he has such a low grade is in part because he cheated on the first exam, which I caught and gave him and his fellow cheaters all zeros. He's lucky I did not pursue it further, but I was stuck in a place where pursuing it further may have required superhuman effort, something I'm unfortunately in short supply of. So while he's begging for a higher grade, he brings up the fact that his grade may be much higher if he had not received a zero for his cheating. Well, yeah, his grade would have been much higher. Perhaps next time, he will not cheat. The entire conversation rested on his assumption that his grade was arbitrary and could be changed by me at any time. He refused to take responsibility for his actions, which directly led to his grade. I must have said 4 times "your grade is what it is." Followed by silence.

If there is one thing I may change in the future, it will be to make it more clear that he has earned the grade.

Imaginary Problems

In response to a problem posed by Jaisen Mathai, a Yahoo engineer, TechCrunch offered a solution. But is the problem real? The problem is stated as:

What can we do with failed startup intellectual property that might help the community?

In expanding on this problem, they state:

But there’s a problem: all this intellectual property is still “property” and is owned by someone, even after a startup goes bankrupt. If the company has raised any venture capital, or has any creditors, they own the property after the bankruptcy. In a very few instances that IP is sold off to return some money to creditors. This is exactly what happened with Edgeio, for example, a company that I co-founded and which failed late last year. Most of the IP assets were sold to third parties, and the proceeds went to pay off those who were entitled to the assets. [emphasis added]

The formulation of the problem is wrong from the start. There is no problem with intellectual property being owned. In fact if it wasn't owned, its unlikely it would have been created in the first place (open source software being the exception). But the intellectual property was created for one and only one purpose, to create value and wealth that did not exist prior. What TechCrunch implicitly assume in the formation of the problem is that intellectual property is not real property to begin with.

Later TechCrunch offers a solution:

But I can see how this could change. Creditors and investors could agree up front, via a standard clause added to agreements, that any IP that isn’t obviously valuable on its face would be turned over to a third party for a quick analysis and determination of its value (financial and otherwise). That third party could decide to sell anything of value, keeping a percentage of the sale (and giving them an incentive to find value when it’s there), and simply release the code for anything that may be interesting but has little immediate commercial value.

That third party would need to be funded, though, and the income from asset sales probably wouldn’t cover the operating expenses. Perhaps this would be a good project for a university, or group of universities, to support. Student developers and faculty may find academic reasons to pursue it. And they would certainly be giving back to the community as well. [Emphasis added]

I applaud the use of private organizations to facilitate the transfer of intellectual assets from failed startups to new organizations. However, if the value from the sale of intellectual property is so low, why waste time with this third party? Why fund something that offers so little value. If these assets are so easy to recreate, where is the problem?

The answer is that there is no problem. This is exactly how markets work. Sometimes, things of value get abandoned. But more often, businesses are aware of the value of their assets and attempt to squeeze every dollar from it. Whether or not a business wants to donate assets that are worthless to them to some non-profit organization is a legitimate suggestion, but certainly not one that should occupy the minds of most start-ups nor most creditors. Often, it simply isn't worth it.

Justice

I learned an important lesson recently. And that is not to let anyone attack the things you value without setting it straight immediately. Below is an email I sent to a former friend (name's have been changed to protect those I value):

"Since you have been a friend of mine for so long, you at least deserve an explanation about why I'm pissed. The proverbial straw that broke the camels back was your insult of Sam a couple months back. While you have always been respectful to me, at least to my face, you have demeaned virtually all the people I hold dear. And that is something I should I have never allowed.

"From something as simple as a movie review, you found a way to (first) insult another one of my friends. Sam's insults were a reaction to yours. If this were an isolated experience I would certainly be more supportive, especially considering the stress you were under, but its not. I don't think I have single friend left that you haven't insulted in some form or fashion, even if you don't remember doing so.
Besides labeling Sam a closed-minded liberal (he is neither), you have insulted Brian by refusing to go camping with us because he's gay. As if his character was somehow compromised by his gayness. In an argument with Sandra, you called her naive. If you think Sam questioned your intelligence, what does calling Sandra naive mean? I laughed about it at the time, but in hindsight, I don't think its very funny. In fact I'm disappointed with myself for not doing something about it at the time. You've claimed all of my philosophy club friends are 'elitist' for believing that our education system is seriously flawed and has tons of room for improvement. As I agree 100% with them, I can only assume that title applies to me as well. I nearly told you to go "f" yourself after that incident. And to top it off, you insulted Isaac by refusing to go to Todd's wedding after Isaac offered to pay your way. Yet oddly enough your main beef with Isaac and Todd was that they were too cheap to buy you any gifts or (as I believe you said) pay for your way to the wedding. I can understand being broke, but to tell me you were unhappy with them for being cheap and not wanting to make an effort to go because of that, yet then turn down a gift from them too go, smacks of hypocrisy.

"Beyond the insults, lately you cast everything I say or do in the worst light. I feel like I have to watch everything I say around you or else I might offend. Its not
something I enjoy. I don't have this feeling with any of my other friends. After my trip home last January, you immediately assumed I had the worst intentions when we were unable to hook up. And then, with our argument over Sam, you say I was playing favorites because you think I apologized for your behavior when I did not. How quickly you forget I was defending/explaining your statement about moral/political movies just a few days earlier. You jumped to conclusions about my motives and never asked if your impressions or judgments were correct. In all our years of arguments, it's rare if ever that you try to understand my point of view.
I've put more effort into maintaining a friendship with you than any other friend. Why? Because I believed there was still some value in maintaining a relationship, even if it was limited to just a gaming buddy.

"Perhaps I've become less tolerant lately, but you've shown a pattern of behavior that pains me down to my soul. Insulting my friends and treating me as if I'm guilty until proven innocent is not something I can stand. I have spent so many years as your friend that this was not an easy realization to accept, but the facts are what they are and I cannot ignore them. You may not agree with everything I have said, or even remember saying them, but that doesn't change the effective result. And
that is a disappointment so deep, I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

"For better or worse, I decided to wait to tell you this until after your wedding and after you recovered from your surgery. I had to say my piece or say nothing at all. "

Coming to this conclusion was by no means easy emotionally, but necessary intellectually. I had been friends with him since junior high and had spent a great deal of time playing games, talking politics, and just hanging out. Yet, I could not escape the fact that his behavior was unjust. The insults listed above are insults because they were untrue. Yet he felt he was entitled to his opinion without consequences. Therefore he could say anything he wanted. Well, when you attack people and things that are of value to me, then you attack me. What and who I value is a large part of who I am. I cannot sit back and say nothing while my friends are unjustly insulted.

At least I have gained a much deeper understanding and appreciation of justice due to this unfortunate loss of a friend.

Sony's maliciousness

An ongoing story about Sony's Digital Rights Management (DRM) software that installs with some Sony CDs has created a fire-storm of protest. I, like many people, believe Sony has a right to control the copying of copyrighted material. There is no argument there. But the DRM software that Sony uses is never mentioned in the EULA, nor was there a method for uninstalling the software. Worst of all is the fact that the program hides some of its own files, opening up security risks.

This story was first uncovered by Mark Russinovich on Oct 31 of this year, where he does a brilliant job outlining the specific steps he used to uncover the rootkit. In a follow up article, Mark levels these specific complaints against Sony:
********************

• Sony denies that the rootkit poses a security or reliability threat despite the obvious risks of both
• Sony claims that users don't care about rootkits because they don't know what a rootkit is
• The installation provides no way to safely uninstall the software
• Without obtaining consent from the user Sony's player informs Sony every time it plays a "protected" CD

Sony has told the press that they've made a decloaking patch and uninstaller available to customers, however this still leaves the following problems:

• There is no way for customers to find the patch from Sony BMG's main web page
• The patch decloaks in an unsafe manner that can crash Windows, despite my warning to the First 4 Internet developers
• Access to the uninstaller is gated by two forms and an ActiveX control
• The uninstaller is locked to a single computer, preventing deployment in a corporation

Consumers and antivirus companies are responding:

• F-Secure independently identified the rootkit and provides information on its site
• Computer Associates has labeled the Sony software "spyware"
• A lawfirm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of California consumers against Sony
• ALCEI-EFI, an Italian digital-rights advocacy group, has formally asked the Italian government to investigate Sony for possible Italian law violations

*********************

The security hole in this software has already led to an attack on infected computers.

Since Mark's revelations, a great many more class action lawsuits have erupted.

Sony has finally acknowledged that these CDs are not customer friendly and have offered an exchange program if you've bought one of these CDs lately. If you have bought one of the Sony's CDs, check here to see if you should and can exchange it.

Amazon.com has notified customers that bought one of Sony's infected CDs that the can return it for a full refund. (You should have received an email already, if the CD you purchased is infected.)

Please pass the word around, so that others don't leave their computers vulnerable.

Immoral behavior

Diana Hsieh wrote a lengthy article about moral judgment, specifically about psychologist Nathienal Branden and philosopher Ayn Rand. While I don't have time to comment on her specific complaints about Branden, I would like to address some issues about when it is appropriate to make moral judgments and how to advertise the fact that you have.

Diana quotes a great paragraph from Rand on the seriousness demanded in placing moral judgments

"[T]o pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality--so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached (VOS 82-3)."

From reading that paragraph above, there is little doubt on the importance of making correct moral judgments. They should not be rushed into, nor should they be taken lightly. Yet, in the world of Objectivism, there (at least according to various sources) has been rampant moralizing about the character, intellectual (dis)honestly, and moral standards of the individuals in the Objectivist movement. Not only is the moralizing rampant, but from my own observation, it is vehement in declaring the offending party "evil".

How did such an environment arise?

I'm sure a lengthy treaty could be written identifying the causes of the moralizing taking place. I believe in part it is due to a further belief of Rand's that many Objectivist take as a philosophic pronouncement, when in reality, its a psychological issue. This belief of Rand's is:

"This [principle] means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent." (VOS 83)

Extrapolating on this belief, if one value's the contents of your own beliefs and time someone says one of your beliefs is wrong, you are morally obligated to denounce their statement. Rand starts by saying "that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates", leaving the criteria as to when to speak up in instances where silence means agreement. When are these times? This is not fleshed out in her book The Virtue of Selfishness. At the end of the paragraph, she suggests that silence implies agreement whenever someone attacks your own values and you do nothing.

The problem with her argument is two fold. First, silence does not necessarily mean agreement. To make that claim is an insult to the people that helped Jews hid from Nazis yet, did not speak out against the Nazis publicly out of fear for their own lives. Certainly, those individuals should have exhibited more courage, but their silence does not necessitate agreement. Rand should have known better.

Second, the absence of silence does not necessitate denunciation. There are other ways to deal with immoral behavior, which is the argument that Branden is trying to make, even if he does do it poorly. Using different behavior may help encourage someone to improve rather than set them on edge or send them further into their immoral behavior. This is a psychological issue, not a philosophical issue. Rand was a philosopher, not a psychologist. So I reject her psychological assessment of how to react to immoral behavior, but can still retain her underlying philosophic assessment of justice and moral judgment.