On PRISM, surveillance, and terrorism

I've been asked to write about PRISM, the recently rumored government surveillance program. Details are scarce, especially once the hype has been filtered out. I don't know much about PRISM or Snowden in particular, so I'll discuss the topic generally.

One of the principal benefits of a government is that a government provides peace and security for its citizens. A government provides peace by preventing people from causing harm. In modern governments, this is usually done by establishing punishments for bad behavior; for example, imprisonment for theft and fines for minor infractions.

A government must have more power than any of its individual citizens in order to effectively enforce its own laws. After all, laws can only be enforced against people who are willing to break them. As such, the government must have the power to coerce people in order to punish them.

Many modern governments also recognize that it is beneficial to limit the power of the government. This is the motivation behind the checks and balances in the Constitution of the United States of America: each branch of the government can prevent the other branches from overreaching its bounds. There are also specific limitations placed on what the government can do to individuals. These limitations, such as due process, are designed to prevent governments from oppressing individuals, as many governments have done throughout history.

We have seen significant changes in the government of the United States since their inception. There are many more laws and the laws are much more complex. And the ways that information is generated, stored, and obtained are completely different.

These days, we're increasingly aware of people who are unaffected by our legal deterrents; for example, terrorists who aren't bothered by the prospect of dying aren't discouraged by the fact that officers of the law who figure out what they're up to will probably shoot them. It may be that there are more of these people; it's certain that we hear more about them. And technology marches on, ever enabling offense far more than it does defense.

The result is that we have a government that gets increasing demands from its citizens to protect them against some really scary people. In order to be more effective, it does what organizations naturally do: it expands its power.

Unfortunately, the emphasis on pre-emptive law enforcement requires secrecy, as people can change or cancel their plans if they know that they've been found out. And secrecy prevents anyone from watching the watchers.

One of the most frightening implications of our current political and legal climate is that it is impractical for any individual to know whether he or she is breaking some law. What's more, citizens have no idea whether or not their governments are investigating their actions. In a society where people regularly break laws, possibly because there is no course of action that is not against some law, and in which the laws are not all enforced, it is possible for individuals and groups to be targeted by government officials – and that targeting has the appearance of being the rule of law.

Government has always sounded a bit paradoxical; it protects liberties by restricting them. A government designed to promote freedom is necessarily a balancing act. Absolute freedom means that no laws are enforced and people are allowed to kill as they please. Absolute security means that no one has any freedom or privacy.

Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence to suggest that our government is encroaching more and more on its citizens' liberties and privacy. To make matters worse, many experts believe that the denial of these liberties does not provide additional security but merely the appearance of security.

I'm reminded of an occasion when a friend of mine called another friend. She had a virus on her computer and she called a computer expert. After some time talking about it, he offered to visit her apartment in the following couple of days to clean up her computer. She explained that she'd talked about it and felt better and that he needn't bother.

If what we're after is feeling better about it, we're doing fine. But if we actually want to solve these problems, we're going to have to look them square in the eye.

It seems clear that we can't prevent all terrorism. So we must decide what we will and will not do in our attempt to increase our security. At what point have we ceded enough liberties that the lives we save aren't worth living? What risks are we willing to take in order to live free? This debate is certain to be sticky, as these decisions must be made in aggregate and not everyone will see eye to eye.

There's plenty of room for dissent, but my opinion is that we ought to be expanding, not limiting our freedoms. We ought to expand the legal notion of search and seizure to include data, even if those data are stored in servers outside of an individual's direct control. We ought to ensure that people know when a subpoena has been served to collect their data. We ought to actually stick to our current legal doctrines, like habeas corpus. We ought to take our chances that someone will get past ordinary law enforcement and be willing to stand up ourselves to protect others.

One last change we ought to make for our security is that we ought to become the kind of nation that no one wants to attack. This is not a governmental change. It is a cultural change. Most of the important needs we have today are not needs that can be met by any government. They must be met by ordinary people, one at a time.

Am I scared by news like the PRISM story? Absolutely. I think I'm scared most of all that we have politicians and ordinary citizens that have not only allowed this sort of thing to happen, but have made it inevitable.

Petey's dating manual: Take a look in the mirror

"Know thyself"

Dating is about two people learning to fit together. We can't date well if we don't understand what we think and feel – and why. From there, we can start figuring out what kind of person we want to be with, as we actually understand our thoughts and feelings.

It pays to ask some obvious questions ourselves, such as what things we like and what our pet peeves are. It pays much more to dig deeper. Even for something as simple as really liking ice cream, there's much more to discover. Do I like it for its texture? Its flavor? Is it that I associate ice cream with celebrations or with good friends or family members? Which brands and flavors do I most enjoy? Why?

This kind of questioning allows us not only to choose better when and how to enjoy ice cream, but also may allow us to better identify other things that we would enjoy that we might not have tried otherwise. It also allows us to articulate ourselves (as an aside, articulateness is more about understanding than it is about expression).

Take another question that goes (perhaps) closer to the heart. I love books. It's fairly normal to have a discussion about which books I've enjoyed reading – and this is a good discussion. But it can be much more interesting for both parties if we go deeper. What makes these books stand out? How did the author create the experience that I so enjoyed? What do I like about these characters? What about this book that seems similar? Why did I enjoy this book but not that one? What are my favorite passages in the book? Plot elements? Ideas?

The more we know about ourselves, the better able we are to express ourselves and find common ground. For illustration, let's imagine that I'm on a date and that she and I are discussing which books we enjoy. If I say that I enjoy one genre (say, science fiction) and my date says that she typically reads a different genre (say, history), we may conclude that we don't have much in common in this area. On the other hand, if I can name a few favorite works (such as Asimov's Foundation and Dune) and my date names a few favorite historical works (including Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), we may find that we have a great deal in common. After all, Foundation is essentially an exploration of history in a futuristic setting. In one sense, it is simply a recounting of the end of the Roman empire adapted to space. It is also a supposition about how a person or a small group of people might profoundly influence the future. It might be that my appreciation for Foundation would be greatly enhanced by reading Gibbon and my date might love Asimov after having been introduced to his work in that light. If we didn't know our tastes well, we would be very unlikely to stumble across this deep, interesting commonality.

Many of us are in the habit of compromising when it's possible for both parties to get everything they want. For example, when I marry, I may discover that I prefer sleeping with the window open but my wife prefers to have it closed. If we dig deeper, I'm after fresh air and she's after quiet. It may be that a bit of white noise from a fan would help both of us. Or it may be that I could spend a weekend improving the house's ventilation system to allow for fresh air with a closed window. If we argued about the window instead of understanding and expressing ourselves, we'd never find that common ground.

Another reason to look in the mirror is that it solves the (seemingly opposed) problems of insecurity and overconfidence. Knowing ourselves allows us to love ourselves as we are, as we cannot love what we do not know. And loving ourselves resolves our insecurities, freeing us to focus outward and love others. It also helps us to see how we can improve. By improving ourselves, we can become our best selves – and nothing we can do will do more to make our loved ones happier.

"So, when are you getting married?"

People frequently ask me when I'll marry. They give me advice on how to become married. It's the same with basically everyone who's single, especially those of us in Mormon culture.

In most minutes and on most days, I'm at peace with the fact that I'm single. I'd rather be happily married but my life is good. Most of the time, it doesn't bother me when people bring up the fact that I'm single. There's no need for a taboo on singlehood.

But there are hard days. Even though most of the time, people mean to encourage – or, a least, they don't mean to offend – the things that people say can serve to make those hard days even harder.

One reason it's hard for me to hear some things is that my training in logic has taught me to see implications. In my more cynical moods, my mind leaps to more cynical implications. I think that in most cases, people aren't fully aware of what they imply. My goal here is to bring to light some of these assumptions (I certainly don't claim to have treated this exhaustively) and the thinking that underlies them.

You control when you find and marry someone

"So, when are you getting married?"

"It's your turn next!"

I know most of you mean well, but marriage involves two people and divine intervention. I can control only myself. Siblings don't always marry in order. In fact, I challenge you to name a single happily married couple that didn't experience significant serendipity to get together.

You're doing something wrong

"Why aren't you married yet?"

It's very possible that some failure of mine is the cause of my singlehood. I'd love to find something I can do differently that would lead me to marriage. I will listen to your thoughts on the subject. I recognize and value the impartiality of people who aren't me in this matter. I'd suggest, however, that you try to know me well enough to know whether or not I've already done what you suggest – and whether or not I've been doing it for the past several years. And please don't be offended if I decide that your advice doesn't fit me.

Do what I did

"You just need to ..."

This is basically the same as the last assumption, but more specific.

Finding a mate is like finding anything else; we stop looking when we've succeeded. It amuses me how frequently people tell me to try what "worked for them." By that, they mean the last change they remember making before their marriage worked out. Typically, this ignores all other changes they made, all decisions made by other people, and all circumstances surrounding their dating and marriage. And a sample size of one is hardly compelling. I mean, no one tells me to look under my bedside table for my keys as if it's profound wisdom.

Do what I didn't

"Attraction doesn't matter much. You just need to be good friends."

Advice about what one would have done at a previous age tends to come in one of two flavors. One of the flavors is the wisdom of years. I value this sort of wisdom. The other flavor is the faux wisdom of forgetting what youth is like. Advice that is at odds with past behavior often sounds more like the second than the first.

A twenty-something man and a sixty-something man are going to value different things. As I want my marriage to be happy and to last into the eternities, I'm looking for someone whom I can love unreservedly in all stages of my life. That is, some degree of physical attraction should exist because that's important to young men (and, of course, to young women). And we must have the sort of friendship that can mature into a relationship that an old man (and an old woman) can appreciate.

Am I being too picky? Maybe. I'm certainly not discounting the possibility. I ask myself that question quite frequently.

There's something wrong with you

"You're so ...! I can't believe you're not married yet."

Of course I appreciate the compliment, especially since my deepest insecurities are that I'll fail in any number of ways to be an adequate husband or father.

If I'm so kind or talented or whatever that you're astounded at my singlehood, where's the hangup? What failure or fault do the girls I date see in me that you have failed to see? Because I've been turned down for enough second dates that sometimes I wonder.

I've thought about this one a lot because so many people try to say things like this when they're validating others. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't. Honestly, the best thing that any one has ever done in one of those down days was to give me a hug. She listened well and tried to say things that helped, but a little tender physical contact made much more difference.

You're not married, so you must not really want it

"When you really decide you want to get married, ..."

Really? When I really decide I want to get married?

I don't think I've ever called anyone out on this. I'm going to set the record straight.

I had an epiphany once. It happened at an age when my guy friends were definitely into girls, but when their interest seemed focused either on kissing (or the host of related motivations) or on troglodytic notions of conquest. I remember that I was walking through a hallway in my church. I think I was by myself. And it struck me that my interest was in a stable, long-term relationship. I wanted to be married.

This epiphany took place half of my life ago. Never since then has that desire been forgotten. Every major decision I've made has been designed to make me a better family man. Even during my full-time missionary service, when dating was prohibited, I was conscious of the ways in which that service would help me become a better man. The foremost question I have about every potential career is how it will affect my family life. I could go on.

I don't know all of the causes of my prolonged singlehood, but I know it isn't lack of desire – or effort. Just don't go there.

It isn't just the singles

In the same way that there needn't be a taboo about singlehood, we needn't refrain from talking about other aspects of people's lives. But we should be very cautious before talking with people about when they will have children, when they'll serve missions, and so on. As says a favorite hymn, "In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can't see."

My game plan

I know that marriage won't come easily. I know that I'll have to change to get there.

I'm going to keep trying. I'm going to keep asking hard questions and I'm going to keep improving myself. I'm going to keep on discarding ideas and assumptions that I find to be incorrect and I'm going to keep on doing my best to apply what I learn. And I'm going to keep on trusting that one day, I'll find someone I want to marry who wants to marry me.

Peteys are like onions

I've been trying to learn how to play the guitar and the piano recently. Not having a piano, it's fairly hard for me to practice. But I have a friend who does and when I visit his house, I try to take a minute to practice. I've taken to playing one of my all-time favorites: And So It Goes by Billy Joel.

Although I've liked this song for some time, it has assumed a special meaning to me. First, a bit of background.

It's no secret that people's first impressions of me vary. In fact, they vary so much that I could probably write an entire blog post (or a series of them) on the subject. Since many people first see me in large group situations, it's pretty common for people to think of me as loud and energetic – sometimes, even disruptive. I think that my openness comes across quickly, as well. These impressions are all correct: I'm unafraid of large groups and frequently take charge when no one else has done so. Sometimes, I'm the one who organizes a game of freeze tag simply because freeze tag is awesome. I don't mind broaching subjects that make lots of people uncomfortable. And I write fairly personal things on this public blog.

Unfortunately, many of my acquaintances seem to think that they've got me pegged with their first impression. As is the case with every person who has ever lived, there's more to me than meets the eye.

I'm not terribly concerned with the people who assume things about my character because of their first impressions of me. In fact, several people have thought ill of me when they first met me, only to form wonderful friendships with me later.

What concerns me is that, because I'm comfortable in groups and because I'm so open, that people make subtler assumptions about me. One that is especially worrisome to me is that sometimes people assume that I express everything that I think and feel. I say so much that I don't really blame people for thinking as they do about me. But the thoughts and feelings that matter most to me are the ones that I express most selectively.

One facet most people don't see is the pain that I feel. I don't usually share my struggles, especially in public settings. I frequently wish I could talk about them but don't always know who will listen; my problems tend to be so different from the problems of others that my friends have trouble relating. I've even opened up just to be told (in an annoyed tone) that my problems are desirable and that I should stop whining.

I'm perhaps most guarded about romantic affection. I'm open about my admiration for people and form friendships easily. This is not the case with romantic love. I'm very cautious about expressing romantic affection. I think that, several times, my failure to express my feelings have been interpreted as the absence of attachment. I've been aware of this for some time, but I'm still trying to figure out how and when to best express it. I'm making this up as I go.

And so we come to Billy Joel's music. It might seem like what's visible at the outset is all that's in my heart, but this is far from true. There is a sanctuary in there. It is safe and strong because there are no doors or windows. I am learning to tear a hole in the wall to let people in. It hurts every time, but my deepest desire is to share this room and to have that trust reciprocated. Singing this beautiful song is simultaneously an expression of my hidden pain and of my desire to open up more fully. It is also a reminder that opening up is up to me.

But you, my friends, can help me. You can ask me tough questions. Please dig deep. You can care about my thoughts and you can share yours – even if they disagree with mine. Please be patient with me. Please don't let my silence make you leave.

The man in the mirror

I am of the opinion that government-run welfare is inefficient, curtails financial freedom, encourages laziness, and sometimes has the effect of exacerbating the differences between socioeconomic classes. By allowing themselves to be taxed instead of giving themselves, people lose the opportunity to actually serve others (which is extremely beneficial to both parties). They also rely on underpaid government employees to make decisions about how to use resources instead of using the intelligence and good judgment of billions of people around the world to make those decisions independently and wisely.

But, at least for the moment, we're much better off with government welfare. There are far too many people with far too little and if we cut the government programs, they'll starve and go without other necessities. Yes, there are many people who cynically take advantage of the system. But there are many people who depend on welfare for good and sufficient reasons.

I have similar feelings about gun control. The Second Amendment doesn't exist so we can hunt. It exists to guarantee that the country's military power rests with the people and not with a central government. The more restrictions we have on gun control, the further we are from that ideal. I'd like to get rid of guns entirely, but committing absolutely to nonviolence in any form ensures that those who don't have the same scruples are guaranteed to win as long as they're willing to start a fight.

The fact that the military has access to weapons that citizens may not own scares me. On the other hand, I don't believe that we have the moral maturity as a culture to use such weapons wisely. We're too unwilling to hold ourselves and each other accountable for the use of our weapons. More subtly, we're too unwilling to hold ourselves accountable for our angry words and for our unrealistic expectations. We're unwilling to do inconvenient things to ensure our own safety and unwilling to pay for outsourced security. And we're unwilling to come up with a viable solution for the mental health problems that exist in our country.

For the time being making some kinds of guns inaccessible is a reasonable compromise. But it isn't good enough. We need access to guns, but we need to change ourselves first.

All of this reminds me of a piece that Seth Meyers did on Saturday Night Live. His joke about the Facebook Like button hits close to home. Apparently, many of us believe that we can support candidates who promise to change the country for us. But they can't. We are the country. If the country is going to change, we have to do it. Each one of us. We can't wait for our elected officials to do it for us because that's simply not something that people can do. We need to give until government welfare becomes redundant. We need to elevate the way that we interact with each other so that violence, with or without guns, becomes unacceptable. We need to make wise, intelligent decisions on our own. We need to become so good that our government doesn't matter.

Making happiness in the lab

I spent a month in the summer of 2006 working in Kent Pinkerton's lab in the Center for Health and the Environment at UC Davis. The students and postdocs in the lab who worked with Kent were intelligent, articulate, and kind. They supported each other and helped me considerably. Despite feeling underqualified, I felt welcome with all of my colleagues (although I feel that I'm arrogating myself to call them that).

It didn't take long for me to realize that Kent's influence over the lab was considerable. He was respected for being very capable in his work, but he was loved for being a kind tutor. He communicated effectively and did an admirable job of helping people feel good about themselves. Before my month in his lab was over, I found myself observing him to learn what I could about the art of building others up. I've practiced what I learned over the years and, although I don't claim to be a master of this art, my ability to build others has improved greatly.

With this post, I hope to simultaneously thank Kent for this significant contribution to my life and to pass on some of what I've learned about this important skill.

I think that the first thing I noticed about Kent is that he's sincere. It's simply impossible to not believe him, even when he says incredible things. I still remember meeting with him at the end of my time in his lab. I'd done some simple analyses of some slides and remember that he exclaimed, "You were worth every penny!" I certainly hadn't thought I was worth every penny; I actually had thought of myself as something of a charity case. But the way he said it made it impossible for me to disbelieve him. Sincerity was not a new idea to me, as I'd been taught to be sincere all my life – but Kent's sincerity was so apparent that I was able to see why it mattered.

As I attended lab meetings and watched Kent doing research with the others, I also realized that he was very specific in his compliments. He would isolate exactly what someone had done or a characteristic that someone had and talk about it. Specificity matters because it communicates sincerity and because it doesn't sound like a platitude. I blame my egocentricity for the fact that I don't remember any specific compliments that Kent gave to others in the lab, but I do remember that he told me that, "We'll make a scientist out of you yet." At the time, I was planning to become an electrical engineer and Kent recognized specific aptitudes and abilities that would make me valuable in research. Without this comment, made in passing, I may never have considered a career in research.

The two compliments I've mentioned were effective because I could tell that Kent really cared. It wasn't that he cared about me (although I have no doubt he did and does), but that I could tell that the things he talked about really mattered to him. His enthusiasm made compliments that would have been nice into great compliments. The first compliment showed his enthusiasm for good evidence to inform the community. From the second compliment, I inferred that Kent values his field and wants it to do well – and that he wanted me to be a part of it because he saw that I could contribute.

I appreciated his comments particularly because they addressed insecurities of mine – things that kept me up at night. At the time, I was not at all confident that I was worth the hassle and the pay that I'd cost the lab. And I wasn't confident that my abilities were up to par. Such emphatic, unsolicited validation eased the burdens that I'd been trying to carry without addressing them externally.

It is crucial to note that these compliments described essential, not superficial, characteristics. They complimented who I really am on the inside and not something ancillary to my character, such as my appearance or a first impression of me. Addressing people's identity raises the stakes; the insults that sting the most and the compliments that provide the largest preponderance of warm, fuzzy feelings are the ones that describe the soul.

Of course, my listed generalities only help so much. It can be difficult to find useful and effective compliments for other people, especially on demand. Over the years, I've discovered that a few habits have greatly improved my ability to give compliments.

I've learned to observe people carefully. I'm not content to know what people are doing because understanding why they do what they do gives important insight into who they are. It helps to never assume that I've achieved my goal of understanding people. They are infinitely complex, which makes them interesting and which gives me cause to keep observing. Of course, passive observation has its limits. I have found it useful to combine careful observation with good questions.

I've also learned to believe the best of people. It's easy to assume that people do what they do because of some character flaw or other, but I've found that there is a deeper understanding to be had of virtually every person's motivation for any action. Assuming the best allows me to stop judging and to keep looking for others' good qualities. As I do so, I'm able to see specific characteristics of other people that I wouldn't see were I judging them.

Perhaps the most important thing that I have learned to do to build people up is to care about them. When I care about people, it shows. They respond with trust, which allows me to understand them better and therefore to build them up more effectively. As I have chosen to serve others, especially those to whom I'm not naturally drawn, I've found it easier to love them. This increased love has enabled me to build them up as I could not do previously.

One of the principal joys in life is sharing a sincere smile with someone else. Giving good compliments makes me happy because it makes my friends happy. I hope it does the same for you.

A rock feels no pain

I recently experienced a significant disappointment. It didn't come as a surprise but it wasn't really what I wanted, either. Since that experience, I've paid careful attention to my emotions and have been surprised at how gentle they've been. I feel fine. I'm not sure that I ought to feel fine, though, and I've been wondering if there's something wrong with me and my emotions.

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to my friends that I took a while to question what the ideal of emotional experience is, what my current experience with it is, what difference exists between them, and what I can do to close the gap. I had an interesting thought yesterday: what price would I pay to experience more emotion?

This question probably deserves some background. As I've discussed previously, I decided long ago that anger would not be a part of my life. Since then, I've chosen to avoid acting on feelings of anger and have learned to process those feelings. I've learned to give others the benefit of the doubt and to be patient. Years later, I sometimes experience frustration and occasionally indignation but anger really isn't a part of my life. When I do experience a feeling like anger, I'm able to arrest its development, remove myself from the situation, and deal with it on my own without expressing it at anyone else. I've cultivated this control carefully over the years. I've considered it to be a part of the ideal that I call emotional maturity for some time. My conception of this ideal, in summary, has been that a person ought to use reason and emotion together to make decisions without allowing either one to dominate the other. Anger should be avoided because it's specifically condemned in the Sermon on the Mount and because it is so strong that it overrides reason.

Yesterday, I questioned that ideal. Specifically, I asked myself if I would be willing to sacrifice the control I've cultivated for more than half of my life if it meant deeper emotional experience.

I thought about it and discussed it with some close, trusted friends. I concluded two things: if there were something wrong with me emotionally because I've been controlling myself too tightly and if it were possible to remedy the situation by letting go, I ought to do so. My experience has been that when I've gravitated to one extreme, I have to release the fear of the other extreme in order to progress towards a proper balance between them. I also decided that I don't think there's anything wrong with my emotional state. I'm not hiding from my emotions and I'm not suppressing them; I just don't happen to have a strong emotional response to some things and that has surprised me but simply is the way it is.

This morning, I was flipping through Preach My Gospel as part of my daily scriptural study. I came across the section about hope in chapter 6. As I read, a strong feeling of peace came over me. I realized that I have learned hope. I live it. I believe that good things are coming. I believe that, no matter what happens, my life can be happy – and that other lives can be happy, too. I realized that when, as the saying goes, the Lord shuts a door, I don't stand there and look at it as darkness closes around me; I simply locate the best open door I can find and move towards it. I was grateful to be reminded that I can, in fact, feel emotion and more grateful for the divine approbation that this communication implied.

Now, dear readers, please excuse me. I have worlds to conquer.

All is not as it seems

Philip Guo recently published a memoir of his experience as a PhD student in computer science. His is a story of self-discovery and triumph. Getting a PhD is hard, especially for someone who hasn't already discovered a burning passion for a subfield, which Guo had not done when he started his PhD.

Having completed two years of PhD school in computer science myself and not having identified a subfield for which I have a consuming passion, I strongly sympathized with Guo as I read his memoir. Accordingly, I read closely and imagined myself in his situation. I came away hopeful that my experience would be similarly serendipitous. I also came away more acutely aware of the problems with the academic peer review system. Of particular note is the fact that Guo submitted papers that were rejected because his writing didn't meet the arbitrary expectations of current experts in the field, not because his research was unoriginal or uninformative. I believe in good writing and recognize that good writing necessarily reflects familiarity with an audience. I'm not taking issue with the need for good writing, but I believe that some of the requirements for publication are detrimental to the academic community as a whole.

Allow me to explain.

Early in his graduate career, Guo submitted a paper to a conference and was rejected. His research was, as the memoir tells, of a similar caliber to other research that was published. Guo's failure was in convincing the entrenched researchers in that community that his work was original and useful. That is, it wasn't the quality of work that mattered for publication. What mattered was the apparent quality of his work. Guo's paper went unpublished because the system evaluates whether or not research seems to be good, not whether or not the research is good.

To be fair, this is a scientific community and it strives to be objective. There isn't a way to determine if research is good objectively, so the community makes do with the best solution that it has found to date.

The problem with peer review is compounded by the fact that the quality of a scientist is estimated by his or her publication record (see, for example, h-index). This leads to problems such as this, where a scientist manages to falsify peer review in order to seem like an effective scientist.

Unfortunately, problems of this kind are found everywhere. We get a job not by being the best candidate for a job but by seeming to be the best candidate. Dating works along the same lines. Sports revolve around what the officials perceive, so they have precisely the same issue. Political discourse clearly emphasizes seeming over being.

Being something allows us to act. Other people's behavior towards us, however, depends on what we seem to be. It isn't possible (or desirable) to avoid seeming to be something. Instead, we should all try to seem to be what we are and to avoid seeming to be what we are not. If you find yourself trying to seem in a certain way, check to make sure that it's actually true. Are you really confident or do you seem that way? Are you actually good at what you do or do you just have a killer resume? Keep in mind that self-deception is not just possible but commonplace.

This is not to say that we should not aspire for greatness beyond what we have yet attained. And reaching for greatness requires emulation. We should try to improve by emulating the best that we see in other people. The purpose of this emulation must be for us to acquire positive characteristics, not to seem better than we are. And when others try to improve, we should encourage them instead of calling them hypocrites.

Since we interact with others, the question of our own characteristics is insufficient; we must also question our perceptions of others. Do you and I assume that the things we perceive are reality? When someone seems to be self-absorbed or quiet or happy, do we assume that this is generally the case? Do we disregard others' ideas when they aren't presented as we are used to hearing ideas or when they come from unusual or unproven sources? Do we assume that people remain the same or do we believe that people can change for the better?

The most important thing that we can do is personal: each of us can work at becoming better. We can concern ourselves less with how we seem and more with how we are. And we can give others the benefit of the doubt. We must also encourage societal change to value actuality over mere appearance. We must consciously choose to value genuineness over the appearance of virtues. We can expect people to be good but not extraordinary, freeing them from the pressure to seem to be good enough for our unrealistic expectations. Relatedly, we must put less pressure on people to be something that they are not; introverts and extroverts and everyone in between are good people. The same goes for scientists and liberal arts majors. In other words, we should encourage people to grow but not to be untrue to themselves. We also need to encourage virtues, such as honesty, industry, and kindness – but never assume that we see them clearly in others. Hardest of all, we must strive as a society and especially as individuals to acquire these virtues.

A few thousand words, take two

Author's note: I wrote this blog post a few days ago. Soon after posting it, I felt as if I shouldn't have and reverted it to a draft. I figured it wouldn't do any harm to remove it as it had only been up for a few seconds. It's been interesting to see the reaction of my friends and readers, some of whom disagreed with any revision after an article had been posted.

I believe in transparency. I don't intend for this to happen again; I'll be more cautious than before about what I post. I'd like to make it clear that the primary reason that I'm posting now what I did before primarily because my conscience is clear regarding it, not because of pressure.

I attribute my unsettled feelings to the fact that as I looked for images suitable to make into posters, I came across many unsavory images, despite my best efforts to avoid them. The effects of these images has diminished over the intervening days, but was intense. This experience has served to remind me how acutely dangerous pornography is. Needless to say, I'll be even more careful than before to avoid it.

Below this line, this post is identical to what I posted a few days ago.

---

I hope my readers will enjoy the little posters I made. I don't mind if you take my ideas and modify them, but you might want to check with the owners of the images (listed below).

Yes, a healthy glow looks good. But all you need for that is to emerge occasionally from your cave.

I think that too many of us believe that we're actually more productive when under the influence. I don't buy it.

It has always mystified me that people extol alcohol for making social interactions easier. I think we'd be better off if we actually learned to face our fears. Also, ethanol reeks.

Secondhand smoke is vile. Please stop.

NYC is full of people who clearly spend time exercising – and who smoke. Clearly, their objective is not long life.

I'm not sure if I can think of anything that would send me running faster than a girl who smells like smoke. Gross.

But buying on credit seems to be normal. Why would you do that?

This one kind of sums up the rest of them.

---

Original image sources:

coffee

cocktail

tanning bed

bogart

cigarette

ripped guy smoking

ostrich sign

credit cards

Boys and girls are different

I was talking with a friend about gender relations once. I said that I have little use for reverse sexism, although I think that women deserve much more respect than they currently enjoy. She said that reverse sexism has a place because there is so much sexism in our society today.

This floored me. It's not that I don't see the rampant sexism in our world. It's that the women in my life (my sister and mother) have always been strong. They have expected and deserved respect and they have had it. I respect women greatly and I credit them for it (and I wish them a happy Mothers' Day).

There are many common errors made about the genders. I'll identify some of them and then express, to the best of my ability, some truths about the genders.

Please feel free to disagree – especially if you can explain your reasoning.

Falsehoods

Men and women are exactly the same, except women are better

I don't think this one needs much explanation. Second-wave feminism was ridiculous and we all know it. Let's move onto more plausible and interesting topics.

Women are valuable primarily because they're beautiful

Women, it turns out, are worth far more than their looks. I'll be the first to say that I appreciate women's looks. But there is much more to them and we often fail to recognize it. This is particularly true in a few subtle ways.

Many depictions of women emphasize their bodies more than their faces. I don't think there's any doubt but what this objectifies women, but we're very used to it. To illustrate the fact that this is so prevalent, Kevin Bolk made his own version of some promo art for the recent Avengers movie. There's also Jim Chines, who has a whole blog post of himself doing the poses that women do in fantasy novel cover art.

In contrast, men tend to have far more natural poses and their artwork tries to show strength more than allure (although strength and allure may, in fact, be the same thing).

Many of us don't notice this, even though it's clearly not subtle.

Slightly more subtle is the facial expressions that men and women wear in similar art. Men tend to have stolid, determined expressions. Women tend to have one of two faces: determined or mentally vacant. Determined isn't so bad, but the fact that we're okay with artwork that shows appealing women who seem to have a light switched off in the attic sickens me. It's like we're celebrating the idea that women are something pretty to look at, but that talking with them is a waste of time.

Another way this idea is manifest is in some women's interest in fashion. I will not say that all interest in fashion is misguided, but I fear that some women are interested in fashion because it's how they see themselves getting value – by getting attention from men, yes, but also from getting the approval of their similarly fashion-minded peers.

In summary, if you believe that your self-worth comes from your fitness or your fashion, you're doing it wrong. You're valuable because you're human and because God is your father.

Men are insensitive

Men aren't stupid. Men have feelings.

Of course, our culture tells them that their feelings aren't okay. It tells them not to express them. No one seems to have noticed how similar we all are; it's just that modern girls tend to talk about their feelings before they bury them and that girls tend to use ice cream and chick flicks, while guys use video games and/or movies that feature explosions.

When men grow past adolescence, they start to open to the possibility of expressing their feelings. But the lost years of practice haunt them; they feel awkward as they do so and often have trouble articulating their feelings. In fact, they've spent so long hiding from their emotions that many men can't identify them in the first place. Failed attempts can drive men into deeper emotional solitude.

Fearing emotion, men often don't know how to help others with their emotions. It's time we changed our culture and allowed men to talk. This means that men need to talk about emotions with their sons and with others who look up to them. It must be the role models of masculinity who show examples of emotional maturity so boys can look up to them.

Men are stronger than women

Yes, actually, men tend to have more muscle mass than women do. They usually win if they ever arm wrestle. But we tend to think that men are stronger because we ignore other types of strength. What about the strength to endure the pain of childbirth – repeatedly? What about the strength to sacrifice something important for something else that matters more?

Of course, it shouldn't matter much. When a man hits a woman, he commits a despicable act.

Some people try to compensate by depicting strong women. Yes, there are women who train hard and can do amazing things. Yes, there are women who could beat the daylights out of me. But creating a fictional female character who fights with a sword against creatures with triple her weight just makes the problem worse; if a girl feels helpless because she isn't strong enough, this is more likely to cause further discouragement than to inspire her to greatness in martial arts. And no one should pursue any skill or education to fill a gap in self-worth.

Instead, we ought to celebrate the characteristics that women have. They don't have to have massive upper body strength to be valuable. We need to identify and vociferously congratulate women on the strengths that they have.

A woman dominates a relationship with "feminine wiles"

If a guy falls for you for your looks, know that you will age and that younger women will come of age.

A man dominates a relationship with his strength

This is called abuse. Don't ever let me hear about this happening.

Of course, this can happen in subtler ways than physical abuse. Men should be strong, primarily for the benefit of their wives.

A woman dominates a relationship with her wit

Lots of women in recent mass media (especially sitcoms) are sarcastic and condescending to their idiot husbands. They always get the final words and their husbands never quite catch up. As is the case with the previous two sections, this doesn't describe a real relationship.

Truths

Men and women are different but of equal value

Yes, boys and girls are different. No, one group isn't inherently better than the other.

We should value these differences

The characteristics of each gender are beautiful. We're designed to be together. We ought to celebrate our differences and use them to build a family that's better than either spouse is on his or her own.

Relationships bring different people together

It wouldn't be a relationship if the two members of it were the same. Relationships are about using our differences to improve ourselves and each other. They are built on complete trust and fidelity, one day at a time. The battle of the sexes has no place in true love, because each spouse is concerned only with the other's needs. This sort of marriage is the pursuit of a lifetime. I'll get there, but it will probably be long after my darling and I have slipped the bonds of mortality and gone on to a better life.

Wish me luck.

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'll start a summer internship in a month and a half across the country from where I live. Since it will take me so far away from the people I love, I've been thinking a lot about friendship in general and my friends in particular. I've been thinking about the times that I have entered a new setting (by moving or starting a new job, for example) and about the joys and sorrows this has brought to me. In this post, I'll endeavor to describe what friendship means to me. I hope that my friends who read this will have a deeper understanding of their significance in my life – something I try to communicate daily but something that I fear is not generally understood.

Read the whole story...

Let there be light

The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other scriptural texts are full of symbolism that uses light. God is light and uses light; those who oppose Him work in darkness (see the links in this sentence for some examples). I've noticed a phrase that is used repeatedly in the Book of Mormon: "God worketh not in darkness." Of course, we are encouraged to emulate Him.

There are many ways to apply this idea. I'd like to focus on honesty and openness.

Read the whole story...

The problem with girl power

I’m all about empowering women. Those who know me well know this. Lots of people seem to see the same issues that I see. At least, they see some of what I see. It’s common for people to promote women’s rights in print (both physical and virtual), in movies, and in music. I’m all for it. But popular statements about girl power are frequently counterproductive to the empowerment of women.

Allow me to illustrate with some lyrics from Beyoncé, Shania Twain, and Rihanna.

Read the whole story...

Flirting today

Flirting is hard these days. It's not that there aren't good people to meet. It's not just that flirting has always been hard. There are societal effects in place today that add difficulty that, to my knowledge, has never existed before. Please forgive me as I indulge in stereotypes – and don’t wear the shoe if it doesn’t fit.

Men have to deal with the possibility of being branded as "creepy." A man becomes creepy when he violates social protocol, as it is perceived by others. This is frequently unfair to the men in question: as much as we’d like to think that there are universal standards, or even societal standards, everyone is a little different and has different rules. We all communicate differently (in fact, I have an entire blog post about it), so a woman may reject a man in a way that is both clear and gentle to her, but that doesn’t communicate rejection to him at all. The fault here belongs to both parties, but calling him a "creeper" places all the blame on him. To further complicate matters, men are encouraged to break social protocol for the women they love – as long as he doesn’t go too far, a man can express sincerity by going beyond social norms. But it only works when she’s interested; if not, going beyond is unquestionably creepy.

Some women experience something remarkably similar;

Read the whole story...

Gently destroying walls

I spend a lot of my time visiting people. Sometimes I talk; sometimes I listen. As I'm unabashed about sharing my opinions and feelings, I think some people will be surprised to know that I enjoy listening. Of course, there are things that don't interest me: mindless chatter, pleasantries (especially in large amounts), and so on. But if you want to talk about something significant, you'll usually find that I'm a captive audience.

As I've realized how much I like to listen to people, I've learned to change my behavior in ways that encourage people to talk about the things that matter to them - and because those things matter to them, they matter to me. I've noticed that many people genuinely care about others but have trouble being satisfied with their conversations. I hope that my experiences will be useful to them. I also hope that my friends, especially those whose temperaments differ from my own, will add their thoughts in comments.

Read the whole story...

Why I call myself Petey

My family doesn't really do nicknames. I think that it comes from my family's very proper culture (especially by Californian standards) and from my parents' desire to remind us of our Biblical namesakes. I'd been called Pedro occasionally as I grew up, but it never really stuck. "Stevie Wonders" didn't long outlast my brief moment of 4^th-grade recess football glory. Everyone I knew called me Peter for my entire childhood.


Read the whole story...

Geeks in large groups

Three weeks ago, I attended CAV, an academic conference about formal verification (proving that computers actually do what we think they do). Yesterday, I attended a practice run for some of the talks that will be given at SIGGRAPH, a conference about computer graphics. Despite the fact that the two conferences treat very different topics, I had a very similar experience with both events. Some of my observations are of an academic nature. The rest are insights into geek culture.
Read the whole story...

DRM only makes things worse

Intellectual property is a fiction that we create to encourage innovation. By fiction, I mean that it is contrary to the nature of ideas for them to be limited. Ironically, a system that protects intellectual property discourages innovation: because derivative works are one of many ways to diminish the value of a work, the right to create them must be restricted. The irony of limiting innovation to foster innovation should not be lost; however, without such limitation, innovators could not hope to benefit financially from their inventions. The idea is to strike a balance: limit knock-offs enough to encourage innovation but still allow innovators to build on each other's work.

In an attempt to create such a balance, the Constitution of the United States of America gives congress the right to create laws that give exclusive rights to creators for a limited period of time. The idea is that in that limited period of time, innovators can be rewarded. After the time period elapses, other people may innovate further, improving upon what has already been created.


Read the whole story...

Other drivers aren't always sociopaths

Road rage is an interesting phenomenon: people who are usually level-headed become irritated - or even irate - when people drive poorly or aggressively around them. I've given some thought to road rage because  I've mostly removed anger as a part of my life, but I frequently get annoyed with other drivers.
Read the whole story...

Sweeter than Fiction

I read the entire Percy Jackson series from cover to cover in eleven days. The fantastic nature of the stories was a captivating escape: for a few minutes at a time, I fight the minotaur or meet Artemis instead of writing something boring for homework. Even more interesting than the richly colorful world of Percy Jackson were his abilities; being Poseidon’s son, Percy can breathe underwater, sail inhumanly well, create seawater out of nowhere, control the water around him, and gets strength, health, and stamina simply by being in contact with water. One of Athena’s daughters takes an interest in him for some reason and he duplicates a lot of Heracles’s feats – and even does some of them better than Heracles did. I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone acquainted with my proclivity for delusional daydreams that I adored the vicarious experience.

Read the whole story...