On Deciding . . . Better : Imagination as Simulation

On Deciding . . . Better : Imagination as Simulation

Simple solutions to complex problems are usually wrong. Complex problems usually require complex solutions. In a complex situation it can be hard to know which variables are important. We tend to act from simple biases based on simple analogies once complexity becomes too great.

When decisions involve uncertainty, multiple goals and multiple effects technology can help amplify imagination. In my own life, I’ve been exploring how this technology can help me clarify my goals, understand my assumptions and help me act in a way that is most consistent with what I believe.

With my effort to set ODB 3.0 up on a new server, I was feeling a bit nostalgic. Via the Wayback machine, this was my first ever posting to ODB 1.0. My beard was black and there’s an energy in the writing that I now find admirable. I was learning about new domains of knowlege in Decision Theory. Having digested and incorporated them, I’m on to new challenges.

These days I find myself wondering about the border between awareness and . . . well whatever we’ll call the behaviors generated by the brain that we are not aware of as conscious experience.

Mind Hacks: Personalised drugs

Mind Hacks: Personalised drugs:

The idea of genetically testing people for drug suitability is causing them [Drug Companies] a bit of a headache at the moment, as they’re desperately trying to think of ways to make money out of it.

Pharmacogenomics has to be one of the most misunderstood areas of drug development today. We’re used to the idea by now that our genes do not determine who we are. Genetic inheritance puts us at risk for some diseases more than others, makes us more or less likely to excel at certain mental or physical tasks, influences our adult height or weight. But strong effects of single genes are rare. Instead there’s a complex interacting system of multiple genes and environmental effects that, based on what we now know about complex systems, will not act deterministically, but rather affect the probability of future events.

It seems clear that, unless there is a strong single gene effect on something like proteins involved in drug metabolism and clearance, genes will have an uncertain influence on response to drug.

In the end, knowing some one’s genetic background, like knowing their particular symptom complex, will inform the physician about where to start therapy and the chances of success. But there will never be a way of “knowing” if that means a high degree of confidence in knowing the outcome of therapy.

Let Everyone Be Your Teacher

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science: The backseat driver principle

The driver overestimates his control over the situation (including his own car as well as others on the road). The backseat driver (“Whoa–you’re taking that curve too fast!”) underestimates the driver’s control. As a driver, I listen to the passengers because they provide a useful corrective. Even if the backseat driver is sometimes annoying, it makes sense to listen.

My principle: There is no learning without feedback. Be open to every bit of advice, criticism and praise you receive. Evaluate it, but don’t automatically believe it.

Functional Path Training: Is Periodization Daed?

Functional Path Training: Is Periodization Dead?

Traditional periodization also fails to address adequately the planning and preparation for team sports. We build upon principles of adaptation and current research to build plans that are realistic in our cultural and competitive milieu.

As I’ve ramped up my activities this year, I’ve come to a similar conclusion. My activities are determined largely by weather, travel for work and family commitments. I can’t follow either Friel or Carmichael‘s classic periodization approach. So I have have a broad plan to achieve my goal of being more fit next spring than I was this year and work around the reality as it occurs. Best reference I have on this: Brian Clarke’s 5k and 10K Training.

The Pot Failed In It’s Attempt to Surprise



DSC_4481.fpw, originally uploaded by jjvornov.

This is image is for everyone who says that colors in Nikon D80 images don’t “pop”. I spent some time putting some of the Italy photos through the standard postprocessing for the first time. I had been hoping to have my new Macbook Pro by now, but it may still be “4-6 weeks” for delivery.

In order to get the look I want, images like this need to go through Photoshop where I can control curves and local contrast/luminance as I wish. I’ve been converting from RAW in Capture One, but I may give Nikon’s Capture NX another try once I have the new laptop.

The Bing Blog Tag — You’re It! «

The Bing Blog Tag — You’re It! :

I’m pretty new at this blogging thing and it’s clear to me, even as a newbie, that some blogs get noticed and some just sort of lie there on their backs, peeing like babies on a changing table into the brisk digital wind.

Priceless! And I should follow his advice here.

Beyond the Berm Was the Road

DSC_4660.fpw, originally uploaded by jjvornov.

I post processed this Nikon D80 image only because I wanted to compare it to the black and white images I’ve been working with lately. Desaturated, this image looks very similar. With the bright late spring acid greens added back in, it gets more prosaic. It’s not as strong a composition as the best of the recent black and white, but I took the lesson from it nevertheless.

It’s a different language for me. Color is more difficult, since the form and light have to support what the color informs.

Groundhog Day

Dave Rogers atGroundhog Day:

Image noise seems to be the “crippling defect” in most compact digital cameras. I guess it comes down to how “seriously” you view the hobby. Small sensors enable smaller cameras, which are easier to carry around and afford some very compact “super-zoom” telephoto lenses. But, the images often contain noise. I know what noise is, I can see it in an image, but honestly, the only reason I think it’s “bad” is because everybody tells me so! I mean, I understand why it’s undesirable, but frankly, I’m still just a little bit amazed we can even do the kinds of things we’re able to do with affordable compact digital cameras these days. So I kind of struggle with it. I read the photography sites because I want to learn what the more experienced people know, but then I have to listen to all the criticism of “noise” and then I start to feel as though I need a better camera. And I have a few. (Four, at the moment.)

Dave knows he’s being led by the Have crowd to believe that his compact cameras are “crippled”. You can do a lot with them, which is not to say that more amazing cameras aren’t in the pipeline. I think Daves right to use what he has and work on being a better picture taker.

On Being a Photographer

Via The Best of Photography on the Internet:

R A N G E F I N D E R M A G A Z I N E :
Embracing the Future?With a Mindful Eye on the Past

“This may be one of the advantages of coming out of a photographic background where I had three fixed-focal-length lenses,” laughs Meehan. “I learned what telephoto effects were and what wide angle effects were. And when the zoom lens came in, I didn’t forget these things!”

There are three worlds of photography on the internet, as in much of life, the Be world, the Do world and the Have world.*

The Have world is the circle of gear and camera review sites. It is characterized by posters either talking about their lack of equipment needed to produce great work or about the failures of equipment they do possess. In this world, if you have the equipment (and the gallery or contacts or assignments) you can do the great work and thus be a recognized and rewarded photographer.

Then there’s the Do world of photography on the internet. We’re all about tips and tricks and workflow. Spot, centerweighted or matrix metering? Off-camera flash? Photoshop masking and layers? RAW vs JPEG? We have so much, but we don’t know what to do! You can find examples of fine photographs made with compact digitals. Equipment doesn’t matter,so what do I do?

Finally, there’s the Be world. I find that the sites in this world are written by photographers who consistently produce work that they like. They focus simply on how to be a photographer, thus they do what a photographer does and have the satisfaction, recognition and rewards that result from the combination of their talent and hard work. Along the way, there’s striving to do better, being a photographer so the tips and tricks are collected as wisdom to be a better photographer as one’s own processes are honed through the activity of being a photographer. And when one is photographing a camera is generally necessary, so the choice of equipment is made by envisioning who one wants to be as a photographer, and what would such a photographer do and what would you need to have to be that photographer.

As photographers we all get equipment lust. The acquisition process should always start off with asking, “What will this equipment allow me to do that I can’t do now?” I find it helps stave off the urge to acquire in order to have the equipment to do the work and be the photographer. It helps me refocus on who I’m trying to be and what would that photographer do. The equipment is for the doing, not the having.

*I picked up BE-DO-HAVE principles from a consulting group. I have been unable to find it’s origin, but it seems to have been codified in the self-actualization movement. It’s used by many (EST, Chopra, Dr. Phil) but never credited to anyone. Perhaps it’s lack of clear origin makes it sound like it was discovered by the author or movement using it.