Tag: Personligt

Never ask the author

Birds who love cranesOK, I can understand why journalists like to interview famous people about their work. It looks nice on the CV.
But I’ve always thought that the least interesting articles or program segments tend to be those in which actors/directors/authors share their thoughts on their work. For instance, the BBC film review podcast that I listen to regularly looses all momentum whenever some director is invited into the studio to give synopses or even thoughts on film-making itself.

But why, you ask, have I not previously shared this important observation with you? Because I haven’t had a really good example. Till I heard this exceptional piece of cutting-edge film journalism in the Danish Broadcast Cooperation’s “Filmland”.

The journalist has sought out David Lynch who’s visiting Denmark. Lynch reveals how inside us there are deep oceans of creativity, and inspired by the rural surrounding, the reporter inquires:

Journalist: But are only humans able to access the great ocean within, or do birds go there as well?

To which, Lynch responds ponderously:

Lynch: I believe they do. I believe all the creatures flow with that to a certain degree. But it’s the human being, it’s the human being that’s built to dive within and experience that deepest level of life and unfold it and that’s the difference between the birds and a human being…

There’s some more stuff and then Lynch further reveals that:

Lynch: Now the birds they flow with nature and their songs probably have some fantastic vibration, but they go, I think, in a group. So a group of them will all go to sleep at the same time and they’re kind of ruled by a kind of a group soul I guess […] when you grow more consciousness you grow more bliss […]

But the reporter counters with a sharp

Journalist: Can’t the birds do that?

Lynch, however, remains unshakable:

Lynch: No, birds can’t get a technique. They may flow, they may be very very happy. But no…

Seriously, and laying all sarcasm aside, this is inane beyond all comparison. I won’t be able to watch a Lynch movie for years without hearing the twitter of birds flowing with nature.

Unrestrained animosity

0593055489.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_

I’ve just finished Richard Dawkins’ bestselling anti-religious The God Delusion. Entertaining for sure but in a sort of indulgent way since I pretty much found its premises about as hard to swallow as Italian ice cream on a sunny day. Having one’s own views intelligently and conveniently confirmed – hasn’t that sort of become the domain of podcasts these days?
Anyway, one interesting feature was the rhetorical effect of Dawkins’ outright anger. An example:

“I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity, which has dulled our objectivity.” (p253)

It is one of Dawkins’ points, of course, that religion deserves no particular respect and that its claims and concepts should be treated as critically as all other types of claims and concepts. Nevertheless, there is obviously spite here and while it can read as honesty it can also read as personal vendetta and thus, perhaps, seem dismissable out of hand to some. Anyway, it illustrates the interesting and complex rhetorical features of anger.

All in all, I recommend the book, but earlier work by Dawkins is more essential if you haven’t been there already.

BTW, the New York Times was somewhat sceptical while The Guardian‘s reviewer had a better time.

Guess the source

A tiny quiz: Where do you think the following snippet originated?:

“Uncertainty is becoming a basic condition, a human, existential condition that we cannot run nor escape from… We must participate in a discourse on the premises of uncertainty and examine and seek out meaning and options in dialogue and relation to others, in order to find a solution to the, in this time, complex issues.”

No, I’m sorry, you were wrong. This is an excerpt from a newsletter from my daughter‘s kindergarten.
Be honest with me, would you say it’s time to panic?

Fear of reptiles



Billede039, originally uploaded by Agent Smith.

You can’t really tell from the picture, but you must believe me. In this very moment there is an angry green robot dinosaur clawing at my office door and roaring ominously. That’s when you just know that it’s Wednesday. (If you don’t believe me, drop by and check it out).

PhD defense completed – get ready

Dr Schmith

This Thursday I succesfully defended my PhD thesis entitled Plans and Purposes: How Videogame Goals Shape Player Behaviour (slides / preliminary dissertation final dissertation).

The opponents asked reasonable questions, the technical equipment worked flawlessly, the post-defense red wine was half-decent, and any post-defence tension was relieved through honorable Guitar Hero combat. Thanks to everyone who showed up.

And a warm congratulations to ex-roomie Miguel Sicart who defended his thesis on games and ethics yesterday (Miguel’s preliminary thesis).

I’ll be uploading the final version of my thesis as soon as it’s ready.

Mission completed.

(oh and I love the Germanification of my name on the ITU posters. It has a nice academic ring).

PhD defense
– “Look, players ARE rational. End of story”.

Player rating systems

Peer-2-peer rating systems work quite well in systems like eBay and Slashdot.

But they do so because User A has no real interest in User B’s future. In brief: A has no real reason to be dishonest.

Not so for online gamers. Here a rating can be used strategically. You may get angry with someone, but you may also see a personal advantage (in terms of relative score) in bad-mouthing that person.

Thus, we essentially need a system which can

  • distinguish between fair and unfair ratings OR
  • in which ratings cannot be used strategically

But what on Earth, I ask you, would that look like?

What about (just brainstorming):

  • Limited number of total karma points (you can’t just toss them aroud for the heck of it)
  • A player can only give a limited amount of points to any given player (to minimize the consequence of evil ratings)
  • The rating is given secretively (you can’t trust/threaten someone to be nice if you are)
  • Karma points cannot be given at all until you’re fairly high-level (or whatever) to avoid people making dummy accounts to boost their own rating
  • You only see ratings of your friends (or those you’ve rated positively) so the truthfulness of your rating actually affects your friends

Any good ideas?

If it’s a small thing: Lie through your teeth

I was shopping for shoes recently. The salesman told me that the pair I was examining needed a special treatment before being used. I asked him if he could perform this treatment for me before I left the store, if I chose them. “Of course”, he said without flinching.

“OK then”, I said, “I’ll take them”.

We go the counter and he looks in the back room for the shoe treatment agent (or whatever it was). He comes back out with an apologetic look and says “sorry, we didn’t have the agent after all”. “No big deal”, I say and buy the shoes.

Then last week I went shopping for a washing machine (the horror!). The salesman gives us a wonderful performance, elegantly geared towards steering us towards the most expensive of his machines. The whole thing is a combination of personal anecdotes and daring signals of personal integrity (he went as far as to question whether we should by a new one at all – we might have our old one repaired – it would be more environment friendly – I thought he was brilliant). Anyway, before we made up our minds about which machine to get, I ask him if we can get the machine within one or two days. “Of course”, he says, “they’re all in stock”.

So we go home and think and having made up our minds I call the salesman and tell him we want the expensive model. He says: “Excellent choice. Let me just confirm that we can get it to you right away and get back to you”. He calls back in 10 minutes to inform me that delivery will unfortunately take eight days because the supplier is out of stock. “OK“, I say, “just get it to us as soon as possible”.

Here’s the principle: As long as the customer is contemplating a purchase, tell him that any small request can be met, even if it’s untrue or you simply have no idea. Once the customer has made his choice, informing him that the small auxiliary promises unfortunately cannot be kept is very unlikely to make him change his mind about the purchase itself.