woertink.com

Julia is pregnant with identical twins.

A recent news article has appeared about a study on violence in media and its effects. The basic idea is that if people see violence they become more aggressive and more like to commit aggressive behavior. I think I have an alternate theory which will provide for the experimental evidence but not have such a dire outcome. The key is in the definition of aggression. According to the paper “To most researchers, aggressive behavior refers to an act that is intended to injure or irritate another person.” To me the key here is the intent. If I tell you “Your tie is really ugly” then is that aggressive? It could be either. It could be a friendly jab or I may intend to hurt your feelings. The study makes the point that people can become desensitized to violence. I think that is probably true but it does not follow that I will become more aggressive, but what can happen is that my sense of what is aggressive can change. A person exposed to more verbal and physical violence may be more likely to give a person a jab to the shoulder or a verbal jab to their tie, but the intent is not to cause pain or damage.

This type of apparent increased aggression is not problematic because at its heart it does not come from malice. In this view it is unlikely that violent media would lead to extreme violence such as murder because it would require people to believe that murder is not painful or damaging. I doubt we will see people go up to their friends and shoot them in shoulder in playful friendly way like saying “hi”. The key is that people are not becoming more aggressive just the nature of actions that are aggressive change.

A good example of this process would be the changes in manners. To people from the Victorian age we would be considered rude and aggressive. But it is simply a cultural difference. They would take offense when none was intended.

PICT2491

Originally uploaded by jkwoertink

My most recent half marathon went extremely well. The run was cool and forested. Also a run without a swarm of bees is not a run at all. The trail was tight, rocky and covered in roots hidden by new fallen leaves. But I managed to get a new PR at 2:06:51 which as a 9:41 pace. More importantly I survived undamaged. Afterwards Julia and I went to the Old Faithful Geyser of California in nearby Calistoga follow by lunch in St. Helena.

Big Sur Trail Marathon

Originally uploaded by jkwoertink

I finished my first half marathon in a decent time of 2 hours 35 mins and 33 secs. The course was in the beautiful hills of Big Sur California. More photos can be seen here.

The defenders of Net Neutrality should be clear, more than liking Net Neutrality they want it to be legally enforced. In general, I would say that I like Net Neutrality but I am always concerned when we want to control the property of others to enforce our preferences. Interestingly enough a company has just started offering Net Neutral internet service. To me the interesting thing about this is that it gives evidence that the market works and legally enforced Net Neutrality may not be necessary. If people want neutrality then companies will form to provide that need. If this company does well enough then other companies will follow suit in order to not lose business.

I noticed recently that I haven’t been hungry in a while. Besides being a statement of the wonders of capitalism, as an adult I generally do not go hungry since I am free to grab something to eat pretty much as I need it. The last time I was hungry with an frequency was when I was a child. Not that my parents did not feed me, but ultimately I was on their schedule which did not always coincide with my own. But I have found that this experience does happen occasionally usually when visiting friends and family. During these times the meals are usually not scheduled when you want them and since you don’t live there it seems improper to just rifle through their fridge for a late night snack. This problem can lead to some of the stresses of visiting people beyond all the flying, driving and sleeping in unusual surroundings. But this problem is easy to solve. Packing some granola bars or dried fruit for a snack to tide you over is a good idea; being careful to not spoil your appetite for dinner. Also it is probably a good idea if you are a host to have some food out that people can snack on or make it known that raiding the fridge at midnight is not a problem. This should help with the stress of traveling and visiting allowing everyone to enjoy each others company better.

The Drudgereport had on its’ front page today in big letters “MODERN LIVING TO BLAME FOR CANCER EPIDEMIC”. Then links to an article in the Evening Standard. Basically, the article says that all this drinking, smoking and sunning of the modern world is causing all this trouble. Are all these things can cause cancer modern? Alcohol, Tobacco and the sun are at least 9000, 500, and 4.57 billion years old; how are any of these modern? People have been drinking, smoking and working out in the sun for a very long time. The only reason that they didn’t get cancer was that they died early from small pox, plague, or a sword to the stomach.

I think over time the internet will improve the grammar of the country. The internet is causing more people to write. Emails, blogs and chat are forms of writing and their increased use will improve the writing of people. A common occurrence in the internet is misinterpretation of what people write. These instances will often cause offense or get people in trouble in some way. These instances encourage people to be precise and correct in their writing. Some evidence is this is the popularity of the Grammar Girl podcast on iTunes. So over time I think people’s grammar will improve.

If humans ever gain the technology to allow us to live effectively forever then how will it affect us. Some people argue that immortality would be detrimental. Death motivates us. It gives us a short amount of time to do things and so we rush to get things done. Some fear that with too much time people will put things off since they can always be done later. I think this view is wrong because I think people tend to not do things due to their view of the universe. When you live a short life span it is easy to imagine that things will be around forever. If I want to see Paris I have no reason to rush since it is not going anywhere. But the truth is that things change. That fact that things change and impermanence is the rule would motivate people to do things since they know that if they do not see it now the chance will not come again.