Arachnicide

I don’t kill spiders.

In the kitchen I have a spider-catching kit: a plastic cup and a folded piece of paper. If I find a spider in the house, I herd it into the cup with the paper, then hold the paper over the top so it can’t escape. (Spider Alcatraz!) Then I take the little mofo outside and set it free.

I inherited this quirk from my dad. He’s been a spider-saver all his life. Betsy, on the other hand, comes from a long line of spider-squishers, but she’s learned to accept my weirdness. When she finds a spider, she calls for me, and I catch and release.

Or at least, I try. I’d estimate my success rate around 70%. The fact that I fail to catch 30% of the spiders, and she calls for me anyway, is proof of her undying love.

We also get these nasty centipedes in our house – not the slow little reddish armored ones, but big gray fast ones with long, hair-thin legs. I used to shudder and murder the buggers on sight, but over time I migrated them to catch-and-release status too. I don’t hate them nearly as much anymore, even though some are so big they make a thump when they land on the ground. (I’m not joking.)

I’m very attached to this silly behavior of mine, even though it has no legitimate ethical foundation. I can’t claim it’s wrong to kill bugs, because I kill mosquitoes, bees, and fruit flies all the time. (Not coincidentally, so does my dad.) Besides, every time I mow the grass, legions of six-legged creatures fall prey to my blade. They’re bugs, and bugs die. No sense in getting sentimental. Hell, I even kill the occasional spider when saving it would be especially inconvenient.

Yet a part of me says that spider-saving isn’t entirely worthless. Part of me says that trying not to kill without cause, at any level, is a kind of compassion, and compassion is good for the soul.

Yes, I’m deluding myself. But then, we all have our delusions, don’t we?

Healing the Man and the Machine

I’ve lived with a chronic illness for a little over two years now. Lately it’s gotten worse, which accounts for the missed work days and the missed blog posts.

I can honestly say that the last few weeks have been some of the most difficult in my life. Not quite at the top of the list, but close enough.

Fortunately, I started on a new combination of meds last Tuesday (the seventh such attempt) and for now at least, it seems to be working. I’m in a lot less pain. Work is starting to feel possible again. Hope returns.

By an odd coincidence, my computer had also been getting worse lately. You’d boot up, and it would work for an hour or two, then slow down and lock up completely. I did a lot of rebooting. Finally I gave up on it and switched to using the PC in the family room, which we use more as a Netflix TV than a normal computer. I was sitting on the floor a lot, typing hunched over the keyboard. Not great for your back.

My friend (and local mad genius) Paul suggested extreme measures: reinstall the operating system from scratch. Yesterday I took his advice and embarked on the five-hour voyage of downloading and installing Windows 7.

It seems to have worked. I’m typing this on my old computer again, with no signs of the issues from before.

A healed computer, a healing body. Two things I’m very grateful for. It’s amazing how illness can change you, darken your world, contract the borders of your private universe into a little walled-off circle of pain. It’s amazing how feelings like hope and despair are so connected to getting the right combination of chemicals in the pills you take.

I’m a lucky man.

I don’t know how long this recovery will last. The illness has always been cyclical before, and it could be that I’m just in another temporary upswing. It feels different this time, but maybe it’s not. We’ll see.

In the meantime: I’m glad to be back.

Still Sick

Lack of new posts is because I continue to be pretty sick. Will return when I can. I’m on a new combination of medications now, so fingers crossed.

Friday Links

2gag

This week, Two Guys and Guy plumbs the depths of irony.

sinfest

And Sinfest searches for unlikely superheroes.

Finally, here’s a 15-minute compilation of Worf getting shot down and rejected, over…and over…and over. Michael Dorn’s reaction here (at around the 2:00 mark) is equally enlightening.

See you Monday!

460 Volts of Conformity

How much electricity would you send through an innocent person’s body?

In 2010, eighty volunteers in France signed up for a reality show called Zone Xtreme. Each volunteer was put on live TV, watched by a cheering audience and an attractive host, and told to play a game. Their role in the game was to administer electric shocks to another player, named Jean-Paul, whenever he got a question wrong.

The shocks started at 20 volts, and moved gradually up to 460 volts, which the players were told might be lethal. Jean-Paul reacted only a little to the smaller shocks, but gradually his screams became worse, until he was shouting he didn’t want to play anymore, begging to be set free from the booth in which he was trapped. Finally, at the highest voltage, he didn’t react at all. He just sat, slumped over, silent.

It was all a setup. Jean-Paul was an actor; the shocks were nonexistent. But the players didn’t know that. They believed it was very real.

Now ask yourself: of the eighty players, how many do you think were willing to ignore his screams and deliver every single shock, all the way up to the possibly-lethal 460 volts?

Take a moment to think about your answer. Remember, these are ordinary, randomly-selected people.

.

.

.

Got your guess?

.

.

.

The answer is 64 out of 80 people, or 80% of the contestants.

To be clear: 80% of these ordinary human beings were willing to deliver agonizing, potentially lethal shocks to another human being, in spite of his obvious pain and direct pleas not to.

They weren’t even playing for money. There was no reward. They were just on TV. Full details about the show are here.

Lest you think there’s something wrong with French people, this show merely recreates a much older and more famous American study called the Milgram Experiment. Essentially the same thing, with the same result, except it wasn’t televised.

And now, the big question. Would you deliver the full voltage?

Perhaps you say “No! Of course not!” But if you jump to that answer without some serious soul-searching, then you’re missing the point. Because nearly all of those 80 people would have said the same thing.

It’s not about whether you’re a good person or a bad person. You see, these contestants didn’t want to give the shocks. They felt bad about it. They objected to it. They wished they didn’t have to do it.

But they felt a tremendous social pressure. And in the end, in spite of all the complaints of their conscience, they pressed the button.

Think it over. Someday it might not be an experiment.

Wednesday Daydream

Brian Answers: 30-Second Demosthenes

Fatal PC problems and super-duper tiredness have conspired to keep me away from the blog, but no more! Today I return (hopefully for good) to the final day of Ask Brian Anything.

Shaila Mudambi asks:

If you could make a 30 second speech to the whole world (everyone actually listening) what would you say?

I thought about this question for a long time Sunday, as I was mowing the back yard. What would I say?

Since I’m a hopeless romantic, I’m tempted to make some grand unifying gesture, calling for peace or understanding or goodwill, something like that. Or perhaps read a poem – Kipling’s “If” comes to mind, though it’s too long.

Except, the world is full of such gestures, and I doubt it would faze most people. If I want to make a difference, I decided I should try something more concrete.

I think I would find out the name of somebody in need, in a country plagued by war or disease. I would tell their name, who they are, and what challenges they face. Then I would ask for people to donate what they can to Doctors Without Borders to help that person.

It’s actually not about that particular person, whoever they are. I just want people to give. But countless experiments have shown that people are more likely to give if they have a specific person in mind. Paradoxical though it may be, we’re hard-wired to care more about one person’s suffering than a million’s. So I am being a little manipulative here, but I can’t say I feel too bad about it.

Thanks for an excellent question, Shaila!

Finally, “no1isordinary” asks:

Through what lens do you craft your answers?

To be honest, I don’t entirely understand this question. But I suppose the answer is something like “my mind” or “my life experience.” And since this blog is a reflection of my mind, you could say that the place I write my answers is the lens. DEEP! 😀

Well, that’s it for Ask Brian Anything. Thanks for playing along! It’s been fun. Regular posts resume tomorrow.

Brian Answers: The Deadly Truth

On today’s edition of Ask Brian Anything, blog reader LS asks:

Is 2+2=4 a truth you are willing to die for?

In yesterday’s post, I claimed the truth is beautiful and important. Today I have to answer: how important?

First, let’s distinguish between knowing the truth and telling the truth.

Knowing the truth is crucial as a foundation for your own thought and action. What you know stands among the pillars of who you are. But knowing the truth isn’t just about memorizing facts. It’s about curiosity, a passion to acquire new knowledge. It’s about weeding out lies and false beliefs. It’s about using the same carefully structured doubt that lies at the heart of the scientific method. Knowing the truth is a way of life.

Telling the truth is more complicated. Passing the truth on to others is important for its own sake, but it also establishes trust, the foundation of a healthy relationship – and a healthy society. Lying erodes trust, and that’s dangerous.

Knowing and telling the truth are both virtues, but neither is the highest virtue. It’s easy to imagine scenarios where you should lie to protect someone’s life, and with a little more imagination, we can even think of times when it’s nobler to delude oneself than to face the truth.

So, with all that in mind: is 2+2=4 a truth I am willing to die for?

It depends.

The question conjures up visions of a Winston or a Picard in some Orwellian chamber, with a brutal interrogator bent on shattering his basic understanding of reality. It suggests, more than just an equation, a titanic struggle between individual good and bureaucratic evil.

And so I say again: it depends. It depends what the stakes are.

If it’s just about me, my own understanding of reality, I don’t think I’d be willing to die for that. But if somehow my struggle determined the fate of something larger – if I could save the lives of others, or steer the course of a society – then yes, I’d probably be willing to die for that.

In other words, I wouldn’t die for the truth itself, but I might die for the implications of the truth.

Ideally, however, nobody dies! Ideally, we would eat cake and talk about Star Trek. You know, just sayin’.

Brian Answers: The Highest Moral

Welcome back, hypothetical reader! I’m feeling much better today, so let’s return to answering your questions. I’ve already answered one question about the NSA and another about writing advice.

Today, blog reader Alex C. asks:

What single moral principle do you believe in above all other morals you follow and why?

My answer is “the pursuit of beauty,” with beauty used in a much broader sense than normal.

Human life is beautiful. It’s one of the most beautiful things I know. So the pursuit of beauty means giving to charity, trying to save lives.

Happiness is beautiful. So pursuing beauty means finding ways to make people happy: other people, and yourself too.

Art can be beautiful, so I strive to make better art and improve my skill.

Work can be beautiful, so I strive to do better work.

Love is beautiful. We should search for love everywhere, cherish it where we find it, and create it where none exists. We should care for those close to us, and reach out to those who aren’t.

Truth is beautiful. We should hone our minds to be careful about the truth, to discover and follow what is real, to constantly challenge our own beliefs.

Many things are beautiful: the Pythagorean Theorem, sunrises, friendship, electricity, the planet Saturn; but also cold feet in the morning, the smell of dirt, the sound of a car engine. Even pain and death have their own austere kind of beauty. That doesn’t mean we should try to cause pain and death, but that we should look for what beauty in them we can find.

Of course, beauty is subjective, which is always the problem. Some things that I find beautiful (gay marriage, for example) are ugly to others, and vice versa. Things we find beautiful today may seem ugly in the future, and vice versa. So how do we know the things we’re pursuing are “truly” beautiful?

We don’t. We do the best we can, and we strive for the truth.

That’s my answer, anyway. What about you?

Updates will be sporadic for a while

Still pretty sick.