Thursday, May 26, 2005

Are our affinities for our acquired tastes stronger than our tastes for things we like right away?

Why are there no new episodes of the Daily Show Lately?


I puked the first time I tried blue cheese. Now, it's probably my favourite food in the world. I have weaker (shallower?) attachments to things I took likings to immediately than to things I've acquired affinities for over time. Maybe relationships share some of these qualities, too. Maybe some of the strongest relationships need time to see past the shallower aspects too.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

How the Handicapper became a Jockey




The other night, I had a rather intense dream. Intense emotions. Intense realism.

Intense fiction.

When one of my roommates first moved in to my current house and home last spring, he introduced me to the discipline of handicapping thoroughbred horse-races using the structured and tried and true methodology of the Controlling Factors: Speed, Class, Record, Weight, Interval between races, time, and odds. While he has returned to work two days per week, he spends every of the intervening days, for most of each day, betting the horses. Personally, I think it is a bit excessive, but it's not my business, as long as he makes rent each month.

Since then, I've expanded my handicapping knowledge base, including formal studies of various methodologies--but still, I don't have the money to play the races regularly--nor the desire to--but rather continued more formal studies because of my extensive background in forecasting, modeling, and statistical analyses.

But this is just background information for this odd, intense dream I had the other day.

The beginning of the dream started with my estranged wife spending pleasurable quality time together with me, just like we used to do. It was a refreshing change from the cold rudeness she affords me whenever I travel to her parents' house, where she lives with my daughter.

They say time heals all. But surely this is a sign that the intervening year and a half since our separation has had barely any effect at all--that I still wish that a snap of the finger could bring us back to our happy days--that we could once again be a happy family. In my dream we spent happy times, as we did for so much of the almost five years we were together, exploring the natural world together--thinking about the science behind what we take for granted--thinking about such things as why ice floats, for example. We take for granted that ice floats. But because we take it for granted, we don't think about it. And because we don't think about it, we really don't understand what is going on that makes ice float. In fact, ice won't always float. We take it for granted that ice floats in liquid water, but never stop to think that the very physics that makes ice float in water could make ice sink in some other liquids, or that in the microgravity of freefall, such as a spaceship in orbit--that's right, there is a strong gravitational pull on spaceships; the only reason astronauts seem to be weightless (not massless, which would mean they didn't exist) is because, they--and their spacecraft--are in fact very strongly being affected by the earth's gravity. They are weightless because they are in a very controlled freefall in a special condition where they fall towards the earth (quite fast, too--the speed at which they orbit) and they fall at just the right angle that their freefall is just at a rate that matches the curvature of the earth. That's right--spaceships and astronauts are actually in freefall, because of the earth's gravity (and their very fast orbital speed is evidence of how strong this gravity is), but in a special freefall where they fall towards the earth, and just match the curvature of the earth, so the freefall can continue ad nauseam. If the spaceship moved faster than the pull of gravity made them fall, the spaceship would leave orbit--and not be weightless. If the spaceship moved slower than the pull of gravity, it would not keep up with the curvature of the earth and would fall towards the earth until it crashed--and experience negative gee's. The whole reason I expounded on the explanation of spaceships and the illusion that there is no gravity in space is to explain further that ice does not float in space, but not because there is no gravity--rather because the spaceship is in freefall matching the pull of gravity, thus making it seem like there is no gravity, when in fact, there is a lot of gravity in space. Because it the pull of gravity is matched by the spaceship's freefall, ice in water would not float--the pull of gravity on the water and the ice is matched and made to seem absent because the ship that the glass of icewater is in is in freefall.

So why does ice float on earth, when we obviously know that gravity is present?

It is because water behaves strangely around its freezing point. Due to hydrogen bonding and the fact that a water molecule is polar (that is, because of an unpaired set of electrons on the oxygen-rich side of the molecule, and the relative lack of any charge on the hydrogen side, the water molecule is overall neutral electrically, but exerts a slight negative charge effect on the oxygen side and a slight positive charge effect on the hydrogen side). Because water is polar, it experiences hydrogen bonding--that is, an attraction between the unbalanced concentration of negative charge on the oxygen side and the unbalanced lack of negative charge (relative positivity) on the hydrogen side. This attraction occurs between water molecules and is, in fact, what causes water to be liquid at room temperature and pressure instead of a gas; without the cohesion caused by this polarity keeping molecules attracted to each other, at room temperature, water would not have any attraction between molecules, and a substance as light as water would cease to have any cohesive forces within it, freeing the molecules to act as a gas.

So, what does this have to do with ice floating? (Or, more circumlocutionally, what does this have to do with my intense dream?) It is this polarity that causes something strange to happen to the intermolecular interactions of water around its freezing point (perhaps another day, I'll explain that the Celsius temperature scale does not mean that the freezing point of water is "cold" or "hot"--or that 0°C lacks any temperature and, say, -40°C (which coincides with -40°F, incidentally). The Celsius scale was simply defined as 0°C being the temperature at which water turned from liquid to sold (or vice versa) at standard pressure, and 100°C was the point at which water turned from liquid to gas (or vice versa). But as I said, I'll write more at length on this in a future post....

As I just mentioned, the polarity causes something "strange" to happen around freezing temperature. First, I must make something else we take for granted--and therefore don't really understand--perfectly clear; I must define what, precisely, a "liquid" and a "solid" are. A liquid, as I alluded earlier, is a state of matter characterised by intermolecular attraction strong enough to cause the molecules of a substance to maintain contact with each other (without molecules having a strong enough attraction to maintain contact with each other, the substance ceases to "stay together" and becomes a gas). But this intermolecular attraction is not strong enough to form a structure (i.e. the intermolecular forces are not strong enough to maintain each molecule of the substance a fixed position relative to each other--a solid). What is the force opposing intermolecular forces, determining what state a substance will be? It is temperature, something else we take for granted. Temperature, technically defined by the Kinetic Molecular Theory, is simply defined as the amount of kinetic energy (energy of motion) the substance's molecules have. The faster the molecules move, the hotter a substance is. The slower a substance's molecules move, the colder the temperature. Therefore, although it is "temperature" that determines what state a substance will be--solid, liquid, or gas--a more meaningful explanation is that whether a substance will be a solid, liquid, or gas, is determined by the balance between the intermolecular attraction and the motion of the molecules (temperature) which acts opposing the intermolecular attraction. A solid is thus the point at which intermolecular attractive forces are stronger than the motion of the molecules. And since we do not change the intermolecular forces of a substance, the only variable is the temperature--or the motion of the molecules. A liquid is a substance within the range of temperature/molecular motion where intermolecular attraction is able to maintain a cohesion between the substance's molecules (i.e. intermolecular attraction is strong enough to prevent the substance from being a gas, but not strong enough to maintain fixed relative positions of the molecules--a solid), but not strong enough to make it a solid. When the molecular motion is high enough to overcome the intermolecular attraction, the substance ceases to maintain cohesion between molecules and the molecules have enough energy to roam freely--be a gas.

So what happens that is "strange" with water around it's freezing temperature? What is "strange" is that liquid water--water with enough intermolecular attraction to maintain cohesiveness of the substance to itself but enough molecular motion/temperature to prevent its molecules from settling into fixed relative positions/structure--has a certain average distance between its molecules. I don't know what it is numerically, but it naturally has a certain average distance between the molecules. Because of its polarity, when the temperature is low enough/molecular motion is slow enough/defined in the Celsius scale as 0°C, the water molecules are moving slowly enough that they do not have enough energy to move out of a fixed orientation/structure. But just before water "freezes" or "settles into a fixed position of molecules relative to each other," the polarity of the water molecules cause them to orient themselves in a hexagonal 3-dimensional structure. At temperatures/motions around freezing temperature, there is enough molecular motion energy to keep the hexagonal structure having an average distance between molecules that is farther apart than the average distance between liquid water molecules.

Why does this make solid water (ice) float in liquid water? It is because of this differential in distance between water molecules as a solid and as a liquid. (It should be noted that at slower molecular motions than around the freezing point, the molecules do not have enough molecular motion energy to keep the perfect hexagonal structure and the intermolecular forces win over the motion of temperature, causing the intermolecular attractive forces to draw water molecules closer together. This causes solid water to become more dense. At some theoretical point, the intermolecular attraction is strong enough to pull the water molecules closer together than liquid water's molecules, making ice sink.

But around the freezing point of water, when the hexagonal solid structure maintains a distance between molecules farther apart than liquid molecules, the concentration of mass is less in the solid structure than the concentration of mass of the liquid.

This is where I must point out that you should realize that it is not really ice that floats. It's really the more concentrated mass of the liquid water that is trying to fall as close to the earth as possible. Because it has more concentrated mass than the solid water (ice), it pushes the solid water out of the way. It could be sideways, upwards, diagonal--it doesn't care; the liquid water only cares about being as low as possible. So if it pushed the ice sideways, it would not gain any advantage in being lower. The only way to make as much liquid water sink as far down as possible is to push everything less dense than it upwards. This means, of course, that if you had a balloon filled with carbon dioxide and a balloon filled with helium as well as ice chunks in a swimming pool, the water would push the helium balloon and the ice upwards. But the carbon dioxide-filled balloon has more concentrated mass than liquid water (i.e. is more dense), so it pushes everything out of the way to get to the lowest position. This means pushing water, helium balloon, and ice out of the way to be lowest.

Now, I think you will never look at a glass of icewater the same way again.

And now, I can get back to my dream.

It was the enjoyment of exploring such simple physical properties for the sake of understanding that my wife and I shared. And in my dream, we blissfully discussed such properties.

After my dream took a sharp change in story, it went from the blissful to the exotic.

Enter my father, my sister, one of my friends, Brad, his dream-generated brother, my father, my father's girlfriend, and my other roommate, Alex. Somehow now there was an understanding that we would all participate in a thoroughbred race--not bet on it--we would be jockeys. What began to drive me crazy was that each person, in turn, caused a delay for some reason or other, to the point that Brad decided that he no longer had time to race his horse. Then his brother dropped out. Then my father's girlfriend, and then him. My sister stuck with me the longest (but strangely caused the first delay for taking a bath). Then I blew up at my father. Probably repressed emotions from waking hours, I lashed out at him for not understanding my situation. I lashed out at him for never even trying to understand my difficult emotional, financial, and life situation. He was lying down on a couch at the time, and completely out of character when he drew the blanket up to cover his crying face. Of course, in real life, I know his obstinance would result in the confrontation ending with his storming away, even more righteous than before, even less understanding than before.

At this point, the craziness of the idea that we would jockey horses yielded to the insanity of my intensely resentful, painful emotions. The fact that because the numbers worked out such that I and my friend would be jockeying two horses--just as insane as the idea that we would race a horse in the first place--was even overpowered by my anger of being delayed by everyone close to me, one by one; was even overpowered by my resentful feelings of being betrayed by everyone close to me when they decided not to race, after causing all the delay; was even overpowered by my disappointment that my parents had become increasingly less supportive and understanding as time has gone on--was even overpowered by my losing my wife and daughter a second time.

When I first set out to write this exposition, I thought it would help to verbalize all this pain.

But now, over an hour after I wrote the first words, the emotional pain has become so intense--the tears accurately prophesied in my dream now a reality--I realize that time has done nothing to heal anything.

Rather, time has caused my emotional wounds to fester and ripen--and rot.

If not time, what--if anything--will save me?

Saturday, March 26, 2005

What would she think of me now?

My daughter, born July 6, 2003, is less than two years old. Of course I can't expect her to recognize me every time I visit, since I can only afford to visit her once every two months or so. But what would that turn into in her adolescent years?

"Where were you when I was growing up?? Living it up without a care in the world?!?

Of course not. Going from MBA graduate and performance measurement consultant to living on social assistance is hardly living it up. And still being completely in love with my estranged wife doesn't quite portray the picture she'll develop growing up. Her mother with her new boyfriends. Her life not knowing her father.

But why do I keep trying to find a job in my field in Toronto? It's not because I'm in love with Toronto; it's to be close to you, my beloved daughter.

But how can a father explain that to a daughter--as much of a genius as she is--as less than two years old? I can't.

I'll have a small amount of money after the 30th. Maybe I'll plan a trip then. But will I have a birth certificate in hand?

Sometimes I'm too much of a nice guy.

Monday, March 21, 2005

My daughter is a genius!




Last week I was in Toronto for that Interview I mentioned in a previous blog. The interview was on a Monday, and my sister was gracious enough to let me stay at her place as long as I needed to. So, I made plans for Tuesday and Tuesday morning left early to visit my daughter, a couple hours away. She lives with her mother and maternal grandparents in the countryside between Hamilton and St. Catharines.

I got there and rang the doorbell.
No Answer.

I had already made arrangements, so I knew someone was home. I rang the doorbell again.
No Answer. Ashley must be on the phone...as she usually is when I visit...

I banged on the door a bit to try get someone's attention and I heard some noises within. I heard the door unlatch and saw the slightly bedraggled face of my once-beloved wife, seemingly perturbed for interrupting her phone call. As I made my way in and down to the family room, she returned to her all-important phone call. Must be the boyfriend.

I had a gift for Kaitlain, but she seemed not to recognize me. Not as her father. Not as a friend. Not as anyone in particular.

This really hurts. My own daughter.... who showed more recognition in the first three months of her life when we lived together... can't even recognize me as someone she should know.

*sigh*

A few minutes later, as she always does, she warmed up to me, and became my friend.
She ran and fetched something from the corner, out of sight.

Oh, a book? For us to read?

She quickly pointed out a few objects in the book and ran back to put the book back, returning shortly with another book.

Oh, another book! What can you point out in this one? Oh! The Moon! That's right!

I took out the camera I had borrowed from my sister to take some pictures and fumbled around with it to figure out how to turn it on. Eventually, I figured it out and snapped a couple pictures. Ashley was nice enough to take some time out of her busy television-watching schedule to demand her passport and birth certificate. I replied that I didn't know where they were.

The nerve! She asked for the snowboard I gave her back, and I gave it to her. She asked for this and that back. And I've always brought them for her. Here I am, unemployed, waiting for my first disability cheque (going on over three months since I was approved and not a penny in sight), I ask for the ring back to help me survive, and she refuses to let me pawn it for survival money. And now makes more demands on me?

In my brief lapse of attention, Kaitlain had taken the camera from me and was turning it on and off! She had figured out in less time than it had taken me, how to turn on and off the camera! And from the few times I snapped her picture, she already knew how to jam it in my face, right way forward and up, and all!

I took it back and shoved it quickly without thought into its leather case. Without having to be shown, she took the camera, removed it from its case, and turned it on. No sooner had I realized this than it was shoved in my face again, ready to snap a closeup of my nose! And then she put it back in the case.

Now I don't know any standards for development at different ages, but I'm pretty sure she figured out the proper orientation and the fact that the camera fits into its leather case at all in record time.

My daughter is a genius.

Friday, March 18, 2005

// IMPORTANT // Telephone Scam to hijack your phone line! -- Please Read!





I was recently informed of this scam by a friend, but after receiving it for the second time from another friend and reading more about it, I decided to post a copy of the Blog found at http://www.benedictionblogson.com/archives/001197.php A large number of replies have been posted there as well with others' experiences, so you might want to check out that link after reading about it...

The information is from the RCMP

Telephone scam: "$99 vacation"

La version française suit la version anglaise.

The Telephony Unit has been advised that many employees have received along-distance call (from 1-305-675-6263 or 567-3100) advising that theyhave won a 5-day vacation for only $99.

The recorded message asks the winner to dial "9" to speak to an operator.

This is a scam. If you receive such a call, please hang up and do not press 9. If you do, others will be able to make long-distance callsfrom your telephone line and charges will be forwarded to your bill.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Arnaque téléphonique : voyage pour 99 $
Le Groupe de la téléphonie a appris que plusieurs personnes ont reçudes appels interurbains (des numéro 305 675-6263 et 567-3100) lesinformant qu'ils viennent de gagner un voyage de cinq (5) jours pourseulement 99 $.

Le message enregistré demande au gagnant d'appuyer sur le « 9 pour parler à un téléphoniste. Veuillez noter qu'il s'agit d'une arnaque. Si vous recevez un tel appel, raccrochez immédiatement sans appuyer sur le 9.

Autrement ces gens pourront faire des appels interurbains à partir de votre lignetéléphonique et les frais seront facturés à votre numéro.

Nous vous remercions de votre collaboration.

These numbers are working their way through trunk systems. People receiving the calls in Canada and the US are asked to contact PhoneBusters. See the updated info.
Posted by Bene Diction at January 20, 2005 11:52 PM

Comments
Not only is it a scam, but the automatic dialing system they are using spent the better part of Friday calling every 911 trunk we had in our system. Because the calls came from out of country, Bell couldn't shut them down.Telemarketers!!!!!!Steam from my ears Bene....
Posted by: hamster on January 24, 2005 10:28 AM

Monday, March 14, 2005

How to be SMART at your next job interview!





Speaking of interviews... I just had my third interview with the Senior Director of Marketing Analytics and Customer Segmentation at CIBC. I have high hopes for this position; it's a level 8 position. This could really help me with my financial situation...Many ways to approach interviews.

As fledgling MBAs, we were thoroughly trained in several techniques, such as the "STAR" technique, etc. If I can help one person by writing this, perhaps they can pay me some of their earnings The STAR technique has many advantages for both candidate and interviewer(s). As a candidate, you appear professional, analytical, and--above all--organized. As an interviewer in a structured interview, it is very easy to identify the competencies being communicated by the candidate, assess how genuine the candidate is, and have concrete material to back up the competencies identified for the job description.

It involves a lot of preparation (which also looks good to prospective employers), thought, and a little bit of role-playing the part of a human resource manager. One thing to remember when you get an interview is that time is money; and usually an employer won't spend the time interviewing you unless they have an intention to hire you if you fit the bill. The method I'm proposing will help you fit the bill, to a "T," and present it in a way that can't be missed.STAR is very simple. It stands for (S)ituation, (T)asks, (A)ction taken, (R)esults.It helps if, before the interview, out of courtesy, you ask if you may take notes. This has the added benefit of making you look very organized, interested, attentive, and analytical.

Trained human resource professionals--experienced interviewers--know that flying by the seat of their pants and going by gut feeling has a very low validity; during my advanced studies in Recruitment and Selection as part of my MBA program, we studied the statistical validities of the various interview methods. By far the most reliable is the structured interview, with either behaviour-descriptive (use examples from your past to demonstrate specific competencies--the STAR method fits this method like a glove) or situational (what would you do if...?) In all structured interviews, desired competencies for the position (e.g. analytical skills, quantitative skills, relationship-building, time management, adaptability, etc.) are identified first during a thorough job analysis.

Questions are derived to assess whether or not each candidate has each competency identified. Scoring is pre-determined and standardized for sample answers to the question (again, you will see why the STAR method really shines in structured interviews). The same set of questions and answer scoring paradigm is applied to every candidate--no ad hoc questions, no scoring by "gut feeling." This is the interviewing technique that large corporations are adopting to be defensible in their selections, to be accurate in their selections, and in some cases--to abide by law; all chartered banks, transportation businesses, and some others are covered by federal jurisdiction employment laws requiring rigorous recruitment and selection procedures be followed.

But I'm getting off-topic a little.When you are asked a question, if it is a good, structured interview, the purpose of the question will be to identify whether or not you have a specific competency. Your job, the night before, was to do a job analysis, yourself, on the position and try to identify as many competencies as you think are important to the position. Your job, the night before, was also to think of an example or two from your previous jobs, volunteer positions, or anywhere in life, where something you did shows that you have that specific competency (such as leadership--the time you had a school project and there was chaos people doing a lot of work, other people doing none, so you showed strong leadership, divided the project into work packages, delegated the work packages, tracked their progress, etc.), and then come up with answers in the "STAR" format.

In fact, I'll use this exemplar to illustrate how to prepare your answers using the STAR format in your preparation for the interview the night before:

Suppose you are going to interview for a position as a camp counsellor.

List out competencies you think a camp counseller requires: creativity, people-skills, leadership, initiative, time-management, dealing with crises--I'm sure you can come up with more given a few minutes.Let's take "leadership" as an example to prepare your answer the night before.

A question that might be asked tomorrow during the interview would be, "Can you give an example of a time you showed leadership skills?" This question obviously is designed to assess whether you have demonstrable competencies in leadership, initiative, management, people-skills.

Situation: What was the situation?- "One time, during a chemistry group project and presentation, we were placed into assigned groups. Naturally, the group dynamic began to show signs of chaos--some people seemed eager while others just joked around; some people came to group meetings with a lot of work, while others forgot they even had a meeting until the teacher told us to get into groups."

Task at hand: What did you have to do?- "In the interests of doing well on the project, I decided (showing initiative) that I had to bring cohesiveness, organization, and responsibility to the group."

Action taken: What did you do?- "I brought cohesiveness to the group by reminding everyone that this project was worth 50% of our grade in the course and that we had to have a more organized effort so that we could do a really good project. The other group members agreed."- "I divided the work to be done into logical work packages, and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each one in the group--or finding them out if I didn't--I assigned these work packages to each group member... I found that even the members who didn't care about the project seemed to take an interest when I assigned them something to do that involved something they were good at!"- "I set up a chart that I put on a web page for everyone to see that outlined the important dates and so they could report on their progress. This seemed to spur some friendly competition in the group and I found after a while that even the group members who weren't so enthusiastic about the project were not just meeting their deadlines--they were beating them!"

Results: Quantify the results if possible.- "As a result, our group put on the best presentation of the class, earned a grade of 96%, and the teacher even asked if she could keep our project and presentation as an example for later years."

This should give you an example of about how much effort and thought you should put into preparing an example for each competency you identify.

During the interview, when the question is asked, you again remind your interviewer(s) of your organizational and analytical skills by asking for a moment to prepare your answer (taking your time to answer during an interview is something most people don't do--but should). Turn to a fresh page in your notebook, write out the headings: S, T, A, and R vertically and begin filling in your story.When you're good and ready--don't rush!--give your answer. You are sure to shine above the other candidates when you complete the whole interview with this level of organization. And what about unstructured interviews? If you can give this level of preparation, organization, and analysis, you'll wow your interviewer and blaze ahead of the competition.The most important thing is to give yourself ample time and effort the night before, doing a thorough job identifying competencies, examples from your past that show these competencies, and fitting them into the STAR model.

Even if a question takes you by surprise, don't worry; you can do a STAR analysis right on the spot--the important thing is not to look rushed or scared. Just ask for some time to prepare your answer, which they'll be more than happy to give (they want a good answer too, not one blurted out stream-of-consciousness style that goes nowhere and shows no competencies), try to identify the competency desired from their question, and open a fresh page...Of course, there are other interview techniques, but I think this one will help the most people get the most jobs.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Chronicling the Consternation of a Chronic Insomniac




Would that it were not so.

During the course of a consequential conversation with an acquaintance in Tampa today, we coincidentally came to contemporaneous conclusions that the last ticket for the last Hullabaloo sold was the harbinger of the end of an era. And with that realization came our concurrent consternation. Consternation that everything that was once important would have no singular significance. Consternation that what had once defined our lives amounted to little more than puerile delusion. Consternation that our lives lacked lasting lucidness.

Possibly the prophpetic portent of a portentous progression in philosophical paradigm?

Would that it were not so.