Concepts we need: origin of knowledge

I blogged before about why I know how vaccines work: my mother told me when I was a small child who needed to get a needle, her father told her when she was a small child who needed to get a needle, and he would have learned in university. So what was part of a university education to my grandfather became part of general knowledge to me.

A couple of things I have read recently lead me to think that it's a useful exercise to figure out exactly how and why each of us knows the things we've always known as general knowledge.

First, I read this article about Attawapiskat

I’ve met Oji-Cree people who would really just like to know how to operate a buzz saw, after spending the past few millennia hunting and trapping in the boreal forest before being catapulted into residential schools and then bounced back into the birch trees. They know about Jesus, but they have no clue how to insulate prefab modular housing units shipped up by a federal bureaucracy that prohibits them from logging on “Crown land.”

My first thought on reading this is "But I have a clue how to insulate housing!" I don't know exactly, but I have a clue - a rough idea, a starting point, some thoughts on how to refine that rough idea.

So why do I know this?

Because my parents' house came with an unfinished basement, and when I was a small child they finished it. And part of the process of finishing the basement was putting in insulation. I haven't yet talked to my parents and traced how they learned to put in insulation, but for the moment we know that I know about insulation because I saw it being done around me, and the people described in the article don't because they've never seen it done around them, which, as the article describes, is the root of many problems in Aboriginal communities.

Then I read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, which tells the story of the HeLa cell line and Henrietta Lacks, from whom they originated. The book described how Ms. Lacks and her descendents had cultures taken from their bodies and tests conducted without their consent and understanding, and, despite the fact that Ms. Lacks' cells have contributed so much to medical science, her descendents still receive insufficient medical care due to lack of medical insurance (they live in the US). One of the points made in the book is that her descendents don't (and Ms. Lacks didn't) understand the situation very well, and this is portrayed as due to their lack of education.

But this got me wondering: why do understand it? My education didn't cover any of this stuff!

I learned what cells are in grade 9 and/or 10 science class, and that surely contributed to my understanding. But I never took biology, and really learned very little about health stuff in school. So why do I understand it? Part of it is related to my vaccine story above: my parents were able to answer my health questions when I was little, so I've always had the idea that understanding the answers to my health questions is within my grasp. I look stuff up if I don't understand it - and I do understand that I have more resources at my fingertips than the Lacks family did - but ultimately my understanding of the health issues discussed in the books can be traced to the fact that I read newspapers. For probably about 20 years, I've been reading health-related articles that either explain things down to my level of knowledge, or give me the vocabulary to look things up. Sometimes newspaper articles mention interesting-sounding books (like The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks) which I then read and learn even more about medical stuff, but the original input seems to be newspapers.

I blogged before about how I read newspapers just because we always had them around the house. My parents read newspapers because their parents always had them around the house. I don't know my great-grandparents' precise habits of media consumption, but my grandparents have told me stories that involved them as children looking at newspapers that were around the house. So the origin of my newspaper-reading habit predates living memory.

At this point, some people are probably thinking that these things are a result of how I was parented. But they aren't exactly. The influence did come from my parents, but they weren't doing these things to produce good outcomes for their children. Rather, they were just living their lives with me in the general vicinity. They renovated and read newspapers before they have children, and they continue to do so today with their children grown and moved out.

It's more about the context in which one lives. Fifty-five years before Henrietta Lacks was born, her ancestors were slaves. Fifty-five years before I was born, my grandparents were children, looking at (and not entirely understanding) the newspaper they found lying around their parents' houses. And, because of this, I understand her medical records, while she never even thought to ask.

This is something everyone should think about a lot. It really gives you perspective.

Things They Should Study: what percentage of the population can read on trains but not on buses?

One of the reasons why Transit City is of particular interest to me is that I get carsick reading on buses but have no problem reading on trains. A trip in any kind of rail vehicle - even the old-fashioned streetcars they have downtown which are nowhere near as awesome as LRTs - is an opportunity to relax and get some reading done. A trip in a bus, it's at best lost time, and at worst a struggle against nausea. Transit City maximizes the number of potential trips that can be taken by rail, thus maximizing multitaskability.

As I've blogged about before, multitaskable commutes increase productivity, and multitasking in a vehicle generally involves reading of some sort. I'm not the only one who is more prone to carsickness in buses than in trains, but I can't find any data on the percentage of the population to whom this applies. If it's a large percentage of the population, this should be a factor in transit planning - or at the very least it should be public information so we can make an informed decision about whether to take it into consideration.

The first page of google results gives numbers ranging from 33% to 90% of the population being prone to motion sickness, so the number of people affected is probably not negligible. Someone really needs to research this so we can get some real numbers.

Controversial things that I would like to be available if I were one of the people affected

1. Sex-selection abortion. I was a wanted child, conceived quite mindfully and intentionally, and life is still hard. I have wished that I hadn't been born, but I've never been glad that I was born. (Long before I even knew what abortion was, I realized that I hadn't been born, I wouldn't mind not having been born). I'd imagine it's far worse if your parents don't think you're worth having because of your biological sex, but you would be worth having if you had a different biological sex. If my parents had wanted to abort me for being a girl, I would have wanted that option to be available to them.

2. The option of committing suicide when in prison. I always thought that part of the punishment of prison is that they prevent you from committing suicide, so you live to be raped and tortured another day. So, if I were in prison, I'd be very glad to have the option of ending it. However, I don't think the senator's proposal of providing rope for hanging is ideal. Nooses look hard to tie (I wouldn't know how to do it without googling, and I don't think they're allowed internet in prison) and I don't know the results of hanging with a poorly-tied noose. In addition, your bladder and bowels release when you die, and if the body's hanging from the ceiling that would all spray around the room and then someone would have to clean it up. A cleaner and more reliable method would be preferable. On top of all that, it isn't right for people who have been convicted of crimes to have the right to suicide when euthanasia isn't yet available to the general public. Nevertheless, I do support the general principle of suicide being an option, both inside and outside of prison.

I don't expect many people to agree with me on these points. I'm be the first to admit that I'm more nihilistic than most, and I'm certainly not saying that others should feel the same way just because I do; I do very much see where people who disagree with me are coming from. However, the fact remains that, if I were one of the people affected first-hand by these questions, this is what I would want.

Things They Should Invent Words For

I once saw some photos from a Harry Potter premiere that named every actor, the character they played, and the character's blood status. For example, "Rupert Grint, who plays pure-blood wizard Ron Weasley, arrives at the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

Apart from the fact that they're politically incorrect within the Potterverse (I doubt even the Rita Skeeter would be so crude as to mention blood status of an actor at a premiere!), the problem with those captions is that blood status is only meaningful to fans, and fans would already know the character's blood status. If you don't know that Ron Weasley is a pure-blood wizard, the fact that Ron Weasley is a pure-blood wizard is inconsequential to you.

The name of the actor is relevant if you don't know who the person in the picture is, the name of the character might be relevant if you've read the books but aren't familiar with the movie actors, but there are no circumstances under which the blood status of the character is relevant to a reader who wouldn't already know the blood status of the character.

We need a word for this kind of situation, when if you could use the information you already have it, and if you don't have the information it's not useful.

Things They Should Invent: WhereCanIBuy.com

Last summer I bought a full-length mattress wedge. I ended up buying it online (from overstock.com) because I couldn't figure out where to get one in real life. I searched for it in real life by going to the websites of every store I could think of that sells mattresses and seeing if they had any mattress wedges listed on their site. None of them did. I did a bit of fruitless googling, then ended up just searching sites that sell general merchandise. I'm happy with the product I got, but I seriously doubt that there is nowhere to buy a mattress wedge in Toronto. There has to be an easier way.

They should invent a single comprehensive website where you enter your postal code and the item you want to buy, and it finds stores in your area where you can buy it. You can search either by general type of item ("mattress wedge") or by your specifications ("four-cup coffee maker with timer") or by a particular brand and type("Touche Éclat #2"). It would also be interesting to list the prices and whether the item in question is in stock. To make this as easy as possible on merchants, the website's database should be compatible with the most common inventory management systems, so they can all batch upload their inventory for us to find.

This would not only be convenient for customers, but would also be good for smaller, more local businesses. If we haven't the slightest idea where to buy something, we tend to gravitate towards large department or discount stores, or relevant chain stores. (When I was talking about mattress wedges, you were probably thinking The Bay, Sears, Sleep Country, Walmart.) But what if some little storefront nearby has the product in question, but you've never noticed it before because it's in the opposite direction of your commute? A single central directory would direct customers to the store that's best positioned to serve them, not just the best-known. Win-win.

Clothing drop boxes

I was very surprised and disappointed to hear that some city councillors are considering banning used clothing drop boxes.

I like them. They're convenient for me. Someone who wants my unwanted stuff is giving me a convenient location to drop it off at my leisure. They say some of the boxes aren't for charity, but that doesn't negate their convenience. They also say some of them don't give the clothes to the needy, instead selling them to recyclers to use to make recycled textiles. That doesn't bother me either, because it means I can put things like holey old underwear and stained t-shirts and odd socks in the box instead of throwing them out.

All the problems listed in the article seem to be that existing laws and regulations aren't getting enforced. There are already rules about who can and can't operate them. There are already rules against putting big boxes on other people's property without their permission. To ban the boxes because existing rules aren't getting enforced would be to fall into this trap.

In the meantime, there's a very simple first step to solving this problem that they could have taken in that very news article: name the two organizations who are actually licenced to run clothing drop boxes. Every article I've seen on the subject says there are two legit and licenced organizations, none of them name them. Naming them would cost nothing, take up only a few minutes of time, and allow us to make informed choices about where we drop off our old clothes. The news media could even do this themselves without having to wait for city council to act.

Nivea Soothing Care lip balm is not dishwasher-friendly

Nivea Soothing Care lip balm (the one in the light green tube) is no better or worse than any other drug store lip balm. However, the lip prints it leaves on drinking glasses don't come out in the dishwasher nearly as well as other lip balms. Therefore, I don't recommend it for dishwasher users who don't like having to touch up their dishwashing by hand. A very similar product that comes out easily in the dishwasher is Nivea Hydro Care (the one in the light blue tube).

"You're welcome" vs. "No problem" revisited

I've blogged before about the nuances of "you're welcome" vs. "no problem" as a response to "thank you".

But reading this story from Not Always Right gave me some sudden insight on why the "you're welcome" people don't like being told "no problem": they want it to be a problem!

They seem to be interpreting "you're welcome" as "you are welcome [in the sense of "entitled"] to impose upon me by making this request of me", and see a "no problem" as implying that they are not entitled to that. "No problem" is equalizing, "you're welcome" is subservient.

I use "no problem" specifically because it is equalizing, in an attempt to neutralize the burden of gratitude in the other party. I'm saying "It's okay, we're cool, you don't owe me any gratitude, I'm not putting this on your tab." This is what I like in customer service and in life in general, so I try to give it to others.

It makes me feel welcome in the literal sense, the same way I'm welcome in, say, my parents' home. I'm totally allowed to walk in and fix myself a drink and rummage through the fridge. In a customer service context, it makes me feel like they're giving me good service because I'm just as cool as they are, not because I'm above them. Because they like me, not because they are obligated to serve me. They're saying "Hey, it's you! How are you doing? Do you want a coffee?" rather than doing their job and rolling their eyes at me when I leave. And, while it is totally their prerogative to just do the job and roll their eyes at me when I leave, I'd much rather have them like me.

But the "you're welcome" people don't seem to care about that, they seem to prefer to be treated with deference, liked for their position rather than for themselves.

Things They Should Invent: DoINeedToStartAtTheBeginning.com

Lately I've been thinking that Downton Abbey has started sounding interesting to me, but I don't know if it's something that you can pick up in the middle or if I have to go back to the beginning of the series and catch up.

They need to make a single comprehensive website for every series ever - TV, books, and anything else that comes in series form - tell you whether you need to start at the beginning or whether you can just jump right in. They could take user votes and comments, and it could work like Rotten Tomatoes.

For TV series, they could also incorporate a feature that gives you alerts whenever certain series is starting to air from the beginning on a TV channel in your area, so if you want to catch up the old-fashioned way you can.

Things They Should Invent Words For

We've all heard the expression "privatizing profit and socializing risk". The phenomenon I want to make a word for is similar, but I can't seem to structure an analogous expression. It's a sort of socialization of the requirement for expertise, but not precisely.

One example of the phenomenon is pensions. They seem to be moving away from defined benefit pensions, where experts manage it for you, to defined contribution pensions, where they give everyone a little bit of money and tell them to go manage it themselves.

Another major example comes from from job searching. Based on what my parents and grandparents tell me, employers used to be willing to hire unskilled labour or workers with a lot of potential but no particular experience in the area (and they tended to look upon university degrees as potential), and then let them learn on the job or train them up so they could eventually move up the ladder and do better-paying work. But in my own job hunting experience, I find that most employers want workers who already have the very specific skills and experience required for the position - even when it's something easily learnable like proprietary software. And, on top of that, employers have been known to reject applicants who have education that isn't strictly required for the job.

This also reminds me of how every once in a while you hear employers in the news saying that they can't find enough skilled workers, but these complaints about the lack of skilled workers seem to be reaching my ears far more readily than information about what kind of skills which employers need, and how to go about acquiring these skills, and how to figure out which of those jobs you'd be a good fit for rather than picking some skilled trade at random.

Anyway, the general concept I want to coin a word for is this sort of increasing expectation over time that individuals who are not involved in organizations or fields of expertise are independently responsible for developing knowledge of the needs of those organizations or the skills of those fields of expertise, whereas historically the larger organizations were more willing to make the effort to integrate and orient people.

I'm not explaining this as well as I should be. Coinages and better explanations welcome.

Journalism wanted: why are burqas made from synthetic fibres?

Over the past decade or so, I've read several different articles by different journalists visiting Afghanistan who described their respective experiences wearing a burqa. (Most recently here.) And most, if not all, of these articles mentioned that the burqa was made of some synthetic fibre that doesn't breathe.

How did that come about?

Conventional wisdom is that Afghanistan doesn't have much in the way of infrastructure. A lack of infrastructure should make manufacturing synthetic fabrics difficult, so I would expect people to wear natural fabrics made in traditional ways - whatever it was that people did in the centuries and millennia before industrialization. Synthetic fibres also seem inconvenient for burqas (something that breathes would be better), and more convenient for other things. So why are they using it for burqas? This would suggest that synthetic fibres are more readily available than natural fibres. How did that happen in a country with so little infrastructure?

Obviously not all burqas are made of synthetic fibres. Some of the burqas available for sale on the internet in English are available in cotton and sometimes even silk, although I'm certainly not assuming that what I can google up in English is representative of the general burqa market. I've also seen a number of newspaper articles mentioning in passing (for the purpose of explaining to readers what a burqa is) that they're made of cotton; it's quite possible the people writing these articles have no first-hand experience with burqas or are just repeating what they've googled up. But every article I've read by a journalist who actually wore a burqa in Afghanistan has them describing it as made of synthetic fibres that don't breathe. (Unless they're purposely giving synthetic ones to journalists for some reason?)

There's a story in there somewhere. Even if it turns out to be obvious to those familiar with the Afghan garment industry, there's a story in there for ignorant westerners like me.

Whatever happened to cable shows on regular TV channels?

A couple of years ago, TV shows that normally only play on the movie networks were showing old seasons on normal basic or extended cable channels. For example, the first two seasons of Dexter were on Bravo, and the first two seasons of Big Love were on Showcase.

Then they stopped doing that. Why didn't they continue doing that? Both these shows reached five seasons (and Dexter is still going on), but they never showed more than the first two on the channels that I get.

I know they're available on DVD (as well as all the usual unofficial methods), but I find it very easy to procrastinate TV and movies when I know I can watch them any time. If they're on at a specific time, I'll tune in and watch; if they're on DVD or on my computer, I always feel "Meh, I can watch that any time."

SOPA protest idea

I don't know offhand how technologically feasible this is, but just putting it out there: what if the major sites going dark to protest SOPA instead blocked access to their sites from users at .gov addresses? It seems like it could be done on the same principle as geoblocking.

Teach me how arts donations work

From The Ethicist:

I was excited to take my granddaughter, Rachel, to see a local production of “The Nutcracker.” But this season, the production was being underwritten in large part by David Koch, a billionaire who supports numerous political causes that I think harm our nation. He also supports many worthy medical, educational and arts organizations, but I think those good works buy the complicity of the institutions in question. I’m sure my granddaughter would have liked to see the show, but rather than validate this patron’s actions and beliefs, I boycotted it. Should those who feel as I do have joined me?

Does the donor get anything out of higher ticket sales? I was under the impression that he's out of pocket the same amount regardless of whether the tickets are sold or not, and I can't see how boycotting would have any impact on him. What am I missing?

Putting away the childish things

Just before xmas, I had a rough night. My annual bout of strep throat descended upon me rather more quickly than usual and left me unable to fall asleep. All my usual self-care techniques and a dose of melatonin weren't enough to help, and, because I'd already taken the melatonin, I didn't want to take a stronger sleep aid. So I lay cocooned in bed with my eyes closed, planning the fastest way to get antibiotics the next morning and wishing for sleep to overcome me. Fortunately, I had Smurfy with me. Smurfy, as you may remember, is my very favourite stuffed toy smurf who has been with me since I was a little baby. Having the familiar shape of Smurfy there to cuddle with, as I have on countless other rough nights, brought me calm and comfort made it easier to get through. I was awake, but I wasn't fretting about it. I was just lying there, warm and safe, until the walk-in clinic opened.

In the next morning's newspaper, I found that Doonesbury was doing an arc where Sam (age 12) decides to give up her dolls. That made me think of how, when I was a kid, I was constantly aware of the fact that I'd "have to" give up Smurfy. It was weighing on my mind from the age of about 6, and it was utterly terrifying. And all that time, I felt vaguely ashamed that I hadn't already managed to give him up.

I didn't bring Smurfy to slumber parties for fear of being mocked, and never slept well. I trained myself to sleep with other (newer, less worn out, more expendable) stuffed animals so I'd have a more respectable-looking contingency plan for multi-night overnight school trips. I would put Smurfy away when I had a friend over, and obviously he gets the night off when I have human company in bed with me. (An interesting side effect has been that the minimum requirements for sharing my bed have always been you need to be better company than Smurfy. I have met more people than you'd expect who do not meet this requirement.) But, despite all these efforts, Smurfy never became unnecessary. There's still a certain shade of comfort that only he can bring. So I've given up the idea of giving him up. I may choose not to use Smurfy from time to time for various reasons, but that's no reason to abandon my oldest friend and forever eliminate the possibility of enjoying that particular shade of comfort ever again.

But what's sad is that I spent so much of my life thinking I did have to give him up. For years I dreaded the fact that I would one day have to manage without Smurfy, and at the same time felt guilty for still needing him. I'm not entirely sure where this idea came from. I don't remember anyone specifically telling me that I'd have to give him up. It might be an extrapolation from the fact that none of the adults around me slept with stuffed animals. But right now, if I were ever talking to a child who's worried that they'd need to give a beloved toy, I'd tell them outright "You don't ever need to give it up. You can keep it as long as you want. The reason why you don't see a lot of adults with toys is that people tend to find they don't need them as much as they get older, but that doesn't mean you have to give yours up. And even if, as you get older, you find you need it less or don't want to use it every day, you can still keep it for the rest of your life, in a box or a closet or a drawer, just in case."

Being able to soothe oneself to sleep is a useful life skill, and a harmless comfort object that reliably does the job is a good thing to have on hand. No one should ever spend years like I did dreading having to do without when giving it up is so unnecessary and keeping it is not in any way a problem.

I am now happy with UPS

For years and years I've been complaining about UPS and begging businesses I deal with not to use them for shipping.

That has changed. I am now happy with them.

Why? Because now, when a package is delivered by UPS when I'm not home, it's left at the local UPS store, just a couple of blocks away, rather than at the depot an hour's bus ride away. This makes them just as convenient as Canada Post, so I now have no reason to asks the businesses I deal with to please NOT use UPS.

(As an added bonus, it saves UPS time as well, since they now seem to make only one delivery attempt and then leave it at the UPS store, rather than three delivery attempts and then leave it at the depot.)

It's too bad it took them at least eight years to make this change (the first time I had the depot problem was eight years ago), but I'm very glad it's been made.

Excellent customer service from Office Depot and Raynor Group

The armrest on my desk chair broke. I didn't particularly want to shop for a new chair, so I decided to contact Office Depot (where it was bought) to see what would be involved in replacing just the armrest.

Office Depot referred me to the chair's manufacturer (which is called Raynor Group), and instructed me to send them a copy of the receipt and they would send me a replacement part. I emailed them a scan of the receipt, and just a few days received a new armrest by courier at no cost to me!

This is particularly impressive because a) the chair is eight years old, and b) Office Depot is out of business in Canada! I wouldn't have been terribly surprised (disappointed, but not surprised) if they'd told me there was nothing they could do for me. But instead they exceeded my expectations, stood by their products, and solved my problem at zero cost or inconvenience to me! Well done!

Post your facial mask recommendations here

For years, I've been using Bioré's self-heating pore mask. It helps clean my pores, tighten up my wrinkles, encourages any festering cystic acne to come to the surface, and generally makes my skin look and feel better.

But they discontinued it about a year ago. I bought every single box I could find, and now I'm down to my last box.

Can anyone recommend another product that does the same thing?

Things They Should Invent: "people you may know who have died recently"

I've noticed social networks are pretty good at identifying people I might know or people I might be interested in. What if they could combine that with an obituary search and send you alerts of people you might know who might be dead or bereaved?

You could enter your employment and educational history, so the system can identify people who worked with or went to school with you. You could also enter the names of people you're interested in, either in that you'd want to know if they've died or you'd want to know if they're bereaved. You could customize extensively what kind of alerts you get. For example, if you grew up in a small town, you might want to be alerted every time someone in your age cohort is mentioned in a obituary, because it's probably someone you know. If you have an unusual surname, you could be alerted every time someone with the same surname is mentioned.

Unlike social networks, there's no need to be reciprocal. If you want to be alerted if your high school crush or your high school bully appears in an obituary, you can do so without anyone finding out. However, you could have the option of allowing the information you've entered about your age, hometown, employment and educational history to feed other people's alerts, so if you die or are bereaved, other people who probably know you can be alerted, even if only your name is mentioned in a list of survivors.

It does sound like it has the potential for false positives, but this could be partially mitigated with a small message saying why you're getting each alert, like on twitter recommendations. (e.g. "You are receiving this alert because you requested alerts about people who attended Beauxbatons between 1999 and 2003." "You are receiving this alert because it mentions John Smith, whose personal data indicates that he was born in Dog River, Saskatchewan in 1980.") Given the creepy accuracy of facebook, twitter and linkedin recommendations, I think it might work.