It is always interesting to realize how much you have changed. Sometimes this only happens when you visit with old friends, you haven't seen for a while, or when you return home for the holidays for the first time in a few years.
As I prepare to become a homeowner, I've been reflecting a bit about the meaning of home. They say home is where the heart is, andin some respects it's true, but for me having a home of my (well really "our") own, is the culmination of a process that started long ago.
I haven't lived at home at all since 2002, where I spent the summer after my second year of university so it's been a while, and I haven't spent a Christmas here for several years.
It's funny though how some things don't change, my brothers are still mostly the same though I can't get over how much the youngest one has grown. Since I'm the only one that's fully left home and in another city, I can see how the remaining members of my family have adapted and gotten used to each other, and adapted.
I often find it a bit weird coming back home, as any of the established patterns I remember, are broken or changed, or adapted or ignored, while others have taken their place. This is especially true since my dad died. He seemed to impose a certain kind of order on the household and it has been interesting to see how everyone adapted to the vacuum he left. For me, my routines were established somewhere else, and I didn't see him all that often, though we talked fairly regularly until the last few years.
Anyways it'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as I establish my own home, and make memories in it.
December 24, 2009
December 12, 2009
Scroogenomics
I was thinking today about a book that's getting some attention, about how Christmas is the most wasteful time of the year. It reflects in some ways what is interesting about economists and how they think. They talk about efficiency, and allocations, and equity as if these were black and white comments. They claim to be objetive and then use the get out of free card "other things being equal" which usually means if my assumptions are correct.
However sometimes (many times) their assumptions are implausible or required to make the math in their elegantly complicated models work. Anyone who knows me, should know I'm not a big fan of economists. But sometimes as in this article they do provoke thought and provide a different perspective on things.
One of the interesting things about the book Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler is their description of the problem I just identified above. Early in the book, they talk about the difference betweens the "Econs" who represent the ideal of economist and basically work as cost benefit analysis machines, and the "Humans" who are sometimes able to make rational decisions but need help and are driven by emotions.
The key point that they highlight is that there are systemic cognitive biases inherent in our humanness. We make systemic mistakes in the same direction. Given this you cannot assume that humans are "rational". It will take some time for this to filter down to all economists but it seems interesting and may point the way for economists to get closer to real world predicitions. Their key assumption of course is that humans are "rational" and so it does represent a challenge to their discipline.
However sometimes (many times) their assumptions are implausible or required to make the math in their elegantly complicated models work. Anyone who knows me, should know I'm not a big fan of economists. But sometimes as in this article they do provoke thought and provide a different perspective on things.
One of the interesting things about the book Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler is their description of the problem I just identified above. Early in the book, they talk about the difference betweens the "Econs" who represent the ideal of economist and basically work as cost benefit analysis machines, and the "Humans" who are sometimes able to make rational decisions but need help and are driven by emotions.
The key point that they highlight is that there are systemic cognitive biases inherent in our humanness. We make systemic mistakes in the same direction. Given this you cannot assume that humans are "rational". It will take some time for this to filter down to all economists but it seems interesting and may point the way for economists to get closer to real world predicitions. Their key assumption of course is that humans are "rational" and so it does represent a challenge to their discipline.
December 05, 2009
Video Games
It's been interesting to have another crack at Simicyt 4 recently. I'm amazed that the game is 6 years old, having been released in 2003. I've essentially had one set of cities going for year, and every time I have a look at it, it feels different.
Simcity is one of those games with no end point, which essentially continues until you're sick of playing. I've stopped playing for long periods of time and always been able to come back and rethink things and do something different.
One thing that's struck me though recently is how little the game reflects some of the latest urban thinking in terms of an ability to create walkable / sustinable / livable spaces. This is not that surprising, but I do think it's interesting how difficult it is to really have super dense spaces. (This may just be my experience however).
The other thing is that i recently went through my video games box. This is the box that has all the boxes of software that I've purchasd over the years. Man are there a lot! It's been interesting to see how my interests have changed, and also how many games I have that I will likely never play again. I also realized how the sports titles that are released every year encourage you to buy more than you normally would. Small changes is rosters in the NHL do not deserve an entire update, you only get a good update every 3 year,s problem is it's never clear which years will be good, and which ones not.
I've been surprised to a certain extent how the video game market has seemed to move beyond the PC. I guess with all the HD TVs and increased capabilities of the gaming systems it's not that surprising, but a lot of the hottest games don't seem to be released for PC anymore. It's a shame, as I don't really want to buy a PS3 or a Wii particularly.
Simcity is one of those games with no end point, which essentially continues until you're sick of playing. I've stopped playing for long periods of time and always been able to come back and rethink things and do something different.
One thing that's struck me though recently is how little the game reflects some of the latest urban thinking in terms of an ability to create walkable / sustinable / livable spaces. This is not that surprising, but I do think it's interesting how difficult it is to really have super dense spaces. (This may just be my experience however).
The other thing is that i recently went through my video games box. This is the box that has all the boxes of software that I've purchasd over the years. Man are there a lot! It's been interesting to see how my interests have changed, and also how many games I have that I will likely never play again. I also realized how the sports titles that are released every year encourage you to buy more than you normally would. Small changes is rosters in the NHL do not deserve an entire update, you only get a good update every 3 year,s problem is it's never clear which years will be good, and which ones not.
I've been surprised to a certain extent how the video game market has seemed to move beyond the PC. I guess with all the HD TVs and increased capabilities of the gaming systems it's not that surprising, but a lot of the hottest games don't seem to be released for PC anymore. It's a shame, as I don't really want to buy a PS3 or a Wii particularly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)