Blindsight

Book Notes

I picked this book up on BenCody's recommendation. I had it in my inbox for I don't know how many months (quite possibly a year), before I started reading it.

Entertainingly enough, Cal recommended it to me as I was about half way through. "What was it about again? I read it years ago." "Vampires in space?" "??? OH, yeah!"

Except, it wasn't really about vampires in space. Vampires are a small part of the book, mostly there to give plausibility to plot, but also to add a number of critical plot twists. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the vampire part, because that wasn't anywhere near the interesting part of the book, where we begin to ponder what it is that makes us human, to ponder what exists in the gaps of our perception, to ponder where the self ends when there are multiple selves, and wow, just what defines the self.

The end of the book was all O_O.

That the main character's name is Siri, and the book came out before the Siri of talking fame, cracked me up. The book is available under a generous Creative Commons license. Said license did what I believe it should do, it rewarded the author: I bought the book, even though I could read it for free. I want to support the author. A book I recommend.

You needed someone real at your side, someone to hold on to, someone to share your airspace along with your fear and hope and uncertainty.
Page 27

I am not an entirely new breed. My roots reach back to the dawn of civilization but those precursors served a different function, a less honorable one. They only greased the wheels of social stability; they would sugarcoat unpleasant truths, or inflate imaginary bogeymen for political expedience. They were vital enough in their way. Not even the most heavily-armed police state can exert brute force on all of its citizens all of the time. Meme management is so much subtler; the rose-tinted refraction of perceived reality, the contagious fear of threatening alternatives. There have always been those tasked with the rotation of informational topologies, but throughout most of history they had little to do with increasing its clarity.
Page 35

I'm just fatalistically cheerful. We all come into the story halfway through, we all catch up as best we can, and we're all gonna die before it ends.
Page 104

Humans didn't really fight over skin tone or ideology; those were just handy cues for kin-selection purposes. Ultimately it always came down to bloodlines and limited resources.
Page 107

There was a model of the world, and we didn't look outward at all; our conscious selves saw only the simulation in our heads, an interpretation of reality, endlessly refreshed by input from the senses. What happens when those senses go dark, but the model—thrown off-kilter by some trauma or tumor—fails to refresh? How long do we stare in at that obsolete rendering, recycling and massaging the same old data in a desperate, subconscious act of utterly honest denial? How long before it dawns on us that the world we see no longer reflects the world we inhabit, that we are blind.
Page 160

It had been my mistake, all along. I'd been so focused on modelling other systems that I'd forgotten about the one doing the modelling. Bad eyes are only one bane of clear vision: bad assumptions can be just as blinding...
Page 234

Lighted Door

Daily Photo

Walking back to the train after an evening at the SFHTML5 meetup, I looked up and saw this view.

Has been a long time since a lighted door felt welcoming. Tonight, it did.

Unbroken Brain

Book Notes

When I bought this book, I made the "mistake" of buying it in Kindle and audio format. Wasn't really a mistake to buy it in audio format, as I really like being able to switch from reading to listening (when I can't read) and back to reading. Reading a book is preferable to reading an ebook is preferable to listening to audio, but being able to progress through a book without stopping is preferable to not reading, so, digital formats it was. Taking notes, however, is really hard with the audio version, hence, my "mistake."

Claire recommended this book. I am glad I listened to her recommendation, as I highly recommend this book. I recommend this book not only for anyone with an addiction, but also for anyone with friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, students, or awareness of someone with an addiction (which, if you're counting, is everyone).

This book presents addiction not as a moral failing, as is how the United States treats all addictions, but as a learning disability. Before you go, "Poo poo, what the f---?" the book is worth a read. It is backed by study after study after study. Along with examples of how the current system does not work, examples of how approaching the problem of addiction from a learning disability changes the whole solution of addiction are given.

I spent much of this book highlighting sections, bookmarking parts, and thinking, "Yes, yes, yes." A couple times, my thoughts went to "hoollllllleeeee sheeeeeeeeeeeet," when the revelation happened. I'm positive I didn't capture all of these moments, and I'm not summarizing the book well. The author doesn't present new research, but she does provide a good layman's interpretation of the studies, with lots of references that can be independently reviewed.

I want to buy a zillion copies of this book and insist that anyone who thinks punishment is an appropriate response to addiction read this book. Harm reduction, empathy development, recognizing racial prejudices with drug law enforcement, and understanding the _why_ of addicton, instead of treating the people who already hate themselves for the addiction as criminals, all ring true as needed for actually fixing the problems of addiction.

Given that opiate addictions are FINALLY being openly discussed, finding statistic-based ways of helping people out of the addictions seems even more needed these days. I can recommend this book as a starting point all day and not come close to recommending it enough.

I had close to all of the book bookmarked or noted in some way or another. If I included them all, you'd have the whole book right here, so, no.

Some I did grab though:

Moreover, as parents and teachers everywhere know well, it’s almost impossible to force or coerce learning—especially to alter behavior that has already become habitual.
Page 6

Childhood ideas about oneself shape later self-concepts, in ways that can either increase or decrease resilience... Early interactions shape later ones, and over time, families aren’t just reacting to the person’s current behavior, but to their own interpretations of the person’s past behavior and the results of this whole iterated process.
Page 47

Here are a few cocaine addicts’ descriptions of what it feels like:

“I can remember many, many times driving down to the projects telling myself ‘You don’t want to do this! You don’t want to do this!’ But I’d do it anyway.”

“My body’s saying no and my mind’s saying no, but … we started all over again. I didn’t need it, I didn’t want it … it’s like some kind of molecular thing in my cells would go for it, you know. I felt like a fucking robot.”
Page 114

Instead, addiction is defined by using a drug or activity in a compulsive manner despite negative consequences. And “negative consequences,” of course, is simply a less morally charged phrase for a whole range of experiences that can be experienced as punishing; the terms are fundamentally synonymous. In other words, if punishment worked to fight addiction, the condition itself couldn’t exist.
Page 171

Harm reduction’s fundamental principles are these: stop trying to fight drug use, most of which does not cause harm. Don’t focus on whether getting high is morally or socially acceptable; recognize that people always have and probably always will take drugs and this doesn’t make them irrational or subhuman. Instead, work to find practical methods that reduce risk and minimize damage—and understand that everyone can learn, just not all in the same way.
Page 232

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

Daily Photo

Sloppy Vetting? More Like Sloppy Slamming

Commentary

Okay, I have this stack of paperwork that is the accumulation of I don't know how many other piles of paperwork. I've managed to go through the easy stuff in the pile, leaving this remaining stack of papers that I need to Deal With™. Part of the reason that The Stack™ hasn't been dealt with is that I actually need to DO something with the papers, something more than "put in a box to scan later."

So, in the interest of dealing with The Stack, here's a December 20th 2015 (you read that right, I've been carrying around this newspaper for a year and a quarter now, JUST SO THAT I COULD RANT ABOUT IT) article. Recall, the San Bernadino bombing incident occurred about three weeks before this article (it happened on the 2nd), where 14 people were killed and 22 others were seriously injured. The incident was a mass shooting and an attempted bombing at a health center by an AMERICAN CITIZEN (by birth, let that sink in for a bit) and his wife, who was a permanent resident of the U.S.

For the record, this was a horrible event. Any act of violence done with the intent to harm or kill another person is abhorrent (even as we say sometimes the act is righteous or justified, it is still abhorrent; possibly necessary, still abhorrent). This rant is not about that particular event, nor is it a commentary about that particular event.

So, the article in the Mercury News was titled "Congressman slams sloppy visa vetting." It, like every other short-attention-span article that exists in newspapers today, is a short, easy read. Go on, I'll start my rant after.

WASHINGTON — Immigration officials failed to sufficiently screen the visa application that allowed San Bernardino attacker Tafsheen Malik into the country, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Goodlatte said he reviewed Malik’s immigration file, which the State Department has refused to make public. “It is clear that immigration officials did not thoroughly vet her application,” Goodlatte said in a statement issued on Saturday.

Malik, a Pakistani national, arrived in the United States last year on a visa reserved for fiancés and fiancees of U.S. citizens. After being allowed into the country, she married American Syed Rizwan Farook. The couple committed the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino.

“In order to obtain a fiance visa, it is required to demonstrate proof that the U.S. citizen and foreign national have met in person,” Goodlatte said. “However, Malik’s immigration file does not show sufficient evidence for this requirement. What is worse, the immigration official reviewing Malik’s application requested more evidence to ensure the two met in person but it was never provided and her visa was approved anyway.”

Goodlatte’s announcement will increase pressure in Congress to tighten the screening of visa applications for foreigners to enter the U.S.

“Visa security is critical to national security, and it’s unacceptable that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not fully vet Malik’s application and instead sloppily approved her visa,” Goodlatte said. He said the House Judiciary Committee is working on a bill to “strengthen visa processing security.”

Goodlatte said the only proof that Malik and Farook gave immigration officials for having met in person is Farook’s statement that they had been together in Saudi Arabia and “copies of pages from their passports, containing visas to enter Saudi Arabia and stamps in Arabic.”

The immigration officials reviewing Malik’s application asked for the passport stamps to be translated into English to confirm that the two were in Saudi Arabia at the same time. But the file shows no such translation, Goodlatte said.

The House Judiciary Committee had the passport stamps translated and found that Malik entered Saudi Arabia around June 4, 2013. Her exit stamp is only partially legible and the translator could not determine when she left Saudi Arabia, Goodlatte said.

Farook’s stamps show he was in Saudi Arabia between Oct. 1, 2013 and about Oct. 20, 2013.

“However, even if Farook and Malik were in Saudi Arabia at the same time, this does not provide evidence that they met in person,” according to Goodlatte.

Okay, HERE WE GO.

OF COURSE it is easy to say, "This visa vetting was sloppy." and it is easy to say "Here are the rules, follow them." It is easy to say these things AFTER THE FACT. You can't know the intentions of people if they aren't carrying a sign that says, "I intend to attempt to kill 80 people" and then verbally tell you are indeed going to be doing this. Arrest the person, put that person away, you can prevent that particular act.

You cannot, however, KNOW these things beforehand (don't even go all Minority Report on me, that a realm of fantasy and you know it).

We have processes that exist, yes. We have rules that say, to allow someone in under the spouse visa, these steps need to be followed. We follow them.

Except we don't, and likely haven't except for when they first came out. This is human nature. We have the "rules" and then we have the "rules we follow." We have a system as designed and we have a system as it exists. If there is one thing that systems thinking and STPA has taught me is that those two systems are very rarely the same.

A system needs to be constantly monitored and adjusted for the system as it exists to reflect the system as designed, while the system design needs to adapt to the system that operates. Without this feedback loop, you can't ever have a safe system.

It is easy for the Congressman to point a finger a sloppy visa vetting. The Congressman is wrong in doing so. It is impossible to get all the visa vettings right. You get as many as you can correct, and you handle the ones that aren't correct. How many of the visas that have been issued are any different than Malik's visa? How many were issued with even less "valid" data and have worked out just fine? You don't know and can't know and, I would argue, shouldn't spend the financial resources to find out unless it becomes a problem. A single incident BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN (you did let that sink in, right?) does not qualify it as a problem.

Since I've thought about this article, I would also start to argue for harm reduction policies and a more tolerant American society. As I've been told, "shit in one hand, wishes in the other, see which fills up faster." It's hard to practice loving friendliness in the midst of so much blind hatred. Mankind has always been this way. The United States has been in cycles of hatred and racisim since its founding, I'm not sure why I be surprised at this point.

Pages