A couple of days ago, I mentioned to CodeSlinger that one of my sons was doing research in the branch of Mathematics known as ‘Combinatorics‘. His response was not only informative, it was just as passionate as my son gets when he talks about the subject.
So, for your pleasure and elucidation, here is CodeSlinger’s commentary on Combinatorics:
Spencer-Brown, G, 1969: Laws of Form, London: George Allen & Unwin.
Parker-Rhodes, A F, 1981: The Theory of Indistinguishables: A search for explanatory principles below the level of physics, Synthese Library, vol. 150, Springer.
Parker-Rhodes, A F, & Amson, J C, 1998: Hierarchies of descriptive levels in physical theory. Int’l J. Gen. Syst. 27(1-3):57-80.
Noyes, H P, & McGoveran, D O, 1989: An essay on discrete foundations for physics. SLAC-PUB-4528.
Recently, I received this question from Angel:
‘Hi Xan,
A friend of mine is writing a newspaper on Aspergers. She asked me what neurotypicals could do to communicate better with those on the autistic spectrum. What are your thoughts?’
After some thinking, this is what I answered:
Hmmmm – this is a difficult question because it presumes that all Aspies have identical communications problems – and we don’t, so that’s important to keep in mind. Still, there are patterns that we can work from.
1. Say what you mean – don’t ‘send signals’. We’ll likely not pick up on those signals and, if they are part of the message, we’ll miss it.
2. Be honest – we’ll take ‘little white lies’ at face value and believe that is your true opinion.
3. Don’t freak out when we’re honest.
4. If you have to ask questions like ‘Do you know what I mean?’, then we probably don’t.
5. When we ask for clarification, please, please, don’t just repeat the same sentence as before, as if that would somehow explain things – use different words, clarify and explain!
6. Don’t tell us how you feel, tell us what you think – we rely on intelligent people using their thoughts to override their feelings. Especially if the conversation is about issues and real-world stuff, if someone starts their sentence with ‘I feel that …’ – boom, we’ve tuned out.
7. Same thing with ‘beliefs’ – if you cannot support it with facts, then it’s just a prejudice and we’ll resent you imposing your prejudices on us. So, unless we are specifically discussing ‘beliefs’, sentences starting with ‘I believe that…’ are not only meaningless, they are annoying.
8. Don’t give us a choice unless you expect us to make a choice freely. If it’s a thinly veiled threat – we’ll simply see it as a choice you gave us and be bewildered if you get angry that we’ve actually made a choice, when you clearly offered us a choice.
I hope this is a good start!
Anybody else with some constructive advice?
To all of you who’ve been asking where are all the moderate Muslim voices are who condemn all forms of terrorism: yesterday, the 9th of June, 2013, they were in Toronto!
Dodo has the story. And the pictures!
It is good to see – and we must give these guys all the support we can. They are brave and we must let them know that we will not permit their voices to be silenced by the militants – that we are prepared to defend them, protect them and give them the platform to speak.
And, when our elected representatives are looking for voices from the Muslim community for consultation, we should demand that they talk to these Canadians first!!!
H/T: BCF
This, again, is a method of coercion.
Perhaps this is why the big-government leftists and Islamists get along so well…
What was that about government coercion?
And those pesky ‘free markets’?
What was that about government coercion?
Particularly important now…
As the one branch of the US government that actually listens to its people – the NSA – collects information about everyone, many people are saying that if a person is not doing anything illegal, they have nothing to fear from the loss of privacy. If you read this blog regularly, you know my contempt for this mode of thinking, because…
The more you know about someone, the more you know what is important to them and how they make their decisions – the more easy it will be for you to coerce them.
Knowledge is power…always was, always will be. And, even the most innocent things, strung together in certain ways and presented in a spun way, can make a person look guilty of something if the government decides they don’t like the way they are complaining about something.
Milton Friedman has it right – freedom is being free of coercion.
Dependency on government for services – from public transport to medicare to food stamps – opens one to easier and easier coercion, as does the loss of privacy. That is why totalitarians always foster dependence and erode privacy.
And that is corruption of freedom!
A few days ago, I had asked who are the 12 people (famous enough for the rest of us to have heard of them) whom you’d like to spend a day/have dinner with. Some very, very intriguing people got nominated in the comments – some of whom did make it to the early versions of my list, but did not make the cut of being in the top 12.
And, I promised I’d post mine (I wrote them down before asking posing this question in the above-mentioned post), along with some others: well, this is that post!
My list is as follows:
My hubby’s list:
My younger son is in his early teens, so, citing the inexperience of his youth, he only picked 6:
Interestingly, my older son’s list starts with the same man as mine and his brother’s:
His girlfriend’s list is also very interesting:
Here is the ever-enigmatic CodeSlinger’s list:
Alexander the Great
Genghis Khan
Julius Ceasar
Jesus Christ
Imhotep
The architect of Göbekli Tepe
Thomas Jefferson
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Carl Friedrich Gauss
Albert Einstein
Paul Dirac
And, young Juggernaut has a short list:
My mom also contributed ‘her 12’:
My dad, however, gave perhaps the most Aspie answer possible:
Totally alone!
Though, he did say he’d like to bring this book.
Now, I’m going to have fun looking up and learning about all these people!