Benjamin Franklin once noted not to “throw stones at your neighbors, if your own windows are glass.”

The impulse to point out other’s mistakes is not a hallmark of the pre-frontal cortex. It assumes one is resting on a pedestal. It provides temporary comfort to the insecure spirit. Finding flaws in others tastes similar to seeking revenge. It is human nature. But it is not honorable.

Even in highly evolved societies humans constantly throw rocks at each other, if only more subtle and concealed. I see it in my field (architectural conservation and history): the restoration treatment I do is “better” than the work of previous conservators. Historians are not exempt: revisionist history proving previous minds wrong fuels much of new research. For that matter, this impulse moves the gears of peer-review.

While not honorable, we humans figured out how to harness these impulses for the betterment of society. The system of checks and balances in any institution is rests on the primal, individual motivation to keep others in check. Competing individuals trying to prove each other wrong. An impulse that oils the engine of progress. And so the net effect is honorable.

Yesterday I had a long conversation with a close relative. Among many things came up my recommendation of 60 Minutes, the American CBS news show. The mistrust expressed towards my vouching of the show’s neutrality and journalistic integrity put me off. Media bias is a real thing, but to treat all outlets as equally biased is erroneous.
I think this is symptomatic of a larger atmosphere of distrust towards institutions and moral principles. Values like journalistic integrity, the pursuit of truth, and the betterment of society are dismissed as naïve –to say the least. We know better. The real game in town is raw power. I’m afraid we now breathe the same air as in Moscow.

It’s been documented that facts don’t change people’s minds. The mental habit of seeking to pressure-test or challenge one’s own views for the sake of truth-seeking is increasingly scarce. To change positions in the face of new evidence is now indicative of a weak moral backbone.

I posit the opposite is true. John Maynard Keynes said it best: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It appears to me that the Socratic dialogue is also broken. One-on-one conversations about politics rarely persuade —especially today when the internet can feed you with evidence that supports any position you want. I think the best one can aim is to:

1. Let the other person see that you are a human being with human concerns
2. Not hope for much and move on

Regardless of our own convictions and principles, intellectual humility and curiosity are principles worth upholding. To be the change you want to see in others.

Last Saturday I participated in my first Flash Bob in Central Park, a queer spin-off of a more traditional flash mob. We practiced under the Naumburg Bandshell, a 1920s neoclassical coffered half dome that serves as an amphitheater. We spent the first few hours of practice dissolving the shame and self-consciousness that gets in the way of believing in your own delusion —necessary for formulating immaculate vibes. Confidence and joy behind the eyes enlivens the dancer from robotic choreography. It is what makes a flash bob infectious. And we all need a bit of that contagious energy these days.

I often wonder where would I be had I leaned more on the confidence that comes with less introspection. Too much therapy has the risk of undermining the belief in oneself and make questioning of oneself a habit of the mind. The habit of interrogating one’s own motives all the time then brings about timidness, insecurity and ultimate paralysis. To be bold, to exude confidence, to have a dose of bravado, requires to be a bit delusional about oneself.

It is a lesson to learn and relearn to have the courage to care less about others. To take action. To build. To create. To experiment. To fail. To try again. To fail again. To try again. To overcome.

Hoy comienza la cuarta década. Tengo unas ganas enormes de hacer cambios en la trayectoria en la que me encuentro. Veo mi futuro por el cañón de una escopeta. Bendito el retorno de Saturno. Es tiempo de escuchar mi voz interior, de no desperdiciar esa tolerancia al riesgo que trae la juventud. Es tiempo de pausar y reflexionar. Quizâs viajar por un rato, o cambiar de carrera, moverme a otro continente, iniciar nuevos proyectos, aprender una nueva lengua, hacer nuevos amigos, o descubrir nuevas pasiones. El reloj se acelera y me reuso vivir una vida de potencial desperdiciado. Le temo a la mediocridad. Le temo a la complacencia aprendida. Le temo a la blandeza de la aceptación. Me reuso a la conformidad que trae la paz interna y equanimidad.

Si el objetivo de esta existencia es de encontrar paz rumbo a la santidad y liberación del mundo terrenal —qué aburrido. La iluminación espiritual apaga la flama de la pasión. Hay mucha riqueza en la realidad por descubrir y compartir.

Cualquier novela o historia requiere de personajes imperfectos con personalidades defectuosas para hacerla interesante.

Una vida sin (drama) no vale la pena vivirla. Por alguna razón Sócrates, el sabio de los sabios, eligió ser el tabano social de Atenas.

Bienvenido sea la abundancia, drama, e intriga.

The French essayist Alexis de Tocqueville titled his 1835 book “Democracy in America”, not “American Democracy.” I think he was doing something interesting here. As if he knew that democracy is rare and precious, not exceptional or inevitable, much less inherent to a nation or city-state. Boy he has been proven right.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an interactive tool that allows you to play with visible absorption spectrum curves and see how the geometry and distribution of single or multiple curves affect the resulting color? Can the same color be produced from different combinations of curves?

Something similar should be applied for particle size distribution curves, where you see the effect on the distribution of particles in a virtual two-dimensional cross section.

Someone needs to code and implement this. It would help enliven the inanimate textbook graphs .

David Hume once asserted that “reason is the slave of passions.” I think he is right. Nietschze’s Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy of intellect and pleasure, of self-restraint and disinhibition, of prudence and folly, is not a binary choice, nor a uni-dimensional spectrum. These may reinforce. Reasoning begins with curiosity, and ends with boring blandness. Curiosity is the eros of the mind.

Want to pressure-test this hypothesis? Whenevr you face writer’s block, figure out what makes you angry and use that as fuel to arrive to calm, incisive, well-reasoned writing.

I’m reflecting on different ways of instruction. Some of my intellectual heroes have a knack at lecturing. When they are at their best, they teach their students how to arouse their curiosity within a disciplined scaffolding. Among these are Richard Feynman, Timothy Snyder, Vincent Scully, Salman Kahn, and Michael Sandel.

I describe their lecturing style as follows, starting with a non-starter.

“I’m just here for the pay” TA

• Relies heavily on over-saturated slides. The slides speak for themselves. Pure recitation of text.
• Visuals are low resolution and/or pulled down from the internet, makes the lecturer look careless or uninterested
• Relies heavily on notes.
• Usually speaks in monotone, does not seem to enjoy himself.

Richard Feynman

Feynman is the real deal. His passion on the subjects he instructs is contagious. He believes in his students. Listening to his lectures makes you fall in love with physics. How does he do it?

• Draws on a chalkboard
• Dresses for the job

Tim Snyder

• Teaches with no slides. Eye contact with the audience.
• Speaks with his body (hand gestures to illustrate and enliven his speech). Manages to transmit bodies of knowledge
• Teaches without notes. It feels almost like a stream-of-consciousness. Makes connections from seemingly disparate topics in real-time.
• Uses simple and funny real-world analogies so that his audience “get it”
• Sprinkles lecture with clever jokes. Treats the subject seriously, but does not take himself seriously.
• Simplifies complex ideas and builds from first principles of logic

Vincent Scully

• Teaches without notes, lets his emotion and passion overflow his speech
• low tech (a slide projector and stick to point out)
• Uses photographs, no text
• Best way to learn is by “absorbing” his slides, no note-taking
• His cadence reinforces the severity of his subject

Salman Kahn method

Salman Kahn of Kahn Academy. I always admired his humility and low-tech approach to instructing. This creates a psychological safety net where students feel there are no stupid questions. The most complex explanations often flow from deceptively simple questions: why is the sky blue?

• Starts from scratch. Draws on a digital chalkboard. Makes a connection between your brain and his by seeing in real-time him how he begins with first principles to develop complex ideas.
• Uses color strategically to enhance the absorption of his diagrams

What I want my instruction to be:

• AI-proof by teaching skills that cannot be replaced
• Develop an intuitiveness on materials.
• Hit all the concepts in the hierarchical list through a story or narrative way so it doesn’t feel like a linear/. mechanical progression
• Have the hierarchy as a skeleton on the side
• Energy pockets as a fuel for finding things out on your own