Read more about the article Makeup is the new girdle.
Original photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Makeup is the new girdle.

I stopped wearing cosmetics a few months ago, after about half a year of using the stuff only sparingly. I started weaning myself off makeup because I had come to hate the hassle of applying it, and because I hated fretting about my appearance. I was also beginning to think of makeup as old-fashioned, an antiquated 'modesty' that inspires shame in one's true appearance. The longer I go without a cosmetic product on my face, the more I believe that makeup needs to go the way of the girdle. The restrictive, uncomfortable, needless, obsolete girdle. How many undergarments are you wearing right now? I'm guessing two at most. Likewise, I only wear two small undergarments below my clothes, even on the most formal occasions. Interview? Presentation? Class? Wedding? A bra and underwear are always adequate. Since I've never had to wear more than two undergarments, I find it staggering that women used to wear massive bras, high-waisted underwear, girdles, pantyhose or stockings, garter belts, slips, and camisoles. I often wear less than that as a full outfit. Anyone who knows me in real life can confirm that I regularly step out in leggings and a t-shirt (plus two small undergarments beneath). I don't say this to titilate, just to illustrate, because I suspect my bare-bones attire is quickly becoming the norm. I've spent a lot of time on college campuses- big and small, public and private, Jesuit and blessedly godless. Everywhere I've seen legions of women and girls decked out in equal or greater states of undress than my own. Gone are the girdles. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMakeup is the new girdle.

The filtered Internet

It used to be that people were subject to the whims of old media, human gate-keepers who decided that type of information we should see. The Internet was supposed to change all of that, but we are now seeing startling examples that Facebook, Google, and Yahoo News among many other companies, are using algorithms to please us by giving us what they deem to be “relevant.” Author Eli Pariser, executive director of Moveon.org, asked several friends to search the same term (“Egypt”) in Google, and they received dramatically different results. It turns out that there is no longer any standard version of Google. The new version uses dozens of bits of information about you to give you what it thinks you want. Facebook also employs such relevance algorithms to weed out information, and even “friends” that it has decided that you don’t want. In the case of Pariser, whose politics are progressive, Facebook edited out information from his conservative “friends.” What would be the advantage to giving us what we want? Certainly, some of us want to live in a world where everyone appears to think the same. But such filtering would also have a commercial purpose—giving only “relevant” hits might facilitate Internet sales. In this excellent ten-minute TED talk, Pariser tells that the Internet is increasingly geared to giving us what we want to see rather than what we need to see. In this talk, Pariser has challenged the new Internet gatekeepers to make this ubiquitous filtering of information transparent and to give user control over it. We will all be better off, he warns, when we get information that makes us uncomfortable, and information that is important, as well as information that challenges us, rather than simply giving us what they think we want.

Continue ReadingThe filtered Internet

Melanoma is Sneaky

Much to my surprise, I recently was diagnosed with melanoma. Fortunately, I was suspicious of a skin spot, and showed it to a dermatologist. He shrugged and said, "probably not," but cut it off for a biopsy. A week later he called and told me to see a surgeon ASAP. I now am scheduled for minor surgery and further biopsy. The prognosis is, "Don't worry about it." Then a friend from high school shared this video with me, and told me that he's been inspired by my post to see a dermatologist to check out his spots. What you don't know can kill you. Had I ignored the spot, I might have lived another decade before it killed me. I knew a fellow who had a mole burned off, a couple of times, before someone bothered to biopsy it. By then, they gave him 6 months. But he was an athletic individual who wouldn't quit, and lived five years. But those last couple of years were hardly living, in terms of quality of life.

Continue ReadingMelanoma is Sneaky

Eternal Regress

After my recent foray into economics, this has become my internal lament:

It appears that I must try to understand everything in order to understand anything.
It feels like I'm constantly moving backwards when I try to understand anything. I founded this blog thinking that I would focus my thoughts on cognitive science, but I've found that my kernel of curiosity, allowed to express itself over a period of years, has smeared itself into an omnidirectional wave.

Continue ReadingEternal Regress

The “free market” is as free as a bee

Bees look free. They seem to dance capriciously from flower to flower. No one seems to be telling each bee what to do. Anyone who has carefully studied bees, however, knows that they are not “free.” The health and welfare of bees and their hives are highly sensitive to a great many factors. Here are a few:

A) Excesses and deficits in rainfall and temperature; B) The survival and location of plants from which bees gather nectar; C) The prevalence of parasites and viruses; D) The existence of rival hives and predators; E) Human encroachment, including pesticides and destruction of habitat;
Whether bees thrive is subject to these and many other factors. If any of these factors is changed, the bees will be affected. “Free as a bee,” is an expression I have heard from time to time, but it turns out that bees are not actually very “free.” Hard-working bees and hives are often killed for factors beyond their control. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe “free market” is as free as a bee