Category Archives: People

Childhood and Apartment Size Through The Generations

Posted on by
Reply

My brother and I went to visit mom and dad yesterday for dinner. The conversation often dives into the deeply philosophical and comes up for air in the absurd mix of my brother’s romantic escapades, the difference between two kinds of French cheese or wine or women and everything in between. Most of it is carried out in four different versions of the Russian language, invented over the past 15 years by each of us. My version is perhaps the saddest. It’s a weak gazelle dragging its hooves behind the pack. I can glimpse the irony and melancholy of the words from the other three, but myself can’t generate anything. Instead I take the role of Hemingway, assigned the task of inspiring a perception of wisdom by using as few words as possible.

We talked about my dad’s mom as a young girl during the second World War, and my dad’s early childhood. I won’t mention any details except to say that life was hard. And it occurred to me as I returned home that my dad has seen a gradual increase in apartment size from the day he was born to today, from one tiny room holding 5 people to today where not only he, but each of his children, enjoy the vast possibilities of having a separate kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom.

baby-picture-lex-fridmanThe story of life in the Soviet Union in the 20th century for most people was that of poverty. I grew up knee deep in it, but was sheltered from it by the care of my parents. My biggest concerns in childhood were the harassment by my older brother, the kissing of girls, and the fact that my soccer skills were far inferior to those of the guys older than me. I am forever grateful for that. And while I believe my parents are most proud of having brought us to America and all the opportunities that come with that, I am most thankful for the happy childhood they gave me and my brother amid the chaos and challenges of the life in the Soviet Union.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself (and 150 Other Things)

Posted on by
Reply

thinning-of-research-fundingMy longtime friend Ryan, sent me a thought-provoking list of things “we should be worried about” as answered by 150 top scientists and scholars from a variety of fields. Most of these have many books written about them, so it’s not anything new but because the list itself is made up of quotes from these insightful minds, the list does have a certain charm and mystery to it with a pinch of wit and humor mixed in.

A lot of the concerns are straight forward and like economic collapse, low probability black swan events, the declining status of scientific reasoning and knowledge in society, etc, so I’ll just mention the ones that caught my eye and comment on them…

“Funding for big experiments will dry up”

Since most of the comments came from scientists, there was a recurring fear that our society is de-valuating science to a point where it’s almost becoming anti-scientific. Not only does that have implications for funding and social support of the scientific community, but it has broader implications about how the average Joe thinks about the world. The less inclined we are to use scientific reasoning, the more susceptible we become to the many forms of propaganda (any kind of information campaign not grounded in rationality). But this particular concern is not about funding for research in general, but about funding for BIG projects. I think that’s a real concern because one of the  side effects (exciting but burdensome) of scientific development is that we uncover more and more mysteries, thus leading to a thinning of “focus”. Of course, things like a world war or a cold war tend to focus us back up. Fundamental science is important, but so are huge engineering projects that make us look up to the sky and dream.

“We will stop dying”

I read, talk, and think a lot about death as the driving force behind human development on an individual and societal level. So, given that, the “concern of immortality” phrased in a pragmatic way caught me off-guard. Over-population is a constant worry for resource hawks (isn’t everyone a resource hawk?), because the trends are scary when taken out a few decades in to the future. Of course, you can do the same thing with the trends in medicine, where exponential growth can make even immortality seem like a possibility. I don’t see this as a realistic concern, but it is just another reminder that science can do some awfully bad things in its search for furthering the good things.

“We will literally lose touch with the physical world”

Just in the last decade the online world and the technology that connects us to it has grown by leaps and bounds. While it may seem impossible for those who are 20+ that our brains become more computer and less human, people who are born today will grow up in a world that may have more computer-based interaction than “real world” interaction. Depending on where our current technology trends drift, the “real world” may have to drastically change its definition. I think this is a concern only for those who are afraid of uncertainty. Technological advances (or any kind of change) are often a source of concern for a large fraction of the population. This kind of concern fades with time and evolving habits.

In general, I’m optimistic about the 21st century, the questions it will answer, and new questions it will ask.

Scalia and Breyer: What Disagreement Should Look Like

Posted on by
Reply

Whenever I begin to lose hope that people who disagree can have a heated but civil discussion on the very thing they disagree about, I read and listen to Supreme Court Justices. They are brilliant, respectful, and are something like real friends behind all the legal babble. Here’s an example of Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer talking about their different approaches to interpreting the constitution.

Scalia is an originalist, believing the constitution is a dead (or as he calls it “enduring”) document. Breyer, on the opposite end, is a non-originalist who believes the constitution to be a living document in that its meaning evolves along with the times. I learned that the division between these two men and other legal thinkers is not so much on political lines, but on the strictness with which they interpret the text of the constitution.

I read about 30 pages of Scalia’s latest book on Reading Law (it’s too dense for my tastes) and I find his appreciation of the enduring nature of meaning in text very appealing, though I still disagree with the notion that a constitution needs to be amended in order to rule on cases involving modern technology.

My favorite of his ideas that he uses as a defense for originalism is similar to the Churchill quote of “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”. Scalia says that his burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but to show that it is better than the alternative. We have to remember that idea when we argue about policy, because it’s rare that anything in political life will not have significant drawbacks hidden away in the poorly-lit corner of our collective consciousness.

A Good Rule by Which to Live: Be The First to Act

Posted on by
Reply

One of the saddest displays of common-place cowardice among people is the social phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility. A crowd can observe a crime take place and remarkably no one will step up to stop itt. This is due to the assumption that someone else surely will take action so I don’t have to.

There are many variations of this situation, with different “effects” named after them by sociologists, but the bottom line is that it’s difficult for a person to ignore his social environment and instead follow the cold rationality of his values. We are much better followers than leaders. I think this is not such a bad thing in most cases, but on matters that you are truly passionate about, you need to be the first person to take action, not the second.

Even outside questions of morality, being the first to act is the best way to get ahead of the competition. If you have an idea that you believe is a good one, but no one else does, that’s you opportunity to take the big plunge and go with it. You will likely fail in the short term, but if you succeed, you will be rewarded greatly for being the first. And even short-term failure, if not taken to heart, will lead to the kind of improvement that will assure long-term success.

Here’s a video of someone stepping up and saving the life of a man who almost gets run over by a train:

And in a completely unrelated note, when I searched “be the first” on YouTube, the following music video by Hankat came up. I don’t know who they are but I’ve never seen such a uniquely emotional vibe in a music video. Great work:

Separation of Sex and Politics

Posted on by
Reply

General David H Petraeus was dragged over the coals in the media and the blogosphere about his affair with writer Paula Broadwell. I don’t know many of the details of this affair. You know why? Because I don’t consider the sexual escapades of our generals, our political leaders, our co-workers, etc. relevant to their ability to be competent at their job.

I think that Petraeus is an exceptional human being in his professional life. It baffles me that the media wouldn’t be ashamed to spend hours a day on this story. He fell in love with an attractive and intelligent woman who was also very successful in her career path.

I do think this is a major character flaw based on which he should resign from his marriage, but he should not be resigning from the position of CIA director. Or rather I mean to say that I wish we lived in a society in which he wouldn’t have to resign. And if he did resign for legitimate security reasons, I wish he wasn’t disgraced in the process.

We have to decide as a country about the kind of standards we hold our leaders to. If we want them to never say or do anything stupid on something that affects no one except a few individuals in their personal life, then we will get leaders who never say or do anything at all.

I’m also very sensitive to the misogyny that has dominated most of human history. I think that unfaithfullness is not automatically misogyny, but perhaps the problem is that it’s sometimes difficult to tell the two apart when so much of the details are kept secret.

A Rare Display of Mutual Respect Across Party Lines

Posted on by
Reply

In the past several weeks, the level of partisan vile has escalated beyond the point where I could filter it out and stay connected to the central policy ideas that each candidate stands for. I tuned out for the most part, and retreated back into my usual cave of preferring historical nonfiction over current event shallow opinion flinging. But of all people, the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, has brought me back to modern life with a non-partisan praise for the president in his efforts to help New Jersey recover from hurricane Sandy:

When I heard this today, I was reminded that the people of this country can come together in a time of need, even if just the day before they were bickering in dramatic fashion over relatively minor policy differences.

I always believed that a successful argument, no matter how heated it gets, must be built on a foundation of friendship and respect. What I have been noticing more and more is that Congress has been drifting away from being this nation’s battlefield of ideas towards a red vs blue food fight of talking points and personal attacks.

There are a lot of people that dislike Chris Christie’s policy decisions in New Jersey, and I understand that. But I do wish that there were more men like him in politics who calculate less and speak from the heart more because their heart is grounded fundamentally in  respect for their colleagues in politics.

Anyway, I’m sure that after the news of the storm and its flood waters subside, the country will return to the more cynical view of our political leaders. But that won’t stop me from enjoying this rare moment of mutual respect.

I Don’t Know, I Want to Know, and When I Know, I Might Be Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

“I don’t know” is the best first answer to any question. Not out of apathy, but out of awe in the face of the immense complexity of the world around us.

I am distinctly aware of the criticism sometimes thrown in my direction that I’m at times afraid to  ”pick sides” in an argument because I’m afraid of being disliked by the person I’m arguing with. There is certainly a grain of truth to that criticism. I think a lot of us avoid confrontation when the cost outweighs the benefit. And how we evaluate the costs and the benefits varies from person to person.

Still, I find it counter-productive for my own development and learning to be too blunt about my current stance on an issue. I’ve learned (sadly) that taking a stance often means that you drive away people that disagree with you and attract people that agree with you. The truth is: I learn more from intelligent people that disagree with me, so I’d like them to stick around. Talking to them is an exercise in patience, but it motivates asking the hard questions of myself in the hours, days, weeks, and months after we talk.

Anyway, much like in science, I think the best way to approach life is as a student. I try to approach every heated conversation with the feeling that:

  1. I don’t know enough about it.
  2. I want to learn more about it.
  3. No matter, how much I learn, I’m open to the possibility of changing my mind.

Of course, I don’t approach every subject like this. I’m only human with a pretty damn big ego, and so often I’ll be stubborn and irrational as hell. And like most people, I can only stand so much s*** being flung at me, before I disengage or even return the favor. But usually, staying quiet and instead opting for a nap fixes most problems.

Majority of One: Single in America

Posted on by
Reply

A few months ago, I read Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone by Eric Klinenberg which careful telling of the story behind the following simple statistic:

  • 50 years ago, 70% of adults were married.
  • Today, 51% of adults are married.

The trend is even more stark in the number of single occupant households. It went from 20% fifty years ago to 40-60% in many major cities across America and the world today.

Klinenberg interviewed more than 300 people, and one of the more interesting conclusion he arrived at is that being single is no longer a taboo. In a 1957 University of Michigan study, 80% of those surveyed believe that people who preferred being unmarried were “sick”, “immoral”, or “neurotic”. This degree of spite has disappeared in today’s public discourse about marriage and single life.

For the most part, the rise in percentage of singletons is explained by the fact that people marry later in life. Median age of first marriage for men went from 22 years old in the 50′s to 28 years old today. For women it was 20 years old in the 50′s and is 26 years old today.

As is often the case, the options provided by the increasing prosperity of the modern world has it’s pluses and minuses. It’s much easier to be happy when choices are limited.

The following is a lecture by the author of Going Solo given at Google:

Most Enemies Start Out As Friends

Posted on by
1

I was reading about “terrorism after the death of Bin Laden”, and what caught my eye was a comment that many of the worst dictators started out as “friends” of the U.S. While this is a loaded political statement, it made think about my own life. I don’t have any enemies (that I know of), but I’ve observed many friendships between people that turned to very bitter, tense feuds.

That’s certainly true with divorced couples and it’s also sometimes true with long-time friends. The thought that struck me is that the reason such close friends can become “enemies” is because they shared so many dreams, fears, secrets, etc with each other, that any violation of trust beyond a certain threshold is magnified ten fold. To me, that’s both tragic and beautiful.

There’s no moral to this story. It’s just a short note on the absurdity of life.

Birthday Reading List

Posted on by
5

Last two years on my birthday I asked for people’s recommendations for books and movies that had an impact on their life. I read about 3-5 books a month, and have read many of the recommendations. So I thought I would go to the well one more time ;-)

If you can recommend a book or movie that you liked and think I have not read or seen it, please write it here or on facebook. I really appreciate it. The amount of books out there is overwhelming so it’s nice to have smart friends that can help guide my learning.

Here are several of the books that I was recommended last year and I remember reading (and liking) recently off the top of my head:

It seems like every page I read fills me with wonder and awe over how little I know. Sometimes it’s inspiring, sometimes it’s depressing, but it’s always worth a try.

UPDATE: The following is an alphabetical list of some of the book recommendations my facebook buddies sent my way (I’m slowly adding them here to prevent the ephemeral facebook stream from swallowing them whole).