Words

Binary

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. While continuing my linguistics research I seem to have taken a fork in the road to information theory.

Sometimes you follow these paths to dead ends. But sometimes, the path leads to somewhere interesting even if it isn’t exactly where you thought you were heading, or needed to go in the first place.

Information theory was pioneered in the 1940’s and 50’s by Claude Shannon. We talked about him a little bit in the post on noise.

One of the ideas that helped kickstart Shannon’s theory, was that of the mathematician and logician George Boole.

George Boole in the laws of thought, explains the way that any question of logic can be turned into math. This is done with conditional statements AND, OR, NOT, and IF, along with an evaluation of if the statement is true 1, or false 0.

Imagine you want to find out how many people in your city are blonde women. The characteristic blonde can be represented by x and female by y. The statements will either be true 1, or false 0. AND would be represented by multiplication •, OR by addition +.

Each data point (person) can then be evaluated by the equations which can be translated easily back and forth between math and plain English.

1•1 = 1 blonde and female. 1•0=0 blonde and male. If you decide you are only concerned with how many women there are, 1+1=1 for the group of blonde women and 0+1=1 for the group of non blonde women.

This foundation laid by Boole in the 19th century set the stage for Shannon and other inventors to build our modern computing era. Boolian algebra would work with electrical circuits laid out either in parallel or in a series to evaluate the data.

Binary implies and either/or, true/false, 1 or 0. When setting code to evaluate these statements or questions, computation can be accomplished at lightning speeds.

This is why definitions are so important. As more and more of our world is driven by this binary code, true or false, statements can only be properly evaluated if we have agreed on the definitions.

This is a blessing for our modern information age. Tasks that would require huge amounts of human time and energy, and would be very error prone, can now be automated.

2+2=4. Is the picture of a stop sign. Are the letters in This scramble grstl. These can all be assigned yes or no values. True or false. And they are very simple examples. But as we move away from simple examples and in to more complex questions, the binary coding becomes more challenging.

Writing code to evaluate human defined terms is where I want to focus. The past few years has seen a rise in social media platforms restricting posts in one way or another.

Sometimes this is done by removing the posts entirely. Sometimes it is done by flagging the post, putting some sort of warning, or label, or explanation on it. Sometimes it is done by adjusting the post’s visibility.

Most of these restrictions are performed at least initially by a computer. A computer operating in binary. The post is true or false. It contains misinformation or it doesn’t. It contains banned content or it doesn’t.

This is not a blog post about censorship, those platforms policies, or one specific position over another. It is about the process. The mechanisms behind evaluating posted content.

If these posts are being flagged initially by an algorithm. That algorithm has to be programmed to observe certain characteristics or definitions.

As we saw from the onset, computers are faster and less error prone than humans at binary logic. When it comes to subjective rationalization, not so much.

If misinformation, or objectionable content, or hate speech is clearly defined, and we all agree on the definitions, then a binary logic calculation is magically fast and efficient.

However, if we go all the way back to 1964, to the court case Jacobellis V. Ohio which ultimately ended up in the supreme court, we see the root of the problem.

A movie theater was being sued for showing a movie with a sex scene. As the court case moved it’s way up the legal system to higher and higher courts, each court was unable to successfully define obscenity and pornography.

The problem is summed up well by justice Stewart in the popular legal quote “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

If humans “perhaps can never succeed in intelligibly defining” such terms, how can we expect a computer code, written by humans to do so?

Yet this is to a large extent the situation we find ourself in. Whoever controls the definition, and writes the code, establishes the binary. What is tru and what is false.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, words are important. The way we collectively define them is important. Participating in conversations about those definitions is important and everyone has the right to a voice in that conversation.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Delimitation

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. Continuing to work my way through linguistic research I came across the following entry from General Course in Linguistics by Ferdinand Sassure.

“A linguistic entity is not ultimately defined until it is delimited, i.e. separated from whatever there may be on either side of it in a sequence of sounds. It is these delimited entities or units which contrast with one another in the mechanism of language”

At the same time I was reading this passage I was listening to the Huberman Lab podcast with movement and mobility master, Ido Portal. When Ido spoke about movement he intentionally didn’t define it or delimit it.

You can find the full conversation on the Huberman Lab podcast, but I’ll paraphrase his message. “A fluid is delimited by it’s container but that is not the entirety of it’s being. So it is with movement”

Ido also said it was his goal to not answer any of Professor Huberman questions because words are incomplete and delimiting entities.

I was struck the the diametric opposition of these two points. It is obviously a philosophical thought experiment. One that may not have an entirely productive outcome. But, I found it fun to engage in none the less.

On the one hand, a linguistic unit (not always as simple in academic terms but for our purposes today: a word) only has meaning by it’s delimitation from all other words. On the other hand, an idea, being delimited by a word will often fail to capture the entirety of it’s essence or being.

Words are our most effective tool to express ideas. But words are an imperfect tool. Both Sassure and Portal approach the same point, that words are primarily negatively defined entities, from different angles.

That means that words are defined more so by what they aren’t, than what they are. It is easier to define a difficult word by pointing out how it is unlike other words than what it actual is itself.

Think about a word like morose: “having a gloomy or sad disposition”. But feeling morose isn’t gloomy, or sad, or upset, or depressed. If it were, those words would do, and there would be no need for morose. The same could be said of ecstatic. Happy, joyful, glad, excited… All of these words are close but not exact. We define our some of our most important words negatively, by how they are unlike other “known” quantities.

I think that is why there is such beauty in art. Whether it is the written word, music, or some form of visual expression or story telling. We appreciate the exquisite exchange of ideas.

With an inherent knowledge that words are imperfect, and negatively defined, we are captivated when the right combination of words transcends those boundaries. When a passage speaks to us in a way that isn’t delimited by it’s container. When we feel that we truly understand it’s essence.

Maybe it was your favorite song. A poem that spoke to you. A passage by your favorite author. We all have some array of words which has deeply touched us and conferred meaning beyond the sun of their parts.

Riding through a zwift academy workout this morning “The Light” by Common came on. The rapper’s take on complex topics accompanied by captivating beats, is rivaled only by his longevity in the industry. The song is a dive into relationship communication and one line stuck with me as I struggled to breath through the above FTP effort.

“I never call you my b*tch or even my boo, there’s so much in a name, and so much more in you.”

Words are incredible tools. Occasionally we can string them together in a way that is transcendent. For the rest of the time there is beauty in the struggle to define essence with imperfect tools.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Value

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. While continuing research for my linguistics project I found this interesting philosophical quote on value.

Values always involve:

(1) something dissimilar which can be exchanged for the item whose value is under consideration.

(2) similar things which can be compared with the item whose value is under consideration.

An easy example would be the value of a five dollar bill. With a five dollar bill you can buy a gallon of gas (maybe), and you could also get five one dollar bills, or a number of euros, based on a value exchange rate. The value consideration of the five dollar bill is based on both similar and dissimilar items.

Currency of any kind is an easy example because it comes in denominations that are easily changed. A less concrete (or more concrete depending on where you live) example would be a home.

The home would be priced in the local currency, but would also have it’s value partially determined by comparable homes in the area. Homes with similar features, amenities, square footage etc.

The brave and powerful cow knights of the order of Chick-fil-A

With dollars, the value determination from the similar category is really the same, where as with the home, the determination based on the similar category is only comparable. The difference may seem minute but it is important.

The examples given are tangible, but the discussion quoted was about linguistics, and specifically, linguistic units.

Whether you want to break down individual words, syllables, or individual signs (signs, has a very specific and nerdy linguistic definition, that we might get into at a later date) each has a value based on the two criteria above.

“A word can be substituted for something dissimilar: an idea. At the same time, it can be compared to something of like nature:another word. It’s value therefore is not determined merely by that concept or meaning for which it is a token” (Sassure, Course in General Linguistics)

Sassure then goes on to cite the value of the word mouton in French as compared with the word sheep in English. While the meaning is generally the same (a four legged wooly animal that Mary had as a pet) the value in each language is different.

In French mouton can be used to mean both the animal as well as the cooked meat. In English the animal is referred to as a sheep and the meat is mutton. So the value of the word in each language is different.

Giving speeches in his undies, and making friends with dragonflies

The difference in value is due to the presence, or absence of other similar items. It’s value is determined in part by how much it can be delimited from other elements in the same system.

The subtly of similar and comparable, and the variance between value determination in similar and dissimilar categories together form a complex process for effectively determining value.

This is something we do almost instinctively on a very regular basis. Something is on sale. Something looks like a good deal. Something is overpriced. As a consumer driven nation this is a process we engage in regularly.

But what about value determination for items without price? How you choose to allocate your free time? Things like opportunity cost. What value do you derive from your choices? How is that value determined.

This is mental exercise I engage in frequently. Comparing the money saved and the pride of completing a home improvement project yourself, against the time taken that could be spent doing other things with family or friends, the frustration that inevitably comes with these projects, and the workmanship that despite my best efforts will not be the same quality as a professional.

Each option has its own value. Delimited by what it can provide, and what it can exclude. A constant reexamination and assessment of value is important to properly align priorities. It is also a step toward serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Expression

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This past weekend my wife and I celebrated our collective birthdays attending a concert. The opening act reminded me of the beauty of expression.

Not to be confused with the post by the same name from last Christmas, which discussed the variety in expression of beers following the German purity law or Reinheitsgebot. This is all about the beauty of self expression. (To be fair if you express yourself by creating beer that is beautiful and I salute you)

Alan Chapell sat alone on the stage, with nothing but a small electronic keyboard in front of him. He felt accessible. Maybe too accessible. It was a great thing for the audience to feel that close to the artist. But I’ve seen it go wrong with redesigned kiosks, gate agents, and flustered passengers, too many times that I had a sense of unease on his behalf.

El Duderino playing with his pecker (his name for the toy parrot, get your mind out of the gutter)

Before each song Chapell gave a quick four or five sentence introduction. What his inspiration was. Who the song was for. Some small story or anecdote from his life at the time of the song’s creation.

Chapell’s fingers danced across the keys as he sang his stories. Each offering was a small piece of his life. A moment in time. The thoughts and feelings, the interactions with a lover or a friend. Each song a work of art, not necessarily because it was a great music (it was), but because he did such a masterful job of distilling the moment. Taking the complexities of life events and presenting them in clear three minute chunks, with melodies to boot.

Building a dog house for his valentine’s day present

To be honest I’m not sure how much I was enamored with the music, so much as I was captivated by him as a storyteller. I was definitely tapping me feet, clapping, and swaying along. In the end his ability to express his innermost self was far more impactful than his musical stylings.

I recently heard Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast say “the pathway to success for virtually everyone, is facilitation of their capacity to communicate” I had to go back and play the quote three or four times to make sure I got it right. Those fourteen words pack a punch.

Jordan Peterson also discussed how music matches the rhythm of our humanity. How moving along with music is instinctual. It is in our DNA.

I couldn’t help but think about the music I listen to. Why I like it, and what it says or means to me. What the artists were trying to express through their chosen medium. How this blog is largely a vehicle for my own personal expression. A facilitation of my own capacity to communicate.

One of the most gut wrenching things I do as a father is watch my boys struggle to express themself. At 4 and 2 respectively, El Duderino and Speedy fight an uphill battle based purely on limited vocabulary and phonetic acumen.

Some mobility work and a 5k in the new kicks while home

But beyond that, all words are inherently abstract. The way we describe our inner feelings are approximations at best. Now we are taking about shared approximations described with abstract symbols to try to convey some sense of meaning. Throw in a societal predisposition (especially based on gender) to close off certain feelings, and it’s a wonder any young man can express himself at all.

I’m appreciative of the opportunity this platform has provided. I hope that someday my boys can look back on it. I hope that they can see the growth of their father. See my mistakes and shortcomings. My desire towards self improvement. When viewed on a long enough timeline, hopefully, an increased capacity to communicate.

Post concert spin bike and some layover miles in CAE.

Thank for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Tough roads

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. My wife said something to me this week that I had never heard before and it fell right in line with our ongoing discussion of words.

I don’t even remember the context of the conversation, but my wife said “that is going to be a tough road to hoe”. Having never heard that expression before I started thinking about it figuratively, literally, and maybe even a little etymologically, and decided I couldn’t make any sense of it.

I understood the meaning that my wife was trying to communicate, so an effective transfer of ideas did in fact happen, but the line didn’t make any sense to me. Why would you use a hoe on a road, that’s not what the tool was designed for. (As a humorous aside, I told her a tough road to ho, would make sense, but that’s not the point and I digress)

After some very quick phone research (what a time to be alive and be able to settle marital discussions with a device in our pockets) I discovered the etymology of the phrase is “a tough row to hoe”. The phrase has been misheard and then repeated incorrectly enough times to stick, as was the case with my wife.

What is particularly interesting to me in this case is the exchange of meaning. I knew what my wife meant. She knew what she was trying to convey. The exchange took place in spite of the words being used to transmit the message being somewhat nonsensical.

This phenomena happens all the time with parents and kids. I had always attributed that to kids being language learners, and some level of translation as a parental ability.

De la Soul providing the offeratory hymn for this kettlebell session at my backyard temple of SerenityThroughSweat

El Duderino for example is very fond of saying “green beans go”. He says this as a parroting response to hearing my wife say “green means go” when she is stuck behind a driver playing on their phone as a light turns from red to green.

The changing of one character of the twelve, completely changes the implicit meaning of the sentence. But, when used in context, (El Duderino in his car seat behind a stopped car at a freshly changed green light) I can still understand what my three year old is trying to convey. (When he says it at dinner after I’ve smoked green beans for three hours it is equally adorable despite it’s semantic inaccuracy)

It failed to occur to me that we are all continuous language learners, and that a similar level of translation is necessary for effective communication amongst adults, albeit at a much lower frequency.

In the grand scheme of things correcting” a tough road to hoe” versus “a tough row to hoe” is really rather pedantic. In many relationships it could have led to a argument or fight, and I understood what my wife was trying to tell me. So why bother with correcting it or even trying to understand the phrase, especially when an effective communication had taken place?

In discussing the language philosophy of how performative utterances can be “unhappy” J.L. Austin says “in ordinary life a certain laxness in procedure is permitted- otherwise no university business would ever get done!”

I think the tight rope to walk here, is the level of laxness that allows business to get done, along with level of adherence to proper protocol that ensures communication is not unnecessarily degraded. That is a treacherous tightrope indeed.

Words are important, communication is important, and true understanding is even more important, (and of course the most difficult of the three to truly accomplish). It may be a tough road, but it seems to be one worth walking (or hoeing if your level of laxness will permit)

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I continue research for my upcoming project I’m awed by not only the importance, but just how little I understand about words.

As is often the case (and as I will continue to say) on this platform, taxonomy is important. Just how important is illustrated continuously in Dr. Robert Cialdini’ Influence which I just finished.

While the book is not based in philosophy or linguistics, many of the research experiments measured how individual compliance can be manipulated by seemingly small grammatical changes.

Bonus time with the family on my layover

A great example from the book describes a series of staged experiments with accident scenes and a maintenance man. The man received assistance 100% of the time “when it was clear that the man was hurt and needed assistance” and 90% of the time when providing that assistance involved the bystander’s contact with potentially dangerous electrical wires. This is contrasted by stories of bystanders passing by those in need of assistance or even victims of active crimes because there is an ambiguity about the situation.

The key takeaway was that most people will help even putting themselves at risk “when it is clear” that help is needed. Thus the communication of that message, making it clear that help is needed, what to do, in what order, and by whom, all become critical to obtaining the help at all. Words matter, and the selection, order, and utterance of the correct ones can be life saving.

Dr. Cialdini goes on to advise if you find yourself in need of assistance, in order to ensure your message is clear single out one person and instruct them that you need help and how to provide it. For example “You in the blue jacket, call an ambulance and tell them I’m having a heart attack”. This choice and order of words removes the ambiguity and will most likely result in obtaining the needed assistance.

After finishing Dr. Cialdini’s book I jumped in to a series of Lectures given by the philosopher Austin, that were then compiled into his book How to Do Things With Words.

First of all the fact that we as a species have advanced far enough that I can, in my leisure time, contemplate the musings of a philosopher, who more than half a century ago was able to create a systematic analysis of human speech at it’s most basic level is incredible. What a time to be alive.

What impresses me most about Austin’s work, and what has me most excited about this project is the somewhat hidden nature of the knowledge. We all use words, and speech every day most of the time reflexively and without thought. Yet when examining linguistics, there is a complex world beneath the level of knowledge required for use that shows just how important words are.

Fire ants raining down from my open garage door. Only in FL, now I know how Leiningen felt.

Not only how important they are, but how many different ways there are to misuse them, and in misusing them, fail at communicating effectively. I think part of the problem is the feedback loop, and in this I’m reminded of running.

When we run there is a proper gait, stride, and technique that will enhance efficiency and prevent injury. Running in this way is obviously preferable but many people get by with deficiencies of some form or another. Some of these deficiencies can go on for years and the result may be an unnoticable percentage drop in speed or efficiency, so that no change is necessary (as long as sub-optimal performance still meets the desired outcome). Some deficiencies will be immediately felt and lead to injury or a substantial enough drop in performance that they are corrected.

When we choose how to communicate, and specifically what words to use and in what order to use them, there are often deficiencies of the first type that go unnoticed.

When we fall over ourselves running, or talking for that matter, we address the methodology by which the blunder occured and then change our behavior. But , like the unnoticable sub-optimal running form, how much of our communication is sub-optimal? How can we recognize when it is, or how to fix it?

Just as a professional runner analyzes and focuses on his form every step of the way, the philosophers and linguists have broken down human speech to a level that grammar, syntax, and semantics can all be optimized for effective communication. This analysis and reflection, especially outside of the act of speech itself, is the feedback loop by which we can avoid the “injury” or “drop in performance” that unnoticable deficiencies often lead to.

That means reflecting after a conversation on what idea you wanted to express, what words you used to express it, and then what your audience actually took away. Without the reflective feedback loop, we have little way of knowing if our chosen words were the right ones. And as we saw from Cialdini’s work, removing ambiguity can be the difference between life and death. And the best way to remove ambiguity is with words.

Lots of climbing, but still had legs to take my first green sprint jersey at the end

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.