Random Notes and Ideas

Moving to a new site

2005-03-23T18:11:00.000-06:00

I'm moving to http://www.keadilan.net/. I'm using wordpress on the new site. It should give me more control over the styles and contents (database).

My Way Out

2005-03-01T01:15:00.000-06:00

At-Talaq 3:

Wa yarzuqhu min haythu la yahtasibu wa man yatawakkal 'ala Allahi fa huwa hasbuhu inna Allaha balighu amrihi qad ja'ala Allahu li kulli shayin qadran

And He provides for him from where he does not reckon. And whoever puts trust in Allah, so Allah is sufficient for him. Surely Allah will accomplish His purpose. And Allah has set a measure for all things

The following is an excerpt of commentary on this ayah, from Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

Whoever has Taqwa of Allah in what He has commanded and avoids what He has forbidden, then Allah will make a way out for him from every difficulty and will provide for him from resources he never anticipated or thought about... Allah will execute His decisions and judgement that He made for him, in whatever way He wills and chooses

Detached (another kind)

2005-02-23T15:00:00.000-06:00

Reading some of the obituaries of Kuntowijoyo I feel a sense of a great loss that I didn't know much about him. Having been abroad for my entire adult life, I lack the social, intellectual, and organizational experiences that come from, for instance, being in campus and active in its varieties of movements. I don't know (or know little) about a lot people I should know (more). This doesn't have to mean knowing them personally, but I'd like to know their histories, thoughts, influences, etc. So I'd need to know people who know them, and being in campus certainly would help.

However, being in the right place at the right time is not sufficient. The campus was rather polarized 10-15 years ago. I might be in one "side" without knowing much about the other side. At least that's what I've been observing from some of my friends. That's why it's very encouraging to see all sides are active in politics right now one way or another. This means there are interactions from all sides in the highest level, which should bode well for interactions in the lower levels. And those lower level interactions, which necessarily have been started 5-10 years ago, make the higher level ones possible.

The World's Dispensable Nation

2005-02-18T23:56:00.000-06:00

I wrote before the 2004 election (Bahasa), how the Bush win would bring together a unilateral approach and an incompetent administration resulting in policies that divorce themselves from reality-based world. (The article was written before the election, so it also has a lot of stuff on Kerry and Democrats. The relevant stuff is in sections 3.1 and 5.1.)

The current administration of the US seems to manage to always take the least popular position in every important issue matters to the rest of the world. No wonder, the world has managed to get by without the US.
Michael Lind wrote in the Financial Times how the US became the world's most dispensable nation,

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.

Western Intellectual Tradition (1. Origins)

2005-01-26T06:29:00.000-06:00

This is just a quick rundown. Hopefully I have time to elaborate more later on.

If the whole tradition of western thoughts is a human body, then the body stands on two legs. The right leg is the scriptural tradition, originated in the Near East, preserved by Jews for hundreds of years BC, expanded by (and survive of) the Christian Roman Empire (the West and then Byzantium), and strengthened using power and organizations by the Church. The Jews held on to their society and identity, while Paul spreads Christianity to the masses.

The left leg is the philosophical tradition, started in Greece before Socrates, argued (literally) by Plato's dialogues, analyzed and classified by Aristotle's logic and methodology, lived by Epicurus, doubted by the skeptics, and practiced by the Roman stoics. Plato points upward to the divine soul, while Aristotle points to the worldly and human nature.

Augustine might be the first part of the torso which joined the two legs. He had a neoplatonist view before he formulated doctrines on soul and freewill. But, there was no major development in the west after him (I'm hesitant to use the term 'Dark Ages' here).

On the other hand, Muslim thinkers from Al Kindi, Al Farabi, to Ibnu Sina and Ibnu Rusdh, flourished during this time. In fact, without them the torso wouldn't be fully formed as we know now. Their scriptural traditions were not those of Augustine's but the philosophical traditions had the same origins. In fact, they got from the West more than Islam ever did and the West got more from them than Islam did.

Finally, Aquinas completes the top part of the torso. He studied Aristotle using Ibnu Rushd's commentary. He disagreed with Ibnu Rushd's double-truth that philosophy and theology might have different sets of truth, and tried to unify them. By and large, Aquinas was an Aristotelian, with his Natural Law built firmly in this tradition.

The next part will deal with the other part of the body, ie. arms, neck and heads which correspond to the more modern tradition.

Detached

2005-01-06T13:59:00.000-06:00

Looking at the picture (NY Times, 2004/12/31), I feel so guilty in a strange way. Lives for so many people will be different, while I'll carry on without any discernible changes. Maybe most of the people praying also will go on with their lives, but I just don't feel right about this. I'm afraid that being far away will make me so detached and soon forget about their lives and deaths. I hope to stamp this however awful moment in my memory, to always keep me grounded and rooted.

Spellbound

2004-12-08T18:32:00.000-06:00

I found the DVD of this documentary in the children section of the library. We really liked it. It's wonderful to see different expressions of ecstasy, surprise, confusion, or relief in the face of the children after they (mis)spelled their words. We also enjoyed watching the parents interact with their chidren during preparations and after the competition.

The six and four years old also really enjoyed the movie. Incidentally I just bought a children dictionary for them last week, so they followed along with all the spellings.

Blogging is not for everybody

2004-12-06T14:00:00.000-06:00

It's not for me if the lack of updates in the last couple of months is any indication. But, enough about me, blogging is not for Becker and Posner either, if their first posts are any indication. As bad as Becker is, Posner is even worse. The economist made a law argument (self defense), while the lawyer made an economic argument (expected cost-benefit), both ending up nowhere. Kieran Healy of Crooked Timber even had a little fun and said those posts might be from impostors.

Yes, their names and reputations attract a lot of attentions already. Yes, blog can be one of Hayek's mechanism for distribution of knowledge, and they certainly have a lot of knowledge to distribute. Just maybe, making and presenting arguments in this forum need different set of skills from those in the fora they are used to. Maybe blogging is not for them. Certainly it's too early to make any definitive pronouncement, so let's hope it will get better.

Her First Story

2004-09-15T20:30:00.000-05:00

She claimed this is original. She wrote it in about an hour while asking me for spelling of some of the words. I tried to stick to her writing as close as possible.

a Little Bat

once upon a time
There was a Bat
who was Flying
aLL night

That He sleeps aLL
day Long one day
some thing changed

He was sLeeping
in the nightTime
and playD aLL day
Long

anD He DiD That
EvEry Day That
LittLe Bat srue
Is Funny

I think that Bat is
sure changed
His LiFe

The End

Market vs Government

2004-08-31T11:16:00.000-05:00

Nicely summed up by DeLong -- about Krugman -- on balancing the roles of market and government: "Paul Krugman loves the market more than any other economist I know--in a "tough love" sense. That is, he's not one of those on the right who thinks that market failures don't exist, pretends that every market everywhere functions perfectly, and doesn't care much about how markets really work. He's not one of those on the left who thinks that market failures are unfixable, and that command-and-control is nearly always and everywhere a better alternative.

"He's one who believes that market failures are dangerous things that can be neutralized: smart reorganizations of property rights, or small steps that put the government's thumb on the scale to improve incentives, or tweaks to the legal structure that rule certain kinds of contracts out and other kinds of contracts in will, he thinks, almost always turn the market into an effective and efficient social planning and organization mechanisms that everyone can love. His is a "tough love" approach to markets--and it is a sign that he cares and that he has great faith in Adam Smith."

Ushul Fiqh, Utility and Uncertainty

2004-08-25T22:32:00.000-05:00

Of course, I'm no expert in the matter of (Ushul) Fiqh, so CMIIW.

I was reading the fundamental principles of Fiqh, and saw that there are three principles where utility theory might come into play. First, "select the higher of the two benefits, or incur the lesser of the two harms when faced with them both." Now, to do that, you certainly have to be able to order your preferences for the choices you have. If your set of preferences are already in the rulings derived from the well established sources, your (dis)utility is set.

If not, your ordering must be based on other principles, and require extensive knowledge not only on the rules of law but also about the subject of your choices. Usually this kind of ruling involves experts from various fields.

This principle is often misused by ignoring other principles, especially what comes right after it, "repelling harm takes precedence over procuring benefits." You have to be aware of the consequences (to others) of your maximizing your own utility based on your own preferences. You have to minimize the disutility, and make that your top priority.

[Utilitarianism (Bentham, J.S. Mill) also wants to maximize utility, with no mention of minimizing disutility as the top priority. Some say utilitarianism is the superset of consequentialism. Without the latter, the former can lead to hedonism.]

The other principle of interest is, "certainty is not invalidated by doubt." OK, you find your best option, but it doesn't always give you the utility you were estimating when you ranked your preferences. The probability is not 1. Does this mean you should eliminate this option? What happens if none of the options are certain to give you the calculated utility? Do you have to rank them by their probabilities? Or do you use expected utility?

300

2004-08-08T18:22:00.000-05:00

Maddux excelled beyond the physical: "We were playing the Astros in the middle of the season and Jeff Bagwell was coming up, and Doggie had told me before the game, 'We're not going to pitch this guy inside. We're going to stay away. He's pulling everything, and if we go in he'll hit it out.'

So it's late in the game, we're up something like 8-0, and Bagwell is batting with a runner on. All of a sudden, Doggie wants to go inside. 'What?' He nods that's what he wants to do. So he throws it in, and Bagwell hits a bomb. We still won the game, but I was mad. 'Why did you do that? I wanted you to pitch a complete-game shutout.'

He said, 'You know what? Two months from now we're going to meet these guys in the playoffs, and he's going to be up there with runners on and he's going to be looking for that pitch, and we're never going to throw it.'

I said, 'Whatever, dude. I wanted the shutout.'

Sure enough, two months later and Bagwell is hitting. They've got two men on and Doggie strikes him out. He says, 'Do you remember two months ago?' I had already forgotten about it. He said, 'You got mad because we went inside and he took us deep, but he was looking for that pitch today, and we won the game because of that.'

No other pitcher can do that. No one can get away with that kind of stuff. It's almost illogical. You don't throw inside changeups to major league hitters. He'll hang a slider on purpose. He wants people to get hits because everything he does is setting up the hitter for a situation later on."

Less or more oversight?

2004-07-30T12:53:00.000-05:00

I'm always a believer that if you trust someone enough to let him do a job for you, then let him do it in his own terms. Additional oversight is not always the solution every time there is a failure in a deletegated task.

I agree with Tyler. If you have your boss always looking over your shoulder, you become more risk-averse. You just want to avoid making mistakes. More oversight may discourage "imaginative, long-run thinking", and promote groupthink. Generally I prefer less oversight, make people more independent rather than more accountable. "Give them a culture of internal pride". Then,, they will be accountable to themselves. See also Ibnu Khaldun on child rearing.

The question then is when to oversee and to what extent. To this I'm reminded of Ki Hajar Dewantara's saying: "ing ngarsa sungtulada, ing madya mangun karsa, tut wuri handayani". Leaders should be everywhere, playing different roles in different places.

Democratic Convention

2004-07-27T12:37:00.000-05:00

Right off the bat I have to say that I'm slightly leaning towards Democrats politically and economically, but not socially. I liked good speeches, so I rather enjoyed the presentations last night. I've been watching conventions since 1992. And of course the main constant speaker for the Democratic Convention since then is Bill Clinton. I have difficulty liking him personally, but I have to admit he's a great public speaker.

Not only can he give a commanding rhetoric performance, but he also displayed extensive knowledge about his topics. Obviously he did his homeworks on those subjects before his speech. Still, he can make boring policy speeches so compelling without ignoring the substance. He did all that policy comparisons and propping Kerry in under 30 minutes with several ovations. No wonder people say he can be elected to a third term if that's possible.

What I liked most about his speech last night is he has the confidence to be self deprecating. He used the fact that he didn't go to Vietnam and coupled that with Bush and Cheney not going to highlight John Kerry's career. It was very effective. I do think more people, especially in the leadership role should be more self-deprecating, be secure about who you are and your weaknesses. Knowing your weaknesses is one of your strength.

Ibn Khaldun on childrearing

2004-06-19T18:00:00.000-05:00

Of course this applies broadly, but as far as I'm concerned this is a really poignant point on children. Still on his opus magnus, The Muqaddimah:

“Severity to students does them harm. This comes about as follows. Severe punishment in the course of instruction does harm to the student, especially to little children, because it belongs among the things that make for a bad habit. Students, bondsmen, and servants who are raised with injustice and arbitrary force are overcome by it. It causes them to feel oppressed and results in inertia. It makes them indolent and induces them to lie and be insincere. That is, their outward behavior differs from what they are thinking or feeling. This is because they fear that if they tell the truth, they will be punished and will suffer tyrannical treatment. Thus, they learn deceit and trickery. This becomes habitual and part of their character.

“They lose that attribute that accompanies all social and political organizations and gives people their humanity, namely, the ability to protect and defend themselves and their homes, and they in turn become dependent on others for this. Indeed, their souls become lazy and lose the desire to acquire the virtues and qualities of good character. This, in turn causes them to fall short of their human potential and never realize their humanity. As a result, they revert to the ‘lowest of the low’. This is what has happened to every people who have come under the yoke of tyranny and learned through it the meaning of injustice. This can easily be proven by simply looking at anyone who is not in control of his own affairs and has no authority on his side to guarantee his personal well-being.”

Ibn Khaldun invented the Laffer Curve.

2004-06-07T16:38:00.000-05:00

Laffer himself says so. "It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments."

Structured Procrastination

2004-06-04T20:22:00.000-05:00

I'm writing this blog just to get away from doing other more important things.

John Perry: "Procrastinators seldom do absolutely nothing; they do marginally useful things, like gardening or sharpening pencils or making a diagram of how they will reorganize their files when they get around to it. Why does the procrastinator do these things? Because they are a way of not doing something more important. If all the procrastinator had left to do was to sharpen some pencils, no force on earth could get him do it. However, the procrastinator can be motivated to do difficult, timely and important tasks, as long as these tasks are a way of not doing something more important.

Read more, maybe you can become an effective and useful procrastinator.

Kenapa Kenangan

2004-06-02T09:23:00.000-05:00

Masuk milis SMA mengingatkan saya ke banyak hal. Banyak kenangan.

Saya tidak akan mengatakan bahwa kenangan itu berguna karena kita bisa menarik pelajaran darinya. Pelajaran apa? Bagaimana menariknya? Kapan kepakainya? Setiap titik di kehidupan ini punya latar, warna dan koordinat yang berbeda. Kenangan dulu kadang malah merusak garis kita sekarang.

Ah, tapi mengenang juga memberikan diri kita ini identitas. Masak sih? Bukannya identitas setiap orang selalu berubah setiap saat di setiap titik. Banyak orang yang sekarang ada di koordinat yang berdekatan dengan kita, tapi punya kenangan masa lalu yang jauh dengan kita. Dan orang-orang yang kita kenang, bukannya sekarang identitas mereka sudah berjauhan dengan kita? Buktinya? Mereka harus kita kenang untuk hadir.

Saya ingin bisa mengenang harapan masa lalu. Tapi apa ada, berapa panjang? Semua harapan lalu itu pendek, selalu berubah. Itu yang harus diubah.

Saya ingin mengenang masa depan. Biar juga ingat masa depanku bukan melulu masa laluku.
Biar aku melihat titik yang menunggu di depan, dan belajar mencapainya.
Biar aku merasakan, mengharapkan, bergidik melihat calon-calon identitasku di masa depan.

Biar anak-anakku punya harapan yang dikenang, dan kenangan yang penuh harap.
Biar aku selalu berkenang ke hari penantian.

How Nations Prosper

2004-05-11T15:41:00.000-05:00

Update: Not quite potato chips, but soybean has Argentina's economy on rebound.

Tell me again, why did we decide to start airplane industry instead of fostering the relatively low-tech industry such as computer chips, car parts, etc. It would be difficult for us to follow India due to our comparatively low skill level, but we have a lot to learn from China and our neighbors of south-east Asia.

You have to know what your strengths are and how to best utilize them. Lacking the strengths, you play within your ability. If you want to prosper you don't choose your job for the prestige, you don't take up an industry because it means you make a quantum leap into high tech world.

Russel Roberts of Cafe Hayek explains that your standard of living does not depend on the title on your business card. It does not matter if you make computer chips or potato chips. You choose the job that you do best.

"[I]f a nation's skill level is low, making computer chips makes you poorer, not richer. It's like me at 5' 6' deciding to be a basketball player because basketball players have high salaries."

Life Reality

2004-05-11T09:32:00.000-05:00

This pretty much sums it all (the school part).

Validity of an Economic Argument

2004-05-11T04:41:00.000-05:00

I have to remember this:

"[M]athematics can establish the logical validity of an argument, ..., econometrics can establish the empirical validity of an argument.

"However, math and econometrics are neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing the validity of an economic argument."

Why Vote?

2004-05-11T04:17:00.000-05:00

Don Boudreaux: "Because voting is a decision-making institution in which each voter gets to express his opinions costlessly (that is, without direct, personal consequence), voters likely are rationally irrational."

Russell Roberts, still in Cafe Hayek explains that voting to elect people with similar office is irrational because your vote is very unlikely to be a decisive vote. So your vote almost never matters. Why then we vote? Read the link. We vote because it's a moral obligation and to be associated with others with similar identity.

Irrational, moral obligations, identity association. Hmm, seems to me the only reason to vote is an ideological one.

Somewhat a side note, we need goverment to eliminate externalities. How about that for an economic reason to vote?

Arrogance of Virtuous Certainty

2004-05-07T10:39:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you wonder if, having moral virtues, whether people can police themselves. Not directly related, but this article gives you a picture of the need to have institution/system to maintain and control the rule of law:

"International law and transparency, we are told, are unnecessary because, unlike all of the other countries in the world, we are Americans, and we naturally believe in human rights and the rule of law. We need no special incentives to be good. But if history teaches us anything, it is that when governments, no matter how well they think of themselves, decide to free themselves from constraints, they become unconstrained, and when they refuse to make themselves accountable, they abuse their power. The only thing that has been lacking until now has been the proof of what everyone should already have known: that unchecked power leads to hubris, hubris leads to corruption, and corruption leads to violations of human rights.

Americans are proud of their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But these cannot exist without institutional preconditions: they cannot exist if government officials insist on complete secrecy, mock international covenants, and refuse to allow their actions to be tested and constrained by law."

Low expectations

2004-05-06T04:56:00.000-05:00

I honestly don't know why there hasn't been an outrage in the US. Do people really have such low expectations of their leaders? "The soft bigotry of low expectations means you can be seen to outperform by merely getting by."

This cartoon really captures the nuances.

2001: A Spiritual Odyssey

2004-05-05T13:52:00.000-05:00

I know this is an old book. I just listened to the audio, and for a few moments, the book really inspired my spiritual senses. I think the fact this book was written in 1968 made it much more moving, especially in these two occasions.

I was so awestruck by Arthur C. Clarke's description of Discovery passing Jupiter that it made me contemplate on the greatness of the creation.

The other moment was Clarke's explanation of Hal 's action. Hal was feeling guilty for keeping a secret. And somehow for him this guilt was something wrong, some error. However, being a supercomputer, he was unable to admit that he had made errors. This secret kept him in denial and drove him "crazy". This got me thinking of the saying that everyone is born in a state of pure, but the actions of people around him can change him.

Arm-chair Quarterbacks

2004-05-04T07:42:00.000-05:00

I read a lot of political blogs recently, it's part of my daily routine now. I always enjoy reading op-ed pieces in newspapers, and the blogs I read are just op-eds with a few more express shots. They opine and take stands on everything.

Now, this is in contrast to what happens back home. A lot of academics are becoming arm-chair quarterbacks, providing instant analysis on various subjects to the media. I don't want to be too critical here, let's just say there a lot of reasons for them to do this. They are also in great demand due to media and society obsession of high academic titles.

However, in the name of academic integrity and independence, the opinions offered are sometimes too stale and shallow. They comment on policies while trying to avoid alienating the policy makers. I'd like them to play real quarterbacking one of these days. Then they really have to choose their strategy and who to throw the ball to.

Some random comments

2004-04-22T08:37:00.000-05:00

I don't disagree with the quote Arianto has about human capital. But if it were me, I'd find some other athletes to make an example of. Maybe Ali, or Jordan. There are plenty of pitchers (and even more athletes) comparable to Clemens.

If you want to compare pitchers with economists, may I suggest the smartest pitcher who ever lived? He might not have Clemens' arm, but he's very economical in his pitches, maximizing on his strengths and always resourceful in exploiting opponents' weaknesses. Now that has to be the very thing economists love.

Did I mention he's very smart? Just look at him pitching, he looks like Clark Kent wearing Superman baseball uniform. The Superman logo is a C not an S.

Off topic. This link is for you, Arianto.

More on the game of expectation

2004-04-18T17:47:00.000-05:00

GWB showed (again and again) that the best thing that could ever happened to you is people having low expectations of you. It might be degrading at times at first. But then, if you do something right (just right, not spectacular), people are easily impressed. And people are just as forgiving for your mistakes.

In this election, two (relatively) small parties gained a large (again relatively) increase of votes prompting a lot of press coverages. I think this is a bit unfair, because people now expect more of them, while the parties that have more votes actually can govern with low expectations.

Of course expectation is built out of reputation. But reputation alone is not enough (maybe even worthless) in doing the actual job. You have to have necessary number of seats to make a difference in parliament for example.

I'm actually worried with people making a big deal out of the relatively large increase, when the actual number is still rather small, instead of focusing on 40 or more percent of votes still in the hand of the two major parties. I don't know if this is done in purpose to build different levels of expectations which will lead to different perceptions of accountability.

Games of association and expectation

2004-04-18T17:36:00.000-05:00

I proposed earlier that in political dynamics, the first mover has an upper hand. That is, if you want to nominate from without, you should move first. The operative word is 'if'. The current dynamics place the importance on whether you should make an outside move at all.

If you nominate others, often time people associate you with them. If they win, somehow, you are as accountable as them, without you having any (if at all) contributions in their decisions thereafter. If you provide support, they have the most to gain with any success. If they lose, the winning party still look upon you as their enemy.

Then, there is the game of expectation. People expect a lot out of you. The high expectations demand you to nominate from within. Even if win is possible with this strategy, win might not be the best result. You have to realize that to fullfil all those expectations that come with a win you need a lot of necessary tools not in possession right now.

The alternative is to nominate yourselves, knowing full well, and maybe playing to lose. At least, you fullfil expectations of your main base, while maintaining independence and a good record of associations.

Utility Theory

2004-04-12T16:03:00.000-05:00

I had an interesting meeting today.

We had results of several auction experiments that could not be explained by current auction theory. The experiments suggested that players did not always necessarily go for the highest payoffs. In fact they also cared for the payoffs of others.

REW believed these results can be explained using different utility theory, not always a different auction theory. All kind of payoffs should be considered, when estimating the utility function. Right now, especially in auctions, people only look at pecuniary payoffs. There is a new model that includes motivational payoffs that explains our results pretty well.

Then, we had an interesting conversation about utility theory. I was skeptic about the new model. If we to replace or extend something so basic like utility model, does that mean the new model should work universally as well? Or, is it enough to offer an alternative model that works only for some generic (yet not universal) instances?

REW explained how the vN-M utility theory has been accepted as given over the years, partly because it has all the nice properties and fits really well. That doesn't mean it's perfect. There has been some effort on refinement. But then, just like this new model, there hasn't been any breakthroughs that change the old theory substantially.

A blast from the past

2004-04-11T15:55:00.000-05:00

I was bored, and googled my name (forgive me).

The 29th entry gives me this:
Solution for hw3 ;; ;; This solution is suggested ...
... for hw3 ;; ;; This solution is suggested by Aria Prima Novianto ;;---beta-redex? ...
www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/course/purdue/ cs565/F96/solutions/solutions3
(go down to about the middle of the page).

I know that Palsberg moved to UCLA. But other than that, I don't remember anything about the Programming Language class, let alone lambda calculus. It seems so long ago.

But, I remember I didn't do that well in the class to have my solution in there. Oh, well.

First Mover Advantage

2004-04-09T16:11:00.001-05:00

My mind is still on the latest election results. I don't know why, but this election gives me such a rush of adrenaline that I could not stop thinking about it.
Speculations are abound about the presidential election coming up, especially on the forming of coalitions to nominate candidates.

If you are not going to nominate anyone from within, but you want to do it in your own terms, I believe you should move quickly, in fact you should move first.

In the bargaining game, first mover has a huge advantage. Especially in a short (one) period game. First, you set your terms, what you really want out of the candidates. Offer your support to your first choice candidates, their only options being to accept or reject your terms. If it's still early in the game, they know you have the option to offer it to others.

I know this is too simplistic, but in general, first mover has an upper hand because he can make an offer the other player can't refuse. The candidates get your votes (albeit in your terms) versus none of your votes. Surely something is better than nothing.

Now, the candidates can make you commit to them, by revealing (to public) that you offer them your supports. If everyone knows your preference, you are less likely to change.

Starting again

2004-04-08T23:04:00.000-05:00

Another journal. Let's give this blog thing a try one more time. Thanks to Aco for getting me started again.
Right now, I'm, just trying to decide between LiveJournal or Blogger. I'm trying Deepest Sender with LiveJournal and BlogThis with Blogger. Both tools are Firefox extensions.

Once I get comfortable, I'd like to use one of them to organize my ideas, summarize papers I read, or to note anything interesting I stumble upon. Huffington wrote about news blogs, saying, "paradoxically, in these days of instant communication and 24-hour news channels, it's actually easier to miss information we might otherwise pay attention to,". Blogs actually help her to concentrate on the things she's most interested in. So, I'm hoping this journal will reenergize me to get more focused on my priorities.