Think logically!

Some while ago, I reflected upon mantras and sayings, which often more or less accurately represent people's schools of thought. Not quite as severe, yet annoying at times, are platitudes. They tend to be not so deeply burned into our minds as mantras, but nevertheless sometimes their shortsightedness is striking.

One of the platitudes which made it to the olymp of particularly stupid platitudes is: Think logically!
What I find surprising about this statement is NOT that typically it is plainly wrong in the strictest meaning of the word logically. What I find surprising instead is that it reveals an extremely widespread misconception about how knowledge is obtained and applied. Let me elaborate.

While this statement has merit in certain situations (e.g., in a course on, guess what, logic), most frequently it is simply misused. A few examples:

• When boiling noodles, do you put the salt into the water before it starts boiling or afterwards? Think logically!
• How do you hang that picture? Think logically!
• How do you calculate the area of a circle? Think logically!

Again, what I find irritating here is NOT the misusage of the word "logical" in the strictest meaning of the word. More than not, what the speaker really means is: "Apply your knowledge about the principles of our world onto that particular matter.". But even then, this statement does not make sense at all!

Most likely, asking that respective question about doing something does not only show a lack of understanding of the matter per se, but also about which questions to ask in order to come up with a solution.

Someone who already knows how to boil noodles might ask back further on: Think logically, how do water and salt react with each other (in chemical terms)? How will you level the picture after you hung it? Just look at that circle, how many square-units does it consist of?

All of these questions make perfect sense - in hindsight. Just as like the correct questions that lead to the ultimate answer to the initial question could be: What is the seeding point of noodles? Which material is picture made of? What is the square root of 2?

Obviously, none of these questions make sense in the context at hand. Yet, there is no way the initially asking person can possible know this; otherwise he would not ask at all!
Learning something is not only about the respective application, but also learning which questions to ask during application. 

Telling somebody to "think logically" gives him the impression of failing to realize something obvious. But the contrary is true - telling somebody to "think logically" reveals failure to realize how you yourself obtained that knowledge! 

Think logically! Remove that platitude out of your dictionary - your kids, classmates and colleagues will thank you for your nonviolent communication.

3 Simple Steps To A Perfect Day

1) Ask yourself: For the next 30 minutes, do I want to do something I will remember, or will be remembered for?
2) Do something that is worth remembering, or being remembered for, for the next 29 minutes.
3) Take 1 minute to go back to 1)

The Power Of Eating Alone - In Silence

Many people make big mental efforts during the morning shower. Not only do they make their daily schedule, but they also mentally prepare for meetings and make important decisions.
This doesn't come as a surprise, because for many people, the morning shower is one of the rare moments when they are truly with themselves and simply let their thoughts flow.

Afterwards, for the annoying morning commute, you either sleep (which, apart from drawing certain conclusions while dreaming, cannot quite be considered a very active activity) or you are exposed to some form of stimulation. Stupid morning shows on radio; plug in your headphones and your favorite band, on full volume of course; or if you are really motivated, read a book. That way or the other, you are not with yourself and your thoughts - and won't be during the whole day anymore.

Thus, let me ask you something: When was the last time you ate alone, at home and in true silence? That means no radio. No TV show. No computer. And of course, also not texting, reading, whatsoever at your ubiquitious pocket-computer.

Obviously, it is great to go for lunch with your family, have a barbecue with your friends, or a candlelight-dinner with your significant other. There are even books which recommend to never eat alone. Obviously, there is much to gain from such talks and events.

In fact, there was also a time I totally avoided eating alone. When I served national service at the Red Cross, I didn't feel very good mentally. In such moments, eating alone was quite counter-productive, because it triggered even more depressing and negative thoughts - I do totally recommend seeking for company in such occasions, and even the TV might make good company at times.

Most of the time, however, your subconscious is your biggest, unique treasure. You just need to open a door, instead of trying to constantly kill it with audio and video stimulations, in order to "let it out".

A perfect way of doing so is eating alone - in silence! Sounds ridiculous and / or boring? Give it a try, it comes for free and won't hurt!

Dostoyevsky On Midlife Crisis

A few days ago, I posted a great example about how Dostoyevsky showed great insights into human nature, which are still perfectly valid today.

Here is another quote from "The Idiot":

Yet, he shall not find peace for the rest of his life! It's not at all a reassuring thought to him that he fulfilled his duties; on the contrary, there is even something provocative about it. He might think: "So that's what I wasted all my life on; that's what stopped me from inventing gun powder! Wouldn't it be for these obstacles, I would have definitely invented gun powder or discovered America, I don't know for sure which; but invented or discovered something I would have for sure!"

So, apparently that's how midlife crisis was described 140 years ago!

P.S.: As you might have guessed already, this quote is not from the official version. For whatever reason, this passage is not present in any of the English versions I could get my hands on, so I've translated it myself. In the German version, this is in the Chapter I of Part IV and reads as follows:

Er kann trotzdem sein ganzes Leben lang nicht zur seelischen Ruhe gelangen! Für ihn ist es keineswegs ein beruhigender, tröstlicher Gedanke, daß er seine menschlichen Pflichten so gut erfüllt hat; dieser Gedanke hat sogar im Gegenteil für ihn etwas Aufreizendes: »Also das ist es«, sagt er sich, »worauf ich mein ganzes Leben verwendet habe; das ist es, was mich an Händen und Füßen gebunden hat; das ist es, was mich gehindert hat, das Pulver zu erfinden! Wäre dieses Hindernis nicht gewesen, dann hätte ich vielleicht sicher entweder das Pulver erfunden oder Amerika entdeckt; ich weiß noch nicht genau, was; aber erfunden oder entdeckt hätte ich sicherlich etwas!«

And Why Did You Go To Bosnia At All?

Ironically, even though I have spent two years in BiH now already, I haven't thought about covering that frequently asked question here on this blog. However, recently I ran into this very nice blog post from Snježana about foreigners in ex-Yugoslavia, so it crossed my mind to share my story as well.
In the light of Scott Hanselman, I will give the gift of my keystrokes not only to her, but to all of you.

So why did I go to Bosnia at all?
Some background about myself and my family first. My father's parents were "Danube Swabians" (Donauschwaben) who lived in Slavonia, in a small village some 40km from Osijek. Even though some of them did speak some Serbo-Croatian, their main language was some obscure dialect of German (with quite an undeniable Croatian influence). Also, culturally they rather perceived themselves and were perceived as "Germans in Slavonia".
By the end of the WW II, they had to escape from the partisans, and landed in Upper Austria.

As much as I was aware of that fact, it didn't really play a role in my childhood in the 90's. I had a rough picture were my ancestors had originated from, but I grew up as an Austrian child with Austrian dialect and Austrian habits. Also, I wasn't particularly interested into where exactly they had lived, how they had lived, and how they had ended up in Austria at all. Yet, in the very back of my mind some connection remained.

Studying in Vienna, I started working for a company which does business in Europe and beyond. For various reasons, I was quite open to the idea of working and living abroad as well.

First, that's what job advisors keep telling you - whatever you do, gain some experience abroad first! I think I never really understood the reason behind, and rather took it for some fancy bla-bla - until I realized that it does make a difference (which I will not go into now, though, but maybe in some "Bosnia-aftermath" which it is too early for now).

Second, I was fond of travelling even before; so why not extend the journey and stay somewhere even longer, say, two years? Obviously, the perspective that you get and the experience you gain is way more than on a typical weeks to month trip. Getting to know habits, language, people ...

Third, of course this was a great work opportunity as well. Taking responsibility for a big project and making nice money always comes handy.

So, yes, I was ready to go abroad. But why exactly Bosnia, then?

Well, simply because it happened. There arose this opportunity for this project in BiH, at a moment I was ready for it.
Thus, I cannot claim that living in BiH is what I have always dreamed of - but when the opportunity arose, I was more than ready to take it (or maybe the opportunity arose exactly because I was ready for it?), and I haven't regretted it a single moment.

Dreadful Crimes - At All Times?

"Dreadful crimes? But I can assure you that crimes just as dreadful, and probably more horrible, have occurred before our times, and at all times, and not only here in Russia, but everywhere else as well. And in my opinion it is not at all likely that such murders will cease to occur for a very long time to come. The only difference is that in former times there was less publicity, while now everyone talks and writes freely about such things--which fact gives the impression that such crimes have only now sprung into existence."

Who knows me a little bit (or follows this blog and therefore knows why I try to avoid news) might realize that this sounds quite a bit like me.

However, this is a quote from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot", written in 1869.

150 years later, I cannot help being surprised about how accurate this is even today.

It makes me wonder, once again: Apart from us driving cars, exchanging messages within seconds online and eating Big Macs, what has substantially changed for society as a whole in the meantime?

Should I Eat That Apple Today Or Tomorrow? - Part II

In last week's post, I discussed the question of a whether a free good should always be consumed, or if it might make sense to abstain from consumption under certain circumstances.

We went through four examples of consumption.
In example 1 and 2, the saturation factor was low (\(s = 0.2\)).
In example 1, the consumer always consumed, and gross utility \(g = 26\).
In example 2, the consumer abstained in period 2, and gross utility \(g = 20\).

In example 3 and 4, the saturation factor was high (\(s = 0.6\)).
In example 3, the consumer always consumed, and gross utility \(g = 18\).
In example 4, the consumer abstained in period 2, and gross utility \(g = 20\).

So, here is the answer to our initial question: You should eat or not eat the apple depending on the saturation factor \(s\) ! For a big \(s\) , not consuming in period 2 was better; for a small \(s\), consuming was better.

However, at which threshold does the decision change?

Let's make a step back first. As you might have noticed, I only varied the decision for period 2, and here's why.

In period 1, consuming is always superior to not consuming. There was no prior period from which the consumer might still be saturated, so he always consumes. Thus, we can assume \(c_1 = 1\), and can disregard the consumption decision from now on.

As we have seen, changing the decision in period 2 has an effect on the gross utility, so \(c_2\) remains a variable to be considered.

However, period 3 can be disregarded again. Why? If \(c_2\) was 0, there is no saturation, and similar to period 1, consumption is better. If \(c_3\) was 1, there is saturation, but there is no 4th period to save consumption for, so again, consumption is better. Thus, \(c_3 = 1\) , and can be disregarded further on.
The only variable to maximize against is \(c_2\).

In the light of the above, let's reconsider our gross utility function:
\(c_1 = 1\)
\(c_2 =\) to be seen
\(c_3 = 1\)

\(u_1 = a c_1  = a\)

\(u_2 = a c_2 (1 - c_1 s) = a c_2 (1 - s)\)

\(u_3 = a c_3 (1 - c_2 s) = a (1 - c_2) s) = a - a c_2 s\)

\(g = u_1 + u_2 + u_3 = a + a _2 (1 - s) +  a - a c_2 s = \)

\(2 a + a c_2 - a c_2 s - a _2 s = \)

\(2 a + a _2 - 2 a _2 s = 2 a + a _2 (1 - 2s)\)

Now we can directly compare the two outcomes with each other; the gross utility in case of consumption in period 2 (which is , and the gross utility in case of no consumption in period 2.

So, for \(c_2 = 1, g\) would be: \(2 a + a (1 - 2s)\)
And for \(c_2 = 0, g\) would be: \(2 a + 0 = 2a\)

So, this question can be formulated as inequation:

\(2 a + a (1 - 2s) > 2 a\)

\(a (1 - 2s) > 0\)

\(1 - 2s > 0\)

\(1 > 2 s\)

\(1/2 > s\)

\(s < 1/2\)

So, if the saturation factor \(s < 1/2\), gross utility is bigger with \(c_2 = 1\).
For \(s > 1/2\), gross utility is bigger with \(c_2 = 0\).
For \(s = 1/2\), the consumer is indifferent, so the gross utility is equal.

Conclusion
Of course, your real saturation factor \(s\) is hardly known. However, I find it quite interesting to keep in mind that for a big saturation factor, I should rather consider not consuming. The bigger the impact on the reduction of the satisfaction of tomorrow's consumption, the more I should be inclined to defer consumption.

Critique
As I mentioned above, I'm well aware of the fact that this model is still very weak.

First of all, the approach of trying to quantify utility of consumption, especially of non-tangible goods might be quite inappropriate. After all, that's the major weakness of the homo economicus altogher, right?
As a defense, I'd like to see the approach chosen not as a purely numerical, but rather as a concept as whole. You can imagine and include whatever you want into this utility function.

Second, the assumptions and constraints are very restrictive. Consequently, the results might not only be inaccurate, but even wrong and misleading.
The assumptions should incrementally be loosened in further research. I intent to do so in upcoming weeks.

Third, some empirical studies should be conducted, until the theory can eventually be rejected (Karl Popper again).

I hope that I managed to make my point, and am looking forward to all kind of additional critique and feedback.

Should I Eat That Apple Today Or Tomorrow? - Part I

Disclaimer: The study conducted is not at all scientific, and this is by purpose. I know it has several flaws.
Apart from that, there might be several other studies on that topic already. Still, here are my thoughts. You have been warned!

Imagine a basket of apples, which is magically re-filled every day with fresh apples. You have free access to that basket, you are not starving, and you are generally fond of apples.
Every day you can either take one apple, eat and enjoy it; or reject to do so.
Should you eat an apple every day, just because it is free, or can it make sense to constrain yourself on certain days, in order to enjoy it even more the next day?

Not too surprising, the answer is, similar to all questions that are worth being asked at all: It depends!
According to the first model I will present today, it depends on one factor only: On your individual saturation factor. If eating an apple today reduces your level of satisfaction tomorrow by more than a half, skip the apple today; otherwise, eat it.

I will try to explain my chain of thought, as easy and clearly as possible. That's for three reasons:

• I want to show you that a micro-economic model is nothing that's for university graduates and PhD's only (alright I'll admit, that idea is credited to Karl Popper)
• I want to show myself that this micro-economic model is nothing that's for university graduates and PhD's only
• I know this theory is still very weak and probably has fundamental flaws. Probably even similar theories already exist, which I do not know about. Still, I want to fail fast, in order to improve it.

Basic idea

We are talking about the consumption of a freely available good.
This could be an apple, a glass of water, watching TV, or having sex (whereas arguably some of the assumptions made below do not hold).

Each period (say, a day), the consumer faces the decision whether to consume that good or not. Consumption provides some form of satisfaction, which I will further on refer to as utility. The good is assumed to be saturating. If it was consumed in previous periods, it keeps providing utility, but less than in previous periods - because the consumer gets saturated (the technical term is marginal utility).

The consumer wants to maximize her gross utility - the sum of the utility provided every day. How should she decide every day in order to maximize gross utility?

Assumptions
As this is the first version of the model, assumptions are very restrictive. I'll try to weaken some of these in the upcoming weeks; of course also your input and ideas are warmly welcome!

Assumption 1:
There is only one free good, which saturates the consumer.

Assumption 2:
The good provides some form of utility, but is not necessary to survive.

Assumption 3:
The consumption decision is to be made every period (e.g., a day). The amount consumed cannot be chosen, only whether to consume or not at all. Goods cannot be taken and donated, which might provide some utility, too. They can only be consumed or not.

Assumption 4:
If the good was already consumed in the directly precedent period, utility is reduced linearly by the saturation factor. Imagine watching TV every day. Clearly, the level of enjoyment in each period is not that high each time, as if you would watch only once a month.

Assumption 5:
Contrary to a typical spending function, the consumer is indifferent between consuming the apple today or tomorrow. The apple today provides exactly the same utility as the apple tomorrow (in accordance with A4, given no apple was consumed the day prior to that).

Assumption 6:
Consumption of the good in one period does NOT provide utility in the following periods. However, according to A4, if consumed again, utility is reduced.

Assumption 7:
The consumer seeks to optimize the overall utility gained; that is, the sum of all utilities (resulting from A5 and A6).

Analysis
Alright, being well prepared with these assumptions, it gets slightly mathematical now. Don't worry, I'll try to keep it as short and easy as possible. I hear the critics among you already shouting about homo economicus misusage - and rightly so. Let me respond to this critique at the end.

The variables we'll use are as follows:

• \(c(t)\) refers to the consumption of the good in the period t. In each period, it can be either 0 (no consumption) or 1 (consumption).
• \(u(t)\) refers to the utility gained in period t. According to A2 and A4, this depends on the consumption in t, and also the previous period. That is: \[u(t) = f(c(t), c(t-1))\]
• \(g\) is the gross utility. According to A5, this is the sum of all u(t) over all periods. This is the value to be maximized.
• The utility factor \(a\). According to A2 and A5, this is the level of utility one single unit of the good (e.g., one apple) would provide if none was consumed in the previous period.
• The saturation factor \(s\): How much the utility is reduced in period t if the good was consumed in the previous period already, and therefore the consumer is saturated a little bit already. This results from A4. This factor can be any value between 0 and 1. The higher it is, the less the additional utility gained in the period after consumption.
• The utility function \(f\): How all of the aforementioned variables are related. Resulting from A4, A5 and A6, we can say: \[u(t) = a c(t) - a c(t) c(t-1) s = a c(t) (1 - c(t-1) s)\]

That was a little bit theoretical now, so let me give you an example.

Example 1
Let's look at the consumption of apples across three days.

On the first day, the consumer is totally into apples, so he'll eat the apple. For the sake of that example, let's also eat it on day 2 and 3. So: \[c_1 = 1, c_2 = 1, c_3 = 1\]

Choosing of factor \(a\) is arbitrary, so why not make it 10 (so \(a = 10\))?

Saturation factor \(s\) would be subject to empirical studies; however, I'll just as arbitrarily set it to 0.2 (\(s = 0.2\)).

Question: What is the utility u in each of the 3 periods? What is the gross utility?

Let's start with the utilities in each period.

Utility in first period \(u_1\) is straightforward, because there was no previous period and therefore no saturation to take into account. Thus \[u_1 = a c_1 (1 - c_0 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 (1 - 0 ⋅ 0.2) = 10\]

Utility in second period we get by simply filling into the utility function f:

\[u_2 = a c_2 (1 - c_1 s) = 10 ⋅  1 ⋅ (1 - 1 ⋅ 0.2) = 10 (1 - 0.2) = 8\]

The same is true for period 3:

\[u_3 = a c_3 (1 - c_2 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 - 1 ⋅ 0.2) = 10 (1 - 0.2) = 8\]

The gross utility g is the sum of those three:

\[g = u_1 + u_2  + u_3 = 10 + 8 + 8 = 26\]

We can sum up this example as follows:

Period 1 2 3 c(t) 1 1 1 u(t) 10 8 8 g 10 18 26 Table 1

Wasn't too hard, was it? So let's directly dive into a second example, which empirically comes close to our final answer already.

Example 2
Now, let's assume that the consumer consumed the good in period 1 (similar to example 1, \(c_1 = 1\)). There is no previous period, so the consumer is not at all saturated, so abstinence does not make sense. In period 2 however, the consumer abstains from consumption (\(c_2 = 0\)).
In period 3, he consumes again (\(c_3 = 1)\).
Question: What is the utility u in each of the 3 periods? What is the gross utility?

Similar to the method from above,

\(u_1 = a c_1 = 10\)
\(u_2 = a c_2 (1 - c_1 s) = 10 ⋅ 0 ⋅ (1 - 0.2) = 0\)
\(u_3 = a c_3 (1 - c_2 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 - 0 ⋅ 0.2) = 10\)
\(g = 20\)


... or in table representation:

Period 1 2 3 c(t) 1 0 1 u(t) 10 0 10 g 10 10 20 Table 2

\(g = 20\) is less that in example 1, where \(g = 26\)! That's an interesting finding, because now we know that given an utility factor \(a = 10\) and saturation factor \(s = 0.2\), it does NOT make sense to abstain from consumption. On the contrary, the good should always be consumed!
Let's repeat those two examples, but with another saturation factor s instead; say, \(s = 0.6\).

Example 3
Same setup as in example 1, the consumer always consumes, but \(s = 0.6\).
\(c_1 = 1\)
\(c_2 = 1\)
\(c_3 = 1\)

so:

\(u_1 = a c _1 = 10\)

\(u_2 = a c_2(1 - c_1 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 - 0.6) = 4\)

\(u_3 = a c_3 (1 - c_2 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 - 1 ⋅ 0.6) = 4\)

\(g = 18\)

Period 1 2 3 c(t) 1 1 1 u(t) 10 4 4 g 10 14 18 Table 3

Example 4
Same setup as in example 2, the consumer abstains in period 2, but \(s = 0.6\)

\(c_1 = 1\)
\(c_2 = 0\)
\(c_3 = 1\)

\(u_1 = a c _1 = 10\)

\(u_2 = a c_2(1 - c_1 s) = 10 ⋅ 0 ⋅ (1 - 0.6) = 0\)

\(u_3 = a c_3 (1 - c_2 s) = 10 ⋅ 1 ⋅ (1 - 0 ⋅ 0.6) = 10\)

\(g = 20\)

Period 1 2 3 c(t) 1 0 1 u(t) 10 0 10 g 10 10 20 Table 4

Now the results are the other way around - it pays off now to abstain in period 2!
A modification in the utility factor would not make any difference, because it would simply result in a higher or lower overall utility.

Alright, we're almost there. I want to leave it up to the reader to draw his own conclusions, until I will offer mine during next week.


Update:
Should I Eat That Apple Today Or Tomorrow? - Part II can be found here

Why I Try To Avoid News - Part II

A few days ago, I outlined what made me trying to avoid news. Today, let me tell you why I stuck to that approach.

First, I think it is important to realize what makes journalists, news agencies and TV stations provide news at all. While there are of course some with the best intentions, I'm quite convinced that the majority of news is broadcasted for mainly one reason: entertainment. Consequently, you cannot expect to be purely informed about certain issues, when TV stations generate their profit out of your entertainment.

Second, have a close look at the composition of news. I'm not aware of any scientific studies on that topic, but I claim that most news are of the type: "X said Y about Z", where the source information is only the actual event Z. Technically speaking, the signal to noise ratio is quite high. Why would I care what any self-proclaimed expert thinks about a certain topic? Even more, when her today's opinion is rejected by another self-proclaimed expert the other day.

Third, I strongly sense that following mass-media draws your attention to certain events, for example, robberies in your neighborhood, suicides or plan crashes. People who follow media regularly tend to over-estimate the likelihood of such events. Nassim Nicholas Taleb refers to this perception as "ludic fallacy". The only way to escape this deception is simply avoiding news altogether.

Forth, as much as I try to filter all information I'm exposed to and to take it with a "grain of salt", and as much I would trust all journalists to do a faithful job (which I don't), there is still no way to protect me from shaping my mind in a certain direction.
Imagine reading a newspaper which reports about the great successes of a political party every day. I bet that if you keep reading that newspaper for a year, you will be more inclined to believe that this actually is a successful party, even though that is contrary to your initial beliefs.
And now think about reading a newspaper which focuses on the negative aspects of that party only. Again, I bet your perception will be totally different.
The only protective measure I can think about is avoiding this kind of news altogether.

Fifth, I wonder, what would I actually gain by following news? Does it make any difference in my daily life whether this year's rice harvest in China was a successful one? Will the supermarket around the corner stop selling beer, because the Higgs Boson was found (or, in accordance with #2 from above, because somebody said that the Higgs Boson was found).
Things that are likely to have an impact on me I will hear about sooner or later anyways, so no need to seek for them actively.

I understand that this position sounds pretty rough and ignorant. After all, you are still a human being and should care what surrounds you, right? I totally agree; but that doesn't stop me from deciding how I want to spend my time (which, according to some, is the most precious resource you have). I think you can care for others and be genuinely interested in the people around you - and still try to avoid news.

Why I Try To Avoid News - Part I

Until February 2011, I used to follow news frequently. Reading teletext, watching news on TV in the evening, constantly hitting F5 on my favorite online news pages, waiting for updates in Google Reader ... I think I was close to being news-addicted. But then something happened that instantly gave me a tremendous amount of additional free time, plus a new perspective to perceive certain things. While the world passionately followed the events surrounding the Arab Spring, I kept my TV black and stopped following news for good.

Some people are quite surprised when I tell them about this decision and cannot imagine a single day without news. But how do you know about the latest elections? Don't you care about the poor child that was killed the other day? How will you know that the oil price is about to rise, we will be on the border to a collapse of the financial system, and the USA will attack Iran?

Well, there are a couple of reasons, so let me elaborate.

First of all, let me tell you why I initially started that experiment with myself. In the upcoming days, I will outline why I stayed with it ever since then.

It was in 2009 when I first got in touch with the idea of not following news, when I read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's generally inspiring, mind-provoking The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Even though his works deeply shaped my way of thinking about probability, randomness and other aspects until today, the idea of not following any news any more seemed quite rigid to me back then. However, the seed had been planted.

When in January and February 2011 the Egyptian masses started assembling on the Tahrir Square daily, I was totally bought by the happenings. Just nine months before, I had had a great time there myself, and now I followed the events from far away. Al-Jazeera live stream, Facebook, Blogs ... I was totally into this stuff, several hours a day. Eventually, the peaceful demonstrations where interrupted violently.
It is not too surprising that there were contrary reports about the reason for the both-sided violence. One side claimed that the protesters had started throwing stones; the other side claimed there were shots from the army, and the protesters had to defend themselves.
How can I verify one claim or the other, from a 2.000 km distance? What if both of the reporters are right, not only because politics demand the according report, but because they report what they really saw and experienced from their point of view?

Frustrated and depressed, I turned off Al-Jazeera, and didn't open it or any other news page ever since then again.

In the upcoming days, I will explain why I stayed with this approach, and what I think I gained from it.

Keeping Your Mind On Fire

As I mentioned in my memories about Mexico, among the things I value most during travelling is having time to think about topics apart from my daily routine. In his excellent essay How To Be A Free Thinker, Scott Berkun recognizes that  "... many of history’s great spiritual leaders chose to step away from their cultures and their worlds for a time." Clearly, there aren't too many things more inspiring than foreign cultures and environment.

For the good or for the bad, however, most of us are more or less bound to their place of living, and their daily routine (which, I guess, for most people is working, unless you adopted a 4 hour workweek). So, that made me wonder, what can you do to keep your mind on fire, even in a potentially mind- and idea-suppressing environment?

In the last week, I paid close attention to what does inspire me, and what provokes me to think about issues that really matter to me. Of course, people care about different issues, and consequently, for many of them different approaches might work out.

However, here are my thoughts:

• Reading, ideally about a variety of different topics. What I'm onto these days is Mindfire (again by Scott Berkun; obviously a primer for this article) a master thesis about the political and economic transformation in Central-Eastern Europe, Management 3.0 (Jurgen Appelo) and I just finished novel price winner Ivo Andric's masterpiece The Bridge on the Drina. 
• Physical exercises. Long hours of sitting in office do not only cause pain in the back, it's also pain for your brain. After jogging, swimming, skiing, mattress-sports or maybe just a walk my mind is not only open, but actually even full of energy for new stuff.
• Wandering around with open eyes and open ears. I'm trying to re-invent the curiosity which I used to have as a child (pretty much to the sorrow of the people facing my constant questions).
• Make notes. Since a few weeks, I don't leave home without my pocket Moleskine anymore. Whenever something interesting catches my attention, I write it down to came back to the issue later, or to discuss it with somebody who might be interested as well, or may be even offer some explanation. Since I'm doing that, I'm also surprised myself about how many questions are around in that brain over a day. It simply doesn't stop anymore once you've started!
• A beer. Or maybe two. I'm fairly certain that this is absolutely necessary to re-adjust your body every now and then, and I think there is more than one example of a great thing that was initiated over a couple of pints in a bar.
• Discussions with other curious or passionate people. Ideally ... well, see the point before.
• Theater and exhibitions. Totally diving into another time or place might have impacts similar to travelling. Just that it's much cheaper, closer by, easier to reach, and in the morning you'll still wake up in your own bed again.

In case you look for some inspiration or idea on anything, you might try one or two of these approaches. 

Of course, there might be many and more approaches ... so I wonder, what are yours?

I Know That I Know Nothing

I know that I know nothing -- Socrates, Greek philosopher

Yes, I know, I used that quote in my last week's post about my first year in Bosnia already, but it is also related to what I want to talk about today.

The final sentence there is: "... having learned a few things already. At the same time, I know that I know nothing." After I learned a little bit about local habits, I reached a point where I knew enough to know that there is much and more to come. In fact, I tend to think that this is true about pretty much everything one learns.

Since I once ago took some courses in economics and economist are very fond of curves (the ones on diagrams, of course, what did you think??), I tried to compress and summarize my thoughts in a small graph.

On the x-axis, there is the "actual knowledge" in red, compared to "perceived knowledge" (by you, not by others) in blue, both as they are developing over time.

The actual knowledge does steadily increase over time. Of course, this is a huge over-simplification, because learning curves are different in different fields; the improvement might not be as steady as pictured out but stagnate or sometimes even decline (that is, you forget something); there are several difficulties related to accurately measuring knowledge. Yet, I think the fundamental principle remains more or less the same: Your actual knowledge does grow over time.

The perceived knowledge, however, does not. Depending on one's personality, perceived growth of knowledge is similar to the actual, or might even out-perform it. (Raise your hand if you never learned something new, thought you are a super-hero and natural talent after day 1 - just to fall flat on your face on the 2nd.)

In my understanding, this parallel growth of actual and perceived knowledge continues, until one of the following things happens:

• You fall flat on your face
• Your knowledge is challenged, particularly in fields you were not yet that profound in (e.g., an exam)
• You meet, or read something from, somebody who you think you can learn something, just to be surprised how much there is still too learn

In any case, your perceived knowledge drops immediately, which actually is quite irrational a thing. You know that you've learned something already - on the other hand, only now you found how much more complex that field of knowledge actually is, and how much more there is still too learn.

Some people just give up on the sight of the remaining part of the path. Maybe you know the Simpsons episode where Homer tries to climb up the Murderhorn, at one point looking up to the top of the mountain like this (source: sharetv.org):

However, as I pointed out above: I'm quite convinced that this is simply part of the way to mastering any subject. Again and again, you will encounter such peaks of perceived knowledge - just to find that there is more to come, the actual top of the mountain is even farther. In such moments, just visualize one of the pictures from above (yes, both the curves and Homer may do) and remember: Your actual knowledge is still increasing. Yet, even who was believed to be one of the wisest men of ancient Greeks knew - that he knew nothing.

P.S.: I'd be interested in some other literature which covers that topic or goes into a similar direction, so I'd be very grateful for all links or suggestions.

First Year in Bosnia, Aftermath

I know that I know nothing -- Socrates, Greek philosopher

It's now roughly one year already that I'm living in Banja Luka and I'm amazed by all the various people I met and the interesting impressions and habits I was exposed to. So, just about getting time to sum them up, right?

I learned that Serbian orthodox people celebrate Slava on the day their ancestors accepted Christianity, and Christmas and other Christian feasts according to the Julian calendar, normally around two weeks after Catholics. They would typically attend funerals also of the parents of friends and colleagues from work, in order to share their grief - something fairly uncommon in Austria.

Furthermore, I was surprised to hear that school classes are typically held in shifts, that is, one week you attend school from morning till around noon, and the next week you have afternoon classes only. Apparently, this is mainly due to shortage in rooms in schools.

Probably most remarkable for me, I feel that people are generally much more flexible here than in Austria. (Of course, such generalizations are kind of stupid, but I don't claim I'm providing any scientific proof and just talking about my personal impressions. Ha, on the safe side now!) Austrians tend to (over-) plan and organize, think several weeks in advance, just to be surprised that in the meantime circumstances changed and therefore their entire plan needs to be adjusted. Not so here, though ... it will be fine, that way or the other, so why bother thinking and struggling today?

That flexibility also applies when it comes to appointments. Yes, maybe you agreed to meet somewhere at a certain time, but there are so many things that might arise between agreeing and actually meeting, so it's fairly possible that you just re-arrange five minutes before that.

Flexibility sometimes also manifests as simply not caring too much. Why ride your motorbike with a helmet and registration blades? After all, that's just a stupid regulation from police, and until they notice that you are driving without helmet, you have passed already anyway, and of course, they will not run after you.

Overall, I thought that I had gotten a fairly well feeling for the mindset of people around here, but just last Friday my naïvety hit me again.

On Monday, November 21st, there was the 16th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement. Since that represents the end of the Bosnian War, you might assume that both Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina consider that worth celebrating, right? But far from it! It's only a national holiday in the Republika Srpska, the Serbian-dominated entity. People in the Federation celebrate on November 25th, the Statehood Day of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Naturally, that is not recognized by the RS.

How can I still be surprised about this?

My impression is that, particularly when it comes to issues related to the war, my understanding is still quite poor.
Furthermore, when it comes to (not) doing business and working habits, I think that in various regards it's evident that I, a child raised in a capitalist country, simply lack the understanding of what drives people with a communist background.

Concluding, I would say that I met lots of interesting and nice people, and that I'm happy to watch my (not-so-) new environment with the curiosity of a child and having learned a few things already. At the same time, I know that I know nothing.

P.S.: In case you are enjoying already but don't yet value some of the freedoms granted to you by being part of the EU (as was the case for me), feel invited to visit me and experience being short of them. No visa regulations (that is, freedom of movement)? No need to pay customs on the border, or think about it at all when ordering something online (that is, freedom of goods)? Of course, I don't say these advantages come without prize and EU is purely a supercool thing but some of the key advantages became that natural for us already, so it is good to keep it in mind they are not yet for many others.

Call me paraglider, motorbike owner ... and German teacher!

Wooohaa! This week is so amazing! 

In the last months, I learned better than ever before that some things simply cannot be enforced. Life is full of combinations of bad circumstances. For instance, I had wanted to make a course for gliding ever since I had given it a try with a friend a few years ago. Therefore, I decided to enroll at one of the gliding clubs close by.

However, this didn't turn out to be as easy as I naïve Western-European had expected. First of all, only in one club there was an instructor with whom I could speak in English. Second, recently a new federal agency was founded which is responsible for issuing certificates to clubs, permitting them to educate new pilots. Unfortunately, that happened that recently that by the beginning of the season none of the two clubs had this certificate. 

Later in summer, one of them was finally given the certificate (the one with the non-English speaking instructor), and I thought: Well why not, I'll not crash down immediately, so give it a try in local language, off we go. Ha, but hold on … did you know that gliders need registration too, similar to cars? No? Apparently also people at the club were not that aware of that fact, because once they had the certificate, registration for their only glider expired … too bad.

So, while me being a little bit disappointed, I didn't give up and kept looking for other opportunities to

• spend some time with or learn something cool I've always wanted to do
• expose myself to situations where I'm forced to use local language (which is not the case neither at work, where there typically is a translator, nor in my free time, where I'm mostly surrounded by people with whom I can talk English). I live in BiH now already for three quarters of a year, and I even though I made some progress with regard to local language, I know I could do much better.

Several things came to my mind or popped up accidently, fulfilling the aforementioned criteria:

• Paragliding (there is a paragliding club in Banja Luka, offering really cheap courses)
• Buying a motorbike
• Becoming a voluntary German teacher at a local language school

Having learned my lessons from the past, I thought I do my best to get prepared for all of them, and be happy if only one or two of them actually happen and the other ones do not due to facts I cannot influence.

Well, last Friday the stone started rolling … and didn't stop anymore. First, I got a call from the instructor of the paragliding club. All preparations sorted out, weather conditions for the weekend expected to be just fine, we'll start the other day. Similar as for surfing, I had underestimated how exhausting it is (at least until you develop a proper technique). Yet, the few moments where this stubborn glider accepts your will are definitely worth it. Maybe next weekend we'll start flying! (Well, I actually already did, a little bit at least. Didn't want to, though, so instructor had to grab my backpack and push me back to the ground.) Spending a weekend in the Bosnian mountains also pays off, just because of the really nice view. I can't wait the next weekend.

Next, I finally found a motorbike perfectly suiting my needs! Also the search procedure itself was funny … would you expect that, when you call an erotic line, you might actually end up talking to a guy with a high voice? Anyway, my new love … nothing new, nothing fancy, just perfect for me to get started:

Aprilia Pegaso 650 ... engine coming from Rotax, pretty close to the place I grew up. I did not yet manage to register it (turns out it's quite tricky a procedure for foreigners), but I cannot highlight enough how helpful friends were in all regards (cheers Duško). Can't wait to start exploring Bosnian countryside.

And then, there is still the thing with the German classes. Yes, I can see some of you laughing behind your screens now. Me a German teacher, how hilarious is that? Explaining a language which some people claim I'm not really capable of myself IN a language I'm even less capable of – how funny can that be? Today, there will be the first lesson with my small group of students, and once again, I really can't wait it. I guess it's gonna be challenging but awesome either.

Economist, Dentist, Computerist - An Essay on Ist-Ism

"What are you?" is probably among the most often asked questions whenever two people see each other for the first time. Many people are so used to that question already that the answer is quite flat and straightforward - don't expect much more than some job description ending with "-ist" (ideally followed by some impressive title)."What are you?", as if what one works or studied before would reveal anything about her personality.

Even worse, some people apparently even feel the need to declare themselves again and again during a conversation.

A: Me being an ***ist, I think the sky is blue
B: Well, but since I'm a ***ist, I would say it's rather gray

As much as I understand the human need for being part of a group, and also convincing himself about that fact every now and then, I seriously doubt that defining the entire personality by one's job is very smart.

Both of the above are different forms of what I call istism. Actually, it does not quite fit to the definition from the urbandictionary.com, which says:

An istism is a use of the 'ist' suffix, when being derrogatory. If Alice was to say "I hate coloured people", she would be being RACIST, thefore committing an Istism

So, I'll try to come up with my own definition.

Istism is the attempt to sum up somebody's perspectives about various topics under one umbrella term, topically by his job or one any other group he feels connected to. (e.g., "I'm capitalist, so I think about economics what all capitalists think".) Another form of istism is using the membership to a group as a means of reasoning (e.g. "I (have to) think that markets successfully regulate themselves, because I'm a liberalist.")

In my understanding, istism may be interpreted as another form of stereotypes. Even though the word "stereotype" is generally used in a rather negative way, I think that's only half the story. Quoting a close friend of mine, you also don't wonder whether the neighbour's dog showing his teeth is also willing to use them, but rather see to escape and thereby accepting the stereotype without questioning it in that case.
The world is simply too complex to be fully re-discovered every day, so no, I wouldn't say stereotypes are a bad thing in general. What bothers me about istism, though, is that somebody puts a sticker onto himself and thereby willingly exposes him to all the stereotypes - as if all dentists would be the same! The same in terms of views about politics, hobbies, favourite football club, drinks, ... whatever "really matters".

I think another reason for "What are you?" being asked that often is that people don't know how else to get a conversation started. I normally try avoiding answering such questions too straightforward (unless I'm in a business meeting, where it didn't turn out to be too successful to avoid talking about business matters), and of course, asking them myself either.
Instead, "What are you passionate about?" has worked wonders for me quite often already. For example, I really couldn't imagine one quite ordinary colleague being a passionate writer of short-stories in his free time. Every other minute he loves to spend with Icelandic horse. Admittedly, horses are not my major field of interest, but whatever is communicated with enough passion is simply contagious. I did not start horseback riding myself immediately (having made rather bad experiences on vacation, where I tend to end up with quite red an ass ...), but it was a great starter for an entertaining six hours drive from Bosnia to Vienna. I doubt that would have been possible had we only talked about business matters.

The thing is, everybody loves to talk what he is passionate about (some of our fellows actually even too much so), so I think that's a good starter to really get to know somebody. There might be other ways as well ... so how do you really get to know strangers? And maybe even more important ... what are you passionate about?

What is Your Mant(r)a?

No, this is not about the famous German car from the 80s.

Also, this is not about the "flying" fishes.

(If you have a proper "oh no", "fucking bad joke" or whatever picture of gif at hand, the stage is yours. I didn't find a suitable one.)

No, this is about mantras, which according to the Oxford Dictionaries is: 

mantra
(originally in Hinduism and Buddhism) a word or sound repeated to aid concentration in meditation:a mantra is given to a trainee meditator when his teacher initiates him

a Vedic hymn:her high, sweet voice began chanting the mantra of life
a statement or slogan repeated frequently:the environmental mantra that energy has for too long been too cheap

Origin:
late 18th century: Sanskrit, literally 'instrument of thought', from man 'think'

I also don't want to talk about Hinduism, Buddhism or meditation. What I want to focus on is the literal translation, "instrument of thought". An instrument using which you keep your mind in good shape. Something you repeat to yourself, over and over, maybe even in a truistic way (or, as we guys with thick glasses like to call it, a tautology, a statement that is always true just by being true).

Since my very childhood, I remember having come across several sayings by the grown-up world (sorry for the quite literal translations from German; if you are aware of a similar phrase used in native English, please leave a comment):

• Nothing causes nothing ("von nix kummt nix"). I understand that this should encourage you learn more, work harder, live a busy life altogether ...
• Until you marry, it will be fine again ("bis du heiratest is' wieder gut"). Said to children when they are a little bit hurt, or, ironically, when they are full of grief because of being left by their first sweet heart
• And, finally, my probably most hated one: Those who can go out can also work ("wer fortgehen kann kann auch arbeiten"). Something you would typically hear from your uber-orderly colleague at work about your hangover. Big BS!

Lucky me, I've turned old enough to question those sayings. My current point of view is that even though there might be a piece of truth in some of them, I would say that they show a heavy gravitation towards huge pieces of shit.

Admittedly, this might appear quite bold statement, since that is what most of us have been told since years. Most likely even so by people we know for quite a while already and whose opinion we typically highly value.

For some people these mantras might even play an important role in their daily lives. Thus, I will now not start arguing about my opinion. Just be invited to question those sayings that you might have taken for granted since ... well, ever since.

Just to be clear, the above sayings might provide some useful guidance through daily life. However, from my point of view most of them are too much focused on normalizing towards a proper, daily-from-9-to-5-working-nice-wife-nice-house-nice-children life and consequently lack universality.

So, no mant(r)as at all?

No, that is not to say that I consider mantras and sayings a dull thing in general. On the contrary, I think it is very useful if you have something to hold on. Something to come back whenever in doubt. For me, these are:

• You always make the right decision
• Everybody looks for individual happiness
• It's gonna be ok

Take the time, and read the above again. Yes, you always make the right decision! If you feel like doing so, read it once again and enjoy. Isn't that incredible freeing? Free yourself from the burden of questioning yourself all over, and tell yourself that you did right!

Of course, you might do and decide differently if you would face that same question now again, but that is great! It only shows that you learned something and grew, and actually, the opposite would be sad.

Whatever it is, with regard to everything that you knew when facing that question, and everything you could possible know, and all your values at that point in time - you did make the right decision.

While that first mantra is rather egoistic and oriented on self-esteem and self-confidence, the second is about dealing with others.

Whenever I'm dealing with somebody who I cannot quite cope with, or when I cannot understand others' decisions and actions, I tell myself that everybody looks for individual happiness. Naturally, people have different needs and desires, but hold on for a second, and think about people surrounding you.

Whatever they might be looking for, in the end it is happiness. Keep that in mind the next time you are facing a tricky situation, and feel the difference. I promise you won't regret it.

Third, I'm quite convinced that in the end everything's gonna be ok. Whatever it is, it helps me to face it with a fundamentally optimistic attitude. Of course, there might be challenging days and phases in life where this is hard to imagine, and things might not always run as expected, but this way or the other, it will be ok.

P.S.: Credit for the first two mantras goes to a former professor at university, for the most useful thing I learned there. The third I cannot quite track back any more, but it always remembers me about Bob Marley's Every little thing's gonna be alright.

 

P.P.S.: I decided on a posting schedule. Expect posts here every Wednesday (starting next week, not tomorrow). I'm writing this here, because once I told the whole world about my plan, I know I'm much more committed and there is no way back ... and I'm sure this is the right decision!