Over the past two years I've developed a fondness for 'westerns' or, as I like to call them, 'cowboy movies'.
So I'm excited about this film called Appaloosa.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Free will and fMRI
I don't believe in free will. I believe that the decision I will make today about whether to cook pasta or rice for dinner will be a result of millions upon millions of factors, none of which I have control over. These factors might include: the amount of potassium in my blood stream, whether I ate pasta or rice 18 days ago, whether I know a person named Rick and whether I've kept in contact with him over the past 10 years, my entire child hood experience with pasta and rice, whether I stub my toe on the office chair near my desk in a few minutes, whether there is any pre-made pasta sauce in my cupboard, and whether I dreamt about running a marathon last night. There's some room for error, or 'probability', due to the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, but it is a countably infinite probability.
Thus, because of what I know about physics and what I know about how our bodies and, more specifically, our brains appear to function, I'm very confident that when I finally make the decision to cook pasta (or rice), the very idea that I had any control over that decision will be an illusion. And it will be one of the greatest illusions mankind can experience.
However, despite my certainty that our brain operates under the simple quantum mechanical laws which physicists are currently studying, I'm also pretty confident that we are very far away from understanding even the basic functions of the brain as a system.
I'm very skeptical of brain imaging techniques such as fMRI because I have a hard time understanding how brain region activation leads to the wondrous conclusions scientists make whenever they get consistent measurements from people's brains. For example, let's say that when you look at a picture of your mother and regions X, Y, and Z light up in the visual cortex. Then you look at a live fish in a tank and regions X, A, and Z light up instead. Now let's say that this happens pretty consistantly with 9 out of 10 people that show up to participate in the experiment. We then use logic to try to deduce something about regions A, X, Y, and Z. We'll say things like "regions X and Z are all purpose regions that light up whenever you see something familiar, bur region Y lights up whenever you see something familiar and specific (or photographic/static) and region A lights up when you see something familiar but generic (or live/dynamic)". Then you go and devise another experiment to try to pull those possibilities apart.
My problem is that the brain is a pretty complicated object. Trying to figure out what's happening in there when I see a picture of my mom is like trying to figure out how it is that dreaming about running a marathon is going to influence my desire for pasta or rice. So a good hypothesis for the experiment explained above is that "A combination of activity in region X and Y is a result of recognizing the features of a familiar nose, but region Z is where the memories of my mother's voice lies. and back when I was an infant I learned to associate the sound of my mother's voice (one of the first things I learned about my mother in utero) with the sight of a prominant facial feature (my mother's nose). However, upon seeing a moving thing, regions X and Z light up simultaneously because, when combined, these regions help me predict the trajectory of a moving object. Region A is my fish visual memory region and it lights up anytime I see something recongizable to me as a fish."
Of course, occam's razor tells us that we should prefer the simpler explaination over the more complex one. That's a very useful axiom, but when it is applied to over-simplistic data like the activity cloud on an fMRI image I think we're always going to fail reconciling the big picture with the details. But science, being the way that it is, and people, being the way that they are, will combine to make all kinds of interesting and/or impotent predictions. Those are going to be interpreted by the popular press and digested by the masses. When we later find out we were wrong, the new material will propagate while the old material sticks around for a while in the consciousness of the populace who will continue to make claims like "Did you know that Fish and Mothers are actually the same thing in your brain?"
I don't want to be misunderstood, so let me just say that I am happy that people are doing brain image research. We have to start somewhere with any new technology. People should go ahead and use those MRI machines and try to figure out what's happening, preferably not stating their opinions and hypotheses as facts, and write and inform others of the results as carefully as possible.
Until recently, I always thought that the reason why I am skeptical about brain image research's more amazing claims was because I only had a basic grasp of the brain imagine methodology. But as I learn more about what the data actually looks like and what the hypotheses being concocted are I'm actually becoming more skeptical. And then I come across this article which provides me the first concrete evidence that imagining researchers are actually growing weary of the direction their field is heading, in part because of the same issues I have.
I still think that I have no free will, and that the cells in my brain are deterministically leading me on and on to a conclusion which is predictable by anyone with a complex enough computer. But I think that our ability to really figure out which parts of my brain are currently calculating my choice of pasta over rice is about 200 or more years off.
Thus, because of what I know about physics and what I know about how our bodies and, more specifically, our brains appear to function, I'm very confident that when I finally make the decision to cook pasta (or rice), the very idea that I had any control over that decision will be an illusion. And it will be one of the greatest illusions mankind can experience.
However, despite my certainty that our brain operates under the simple quantum mechanical laws which physicists are currently studying, I'm also pretty confident that we are very far away from understanding even the basic functions of the brain as a system.
I'm very skeptical of brain imaging techniques such as fMRI because I have a hard time understanding how brain region activation leads to the wondrous conclusions scientists make whenever they get consistent measurements from people's brains. For example, let's say that when you look at a picture of your mother and regions X, Y, and Z light up in the visual cortex. Then you look at a live fish in a tank and regions X, A, and Z light up instead. Now let's say that this happens pretty consistantly with 9 out of 10 people that show up to participate in the experiment. We then use logic to try to deduce something about regions A, X, Y, and Z. We'll say things like "regions X and Z are all purpose regions that light up whenever you see something familiar, bur region Y lights up whenever you see something familiar and specific (or photographic/static) and region A lights up when you see something familiar but generic (or live/dynamic)". Then you go and devise another experiment to try to pull those possibilities apart.
My problem is that the brain is a pretty complicated object. Trying to figure out what's happening in there when I see a picture of my mom is like trying to figure out how it is that dreaming about running a marathon is going to influence my desire for pasta or rice. So a good hypothesis for the experiment explained above is that "A combination of activity in region X and Y is a result of recognizing the features of a familiar nose, but region Z is where the memories of my mother's voice lies. and back when I was an infant I learned to associate the sound of my mother's voice (one of the first things I learned about my mother in utero) with the sight of a prominant facial feature (my mother's nose). However, upon seeing a moving thing, regions X and Z light up simultaneously because, when combined, these regions help me predict the trajectory of a moving object. Region A is my fish visual memory region and it lights up anytime I see something recongizable to me as a fish."
Of course, occam's razor tells us that we should prefer the simpler explaination over the more complex one. That's a very useful axiom, but when it is applied to over-simplistic data like the activity cloud on an fMRI image I think we're always going to fail reconciling the big picture with the details. But science, being the way that it is, and people, being the way that they are, will combine to make all kinds of interesting and/or impotent predictions. Those are going to be interpreted by the popular press and digested by the masses. When we later find out we were wrong, the new material will propagate while the old material sticks around for a while in the consciousness of the populace who will continue to make claims like "Did you know that Fish and Mothers are actually the same thing in your brain?"
I don't want to be misunderstood, so let me just say that I am happy that people are doing brain image research. We have to start somewhere with any new technology. People should go ahead and use those MRI machines and try to figure out what's happening, preferably not stating their opinions and hypotheses as facts, and write and inform others of the results as carefully as possible.
Until recently, I always thought that the reason why I am skeptical about brain image research's more amazing claims was because I only had a basic grasp of the brain imagine methodology. But as I learn more about what the data actually looks like and what the hypotheses being concocted are I'm actually becoming more skeptical. And then I come across this article which provides me the first concrete evidence that imagining researchers are actually growing weary of the direction their field is heading, in part because of the same issues I have.
I still think that I have no free will, and that the cells in my brain are deterministically leading me on and on to a conclusion which is predictable by anyone with a complex enough computer. But I think that our ability to really figure out which parts of my brain are currently calculating my choice of pasta over rice is about 200 or more years off.
The trouble with overestimating our importance in the big picture
Consider this little problem:
Forest "balds" are patches of forest that are inexplicably devoid of trees. The more general term for this is "clearings" but we usually use that word to also refer to forest regions which were cleared via human causes such as logging.
The great smokey mountains of the Appalachian mountain region have a bunch of these balds, which exist naturally. It has been hypothesized that these balds are remnants of lightning fires but nobody really knows. What naturalists/biologists do know is that there are several dozen species of wildflowers which exist nowhere else except these smokey mountain balds.
Now, as forests grow naturally, the balds are being overrun by encroaching conifers. As the balds disappear so do the rare species of flowers. In a short couple of decades most, if not all, of these wildflower species will be extinct.
The national forest service is currently the steward of the majority of the great smokey mountain range. Here is the problem: Should the forest service build roads to these balds to allow loggers access to the trees and then push them back a bit thereby postponing the disappearance of the balds and, subsequently, the disappearance of the wildflower species?
If you say YES then you will preserve several species of wildflower at the expense of a large road cutting through several miles of forest and access to pristine forest region by the evil(?) logging companies. If you say NO then you will allow the extinction of dozens or more of a natural species. But let nature take its course.
This is actually a real problem and, by default, the cash strapped forest service is doing nothing, which is probably a good thing.
But this puzzle gets at the heart of my problem with the endangered species act and endangered species activism in general. Rather than create laws that protects a certain SELECT group of animals from going extinct (no one cares about the north american fresh water muscles, which are dying at an alarming rate, because they are barely recognizable as animals and are hidden under fresh water streams out in the mountains) it would make more sense to me to force governments and corporations to learn how to make educated decisions about encroaching on nature. Species come and go at amazing rates in most of the planet's ecosystems and we're missing the forest for the trees when we're trying to micromanage the lives of individual species. The bigger problem is that people responsible for making the kinds of decisions that destroy species are not aware of the consequences of those decisions.
We quibble about which animals belong on which list while mother nature is creating and destroying species at a whim, with a vulcanic eruption here and a meteorological shift there. In the meantime the act's resulting legislation, while saving certain creatures from potential doom, also confuses and angers CEOs, legislaters, and citizens who can't build garages on their own property because it would disrupt the environment of some speckeled bluetit on the endangered species list which happens to be nesting on a tree in her backyard.
Of course, one could argue that we should try to save the species which is endangered directly as a result of acts performed by humans. That seems like a noble endeavor but it assumes that, in our infinite wisdom, we know how to bring a speicies back from the edge of extinction. Typically, all one would have to do is preserve the environment of that species. But, then again whole new species have evolved in large part due to us building barns or concrete skyscrapers or sewer systems. Nature is hardy (hearty?) and it learns to make due with whatever environment it comes across (for a really good example of this, read about the cool new fungus living in the heart of the Chernobyl power plant: We messed that place up pretty bad but living things, previously unknown to science, have figured out how to live there. If we hadn't had a nuclear containment accident there would that species of fungus ever have come to exist? Maybe not.)
If I was in charge of things I would attack the bigger problem: people just don't think about their effect on society. The first step to doing this is to teach everyone that the environment is an incredibly complex system and when we have the power to affect that system, even slightly, we can make some big changes to it (positive and negative). Those changes might result in an environmental system which could be much worse for human sustainability. So when you have that kind of power (like, if you are in a government position, or have several million dollars to invest in new infrastructure) you need to make it your job to know/consider the consequences of using ddts, clear-logging a swath of the jungle, or opening/closing a large area of nature to hunting and fishing. Then, rather than using the law to prevent poor decisions from being made, you use the law to force poor decision makers to use their resources to make things right.
Maybe this method would lead to better self-regulation while shrinking the role of government. But then again, I'm pretty convinced that our ability to create problems infinitely surpasses our aptitude for solving them, so we're screwed no matter what.
Forest "balds" are patches of forest that are inexplicably devoid of trees. The more general term for this is "clearings" but we usually use that word to also refer to forest regions which were cleared via human causes such as logging.
The great smokey mountains of the Appalachian mountain region have a bunch of these balds, which exist naturally. It has been hypothesized that these balds are remnants of lightning fires but nobody really knows. What naturalists/biologists do know is that there are several dozen species of wildflowers which exist nowhere else except these smokey mountain balds.
Now, as forests grow naturally, the balds are being overrun by encroaching conifers. As the balds disappear so do the rare species of flowers. In a short couple of decades most, if not all, of these wildflower species will be extinct.
The national forest service is currently the steward of the majority of the great smokey mountain range. Here is the problem: Should the forest service build roads to these balds to allow loggers access to the trees and then push them back a bit thereby postponing the disappearance of the balds and, subsequently, the disappearance of the wildflower species?
If you say YES then you will preserve several species of wildflower at the expense of a large road cutting through several miles of forest and access to pristine forest region by the evil(?) logging companies. If you say NO then you will allow the extinction of dozens or more of a natural species. But let nature take its course.
This is actually a real problem and, by default, the cash strapped forest service is doing nothing, which is probably a good thing.
But this puzzle gets at the heart of my problem with the endangered species act and endangered species activism in general. Rather than create laws that protects a certain SELECT group of animals from going extinct (no one cares about the north american fresh water muscles, which are dying at an alarming rate, because they are barely recognizable as animals and are hidden under fresh water streams out in the mountains) it would make more sense to me to force governments and corporations to learn how to make educated decisions about encroaching on nature. Species come and go at amazing rates in most of the planet's ecosystems and we're missing the forest for the trees when we're trying to micromanage the lives of individual species. The bigger problem is that people responsible for making the kinds of decisions that destroy species are not aware of the consequences of those decisions.
We quibble about which animals belong on which list while mother nature is creating and destroying species at a whim, with a vulcanic eruption here and a meteorological shift there. In the meantime the act's resulting legislation, while saving certain creatures from potential doom, also confuses and angers CEOs, legislaters, and citizens who can't build garages on their own property because it would disrupt the environment of some speckeled bluetit on the endangered species list which happens to be nesting on a tree in her backyard.
Of course, one could argue that we should try to save the species which is endangered directly as a result of acts performed by humans. That seems like a noble endeavor but it assumes that, in our infinite wisdom, we know how to bring a speicies back from the edge of extinction. Typically, all one would have to do is preserve the environment of that species. But, then again whole new species have evolved in large part due to us building barns or concrete skyscrapers or sewer systems. Nature is hardy (hearty?) and it learns to make due with whatever environment it comes across (for a really good example of this, read about the cool new fungus living in the heart of the Chernobyl power plant: We messed that place up pretty bad but living things, previously unknown to science, have figured out how to live there. If we hadn't had a nuclear containment accident there would that species of fungus ever have come to exist? Maybe not.)
If I was in charge of things I would attack the bigger problem: people just don't think about their effect on society. The first step to doing this is to teach everyone that the environment is an incredibly complex system and when we have the power to affect that system, even slightly, we can make some big changes to it (positive and negative). Those changes might result in an environmental system which could be much worse for human sustainability. So when you have that kind of power (like, if you are in a government position, or have several million dollars to invest in new infrastructure) you need to make it your job to know/consider the consequences of using ddts, clear-logging a swath of the jungle, or opening/closing a large area of nature to hunting and fishing. Then, rather than using the law to prevent poor decisions from being made, you use the law to force poor decision makers to use their resources to make things right.
Maybe this method would lead to better self-regulation while shrinking the role of government. But then again, I'm pretty convinced that our ability to create problems infinitely surpasses our aptitude for solving them, so we're screwed no matter what.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Get your war on!
Back when I was an undergraduate I enjoyed 'get your war on'. (It's from the website "my new fighting technique is unstoppable" which has the best website name ever)
Today I learned that someone is animating it in short bursts.
I am pleased.
Today I learned that someone is animating it in short bursts.
I am pleased.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Today's politics
Here are some of my current political thoughts
- Consider this argument: Although the left wing arguments for items such as immigration reform, universal health care, legal abortion, or energy independence seem tenable - useful in theory - the 'demographic makeup' of our beloved country would make the liberal plans completely useless if not harmful in practice. In other words, the liberal plan will typically fail because the country is too full of irrational ignoramuses (drug addicted 6th-time mothers, high-school dropout People's Court defendants) and amoral scumbags (millionaire CEOs, personal injury lawyers) who are waiting to ambush and/or take advantage of the system.
This argument is one I've been hearing a lot more often coming from my conservative acquaintances who (I think) are attempting to redefine themselves from some of the right wing failures of the current conservative administration.
I would say to this argument that, while it is always a possibility that a plan like affirmative action or tax-payer funded health-care will have holes that might be exploited, there are two reasons why they should still be attempted:
1) While the Democratic position is an attempted solution, the Republican position on these issues is NOT a solution at all: It simply ignores the problem. Quite often the 'conservative everyman' position on most issues is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." If you work hard and diligently, you'll be able to afford good health insurance (like mine) and then your kids will have better opportunities. If you are from south or central america and you want to try out your luck in this great country of ours you should first work hard in your country and save up the 3 thousand dollars for the admittance fee, then wait the requisite 2-10 years for the application to go through and then you can join us in the land of opportunity (like my parents did?). In the meantime we'll build a fence to keep the illegal immigrants out (despite the fact that most illegals enter legally and simply overstay their visas)
Well, after spending thousands of dollars of education which involved learning a bit of social psychology, gaining a deep understanding of statistics and how they are calculated/manipulated, reading lots of literature on the subject of at-risk individuals and laissez faire governmental policy, I've come to the conclusion that, while this philosophy sounds tenable - useful in theory - in the long run it causes more problems than it solves.
It basically leaves a great majority of the population into a continued decline while continuously rewarding those few lucky enough to have been born in a decent environment. So anecdotal evidence you'll hear from middle class americans might make you think that the conservative way of looking at these types of problems works, stepping back and looking at the big picture shows you that, while a very small number of tenacious youth does manage to live a more successful life than their parents, the vast majority fails to do so because despite what the rich white republicans keep telling them, they don't have the role models or life experience available to see that it may be possible for them to better their situation.
On a personal side note: If I hadn't received financial aid through my undergraduate career it would be very likely that I would not be in the extraordinarily great position that I am now. I would like to, therefore, admonish George W Bush and Gov. Schwarzenegger for directly and indirectly cutting funding to the aid and loan programs of their respective governances.
2) I hate to quote Obama on this issue but he said it all when he said in a speech last week "It's like they[the McCain campaign? the republican party?] take pride in their ignorance". He said it with respect to McCain making fun of Obama's reminder/suggestion that we could all save on gas if we remembered to keep the air pressure up in our tires.
But my point is this. So much of the conservative issues rely on what seem to be ignorance about the reality of a situation (like the border fence building fiasco). Take for example opening up off-shore or ANWR drilling. A conservative estimate of when we would see an effect on gas prices resulting from drilling in new locations here at home is 10 years. If everything goes according to plan and we get incredibly lucky with respect to finding the oil, getting it pumped and turning it into gasoline, in the best of all possible worlds we might see some kind of decrease in fuel costs in 2 to 3 years (assuming people start surveying today). In addition, drilling for more oil does very little to stop our oil dependency. In a time when we should be investing more money in researching for better energy alternatives I don't think that we should allow energy companies the freedom to postpone that research by funneling cash to off-shore drilling rigs or building roads into Alaskan wildlife. But the details don't matter. What matters is that drilling off the coast of California SOUNDS like it would lower gas prices with the additional benefit that we aren't giving our money to those middle easterners whom we don't seem to like so much. And that seems to be enough incentive for a bunch of Americans to get behind the plan.
A simpler case of a conservative policy wrought with ignorance is the stem cell research issue. I did a little impromptu quiz with some conservative friends and asked each of them how they felt about stem cell research. 6 of 6 were against it. 4 of 6 couldn't tell me why they were against it. 2 of 6 told me that stem cell research is bad because it's research being done on dead fetuses. When I asked all 6 whether scientific research on dead bodies was acceptable if the body agreed, when it was still alive, to donate itself to research after death, 5 of 6 said this was acceptable. After informing the 4 participants regarding what stem cells were, I also asked whether stem cell research would be acceptable if stem cells could be retrievable from a source other than a human zygote (such as an animal zygote or a human placenta or through genetic engineering). 6 of 6 weren't sure. My understanding of these results is that the average conservative voter doesn't know very much about the issue of stem cell research, doesn't care enough to find out more about it, but is completely willing to vote against it.
Why? Because just like it's easier to check the republican party box on the ballot rather than to spend your days reading the newspaper and trying to figure out who should be the state comptroller or the senator, it's easier to listen to your president (or your dad or your mom or your favorite cable news pundit) and think "I'm a republican, so I must agree with all the other republicans on these issues that I know nothing about".
Admittedly, many liberals are just as guilty of this logic as conservatives, but in my experience the proportion is much smaller. - Interestingly enough, I think the problem of gun control in this country is equivalent to this new conservative argument described above. In my life I've known several responsible gun owners: friends, family, neighbors. When you have an intelligent, responsible, and friendly gun owner (who happens to be a very good marksman/woman) living next door it becomes very easy to feel a little safer in the event that a mad gunman comes to our neighborhood and starts shooting (or in the event that our government oversteps its bounds). Neither of these events is likely to occur but, in conjunction with my libertarian leanings, they provide me with some reason to support free and legal firearms.
The problem, as I see it, is that I also know many irresponsible and ignorant people who own guns and would be happy to own more, especially those guns which could only be useful for destroying hundreds of human beings in short bursts of rapid fire. Why do they want these guns? Well, when I asked (and I ask repeatedly) the worst answer I got was "because it would be cool" the best answer I got was "because I can".
I think the only way we can keep guns free and legal while reducing the amount of gun violence and 'accidents' in a society is to require all gun owners to be over-educated. One of the several pre-requisite for owning a gun (among being a high school graduate or equivalent and/or passing a simple intelligence test in order to qualify as normal or above) should be to know and UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY all of the firearm statistics relating to misuse, death, and theft. This would be easier if we included statistics lessons at the 3rd grade math level. In this era it would be much more useful for the average american citizen to know and fully understand statistics as opposed to calculus. But that's a rant for another time.
Bottom line? I'm pro-gun but I'm anti-gun-owning-fool and I'm pretty sure that gun-owning-fools make up a large bulk of gun-owners in the world simply because fools tend to make up a big chunk of humanity. - I don't see much footage of Obama fumbling on a reporter's question. It happens once in a while, and possibly more when the cameras aren't rolling, but for the most part I can only recall 2 times from memory when I saw Obama befuddled by some question and really not knowing what to say. Unlike many politicians, even when Obama doesn't have a good answer to some question he can dodge it while sticking to the subject such that the dodge is less obvious.
On the other hand, McCain seems to be a lot more like the traditional politician. It seems that he is much more often stumped (at least on video). I suspect that much of his speechlessness is due to his age and his discomfort with much of the party line. He is called a 'maverick' because, unlike Bush, he has sometimes strayed from the prototypical conservative viewpoints (which I think can be a sign of good political character). However, now that it's time to win the votes of that party's members, he's forced to educate (or re-educate) himself about what his constituency believes. And with the times changing so fast it's hard to remember what 20-something conservatives feel about the environment or contraception, especially for a man as old as McCain.
So when reporters ask him a question that he has never been asked before, a question about a topic that isn't as important to him, I'm sure that his first intuition is to try to remember what his advisers told him, then try to recall his understanding of his constituency. If he can't remember then he'll say "I don't know about that" or "I don't have enough information about that to give you an answer". In a way, this is better than having him ramble on with a non-answer, and I appreciate that from him. But it does make him seem like a bit out of touch with his party and a little ignorant on key issues.
However, at a recent event sponsored by the saddleback church (a mega-church in california) Pastor Rick Warren was asking some pretty tough questions about religion and faith to both candidates. Obama went first and did a pretty good job. When McCain came up he was actually better at answering these curveball questions than he's usually been in so many of his other events.
Interestingly enough, Rick Warren asked the same questions to both candidates, but stated that, while Obama was on live answering the questions, McCain would not be able to listen to the questions and answers since he was waiting in a "cone of silence". Well, it turns out that he was actually in a limo/motorcade on his way to the church. That limo could actually receive the cable channel on which the event was being televised, live. So it is actually possible that McCain was watching the questions and Obama's answers in his car. Or maybe McCain simply did his homework.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Basia Bulat
Basia Bulat
She's from Canada and she rocks.
In no particular order (please listen to entirety):
I've been having a hard time finding her cd at brick and mortar shops. I don't want to buy online. If you people in the US fall in love, please tell others so that she may develop a fan-base here and come play for us
She's from Canada and she rocks.
In no particular order (please listen to entirety):
 | Basia Bulat - The Pilgriming Vine |  |
 | ||
 | Found at skreemr.com |  |
| Basia Bulat - Little Waltz | |
| | ||
| Found at skreemr.com | |
| Basia Bulat - In The Night | |
| | ||
| Found at skreemr.com | |
| Basia Bulat - Snakes and Ladders | |
| | ||
| Found at skreemr.com | |
| Before I Knew | |
| | ||
| Found at skreemr.com | |
I've been having a hard time finding her cd at brick and mortar shops. I don't want to buy online. If you people in the US fall in love, please tell others so that she may develop a fan-base here and come play for us
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Airplaneing
Having recently taken a few pretty rough flights I was beginning to compile a list of things that I really really wished that everyone was forced to learn before they board the plane. But then I realized that the wikihow website already did that: How to practice airplane etiquette.
But just to highlight a few things that are important to me:
But just to highlight a few things that are important to me:
- Passengers should never touch the back of someone's seat. Whether you are walking down the aisle of the plane and need to support yourself, or whether you are trying to get out of your seat and need to pull your center of gravity forward, you should never pull or push the seat back. Those things are not sturdy and you absolutely will annoy the person sitting in that seat. I know when I was an inexperienced flier I was guilty of doing this. But that all stopped the day that I had the displeasure of sitting in front of another inexperienced flier who did it to me 50 times in a 2 hour flight. I would hope most people quickly learn how annoying it is to be sitting comfortably or even napping quietly only to be suddenly jolted out of your meditative state by the pull-and-slingshot that results from someone supporting their whole weight onto your seat-back.
- When you are in a rush to get off the plane, and you leap out of your seat to get your carry-on after the taxing stops, you should really heed the warning "contents may have shifted during the flight." Don't fling the overhead compartment open. I know that it's usually ok and nothing happens, but I've been hit in the head twice by items set free by an overzealous rusher. Furthermore, when people are still seated and your bag has a loose strap, you are very likely to hit the seated passenger with it if you don't grab that loose strap before pulling out your luggage.
- If your carry-on is too big for you to lift over your head either don't bring it on the plane or ask someone to help you stow it and collect it. I'll gladly help you if it means that I won't take a dirty wheel to the face.
- No one should ever be crossing their legs in economy class, especially if you are over 6 feet tall. This is because (A) you'll likely drive your knee into, or kick, the seat in front of you or (B) you'll be constantly touching your neighbor's legs with (the sole of) your shoe. On yesterday's flight someone from the row behind me, across the isle was actually kicking my elbow for a good 5 minutes until a flight attendant told him that he couldn't block the aisle with his enormous legs.
- If you want to leave the armrest between you and a stranger in the up position and your stranger neighbor doesn't mind, then go for it. However, in the absence of that physical barrier, you should still make sure that you are not invading said neighbor's personal space. I want to nap and it's really hard to do that when your purse is literally in my lap and you are constantly ruffling through it to find a tissue.
- If you want to watch the movie and your sound jack isn't working, please ask your neighbor before you commandeer his, even if he's not using it and especially if you can't seem to find it and are searching around for it for a while.
- Flush the toilet.
- Don't reach over me to open the window, ESPECIALLY when it's daytime and I have my eyes closed. If you really want to look out the window you can nudge me awake and ask me. I won't be an asshole about it.
- 99.99% of the time t's just turbulence, planes can often quickly lose altitude. But if we were really crashing, screaming is not going to help. Just like getting in your car, when you step on a plane you should really have your affairs in order. If you are older than 15, please don't scream when the plane shakes.
- Using your laptop on an economy class seat tray is not easy, it can require dexterity and flexibility very much unlike when you are using it at a desk. Just because you need to finish that report today doesn't mean that you can put your elbow into your neighbor's kidney. And if you are a hunt and peck typer, you're actually constantly jabbing him with your elbow everyimte you reach for that shift key. You should be aware of that or stop capitalizing letters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
