Present present present!

I think some parts of american culture tend to suggest a rather shallow gift-giving attitude.  More money spent = you care more about the person.  This is a really false idea.  A person must budget and carefully decide what to spend their money on through out their year and their life.  Coming up with an idea for a present isn't about throwing such care out the window.  Ignoring financial responsibility in favor of getting something nice is not an appropriate way to demonstrate love.

Furthermore, dollars spent can't be translated to any degree of love.  Does the rich man love his wife more than the pauper?  If the rich man doesn't spend as much as he is capable of spending, does that mean he didn't care as much?  By that logic, we should all go broke every time we get something for our loved ones.

There are alternative ideas about gift giving present in our culture.  "The thought that counts" is popular, but I think the idea is meant to forgive bad gifts, rather than guide gift selection.  Selecting a truly excellent gift is a challenge taken with ambitious motivation.  Really loving a person should motivate us to select carefully.  Thoughtfully.  And the gift shouldn't be something that appeases the need for a gift or simple desires.  While chocolate is a fun gift, I feel that appealing to a person's taste buds doesn't fulfill the potential of a gift.  Of course, I don't mean to discount the additional depth that might accompany such simple gifts.

So what makes a gift good?

Here are some thoughts I've had on this matter.

1) A gift should uplift.  (It rhymes!!)
Giving the right gift includes knowing the needs of the other person, and finding what we can do to bring joy to their life.  The better we know them, the better our gift selecting can be.

2) A gift should bring the giver and receiver closer together.
I had a friend who would pick ring tones in a very particular way.  He wanted each song to represent himself, since it was his phone that was ringing.  At the same time, he was careful to select a song that represented the person calling.  Homing in on the right song was a thought filled task, and the result would be a song that tied his personality to the caller.  There was a kind of intimacy in his method of selecting a ring tone.
Giving gifts should take as much thought about the personality of the individual.

3) A gift should be valuable.
Not necessarily costly, but gifts should be something that the person feels like keeping, using, and remembering.  Gift cards are valuable in one sense, but in a non-monetary sense, they can lack value to the receiver.

4) A gift should be heartfelt.
The best stories about gifts are stories of sacrifice.  The giver wanted to give the gift so much that they went to great lengths, or went through personal troubles to give it.  "The Gift of the Magi" is one sweet Christmas tale that touched upon this concept.

The sacrifice of one's life for another is said to be the greatest demonstration of love.  And yet, I'm awfully tempted to believe that living one's life for another is greater still.  One way or the other, a true gift demonstrates the commitment of one's self to the receiver.

Sooooo....

I'm certain I'm not the only person thinking about giving good gifts this time of year.  What do you think makes a gift good?  What are the best gifts you've received over the years?

Too Human is Error

There is something human about excess.  Eating too much, kissing too much, drinking too much, talking too much.  It reminds me of Italy, art, expression, and the human condition.  However, I think it's also pretty human to try to monitor our excess and become more moderate.  The extreme, pseudo-manic aspects of humanity need to be controlled to some extent.

And yet, I think we can almost subconsciously get the feeling that we're giving up some important part of ourselves.  After all, I've heard the misquotation, "mediocrity in all things" more than a few times.  I can't help but humorously wonder if the persons who have misquoted this see moderation as a weakening of themselves, and therefore fail to get out the accurate saying, "moderation in all things."  Maybe I'm being too analytically Freudian.

Why might we feel insecure in moderation, and is our insecurity founded?  I won't address this too specifically, but perhaps it is due to a misunderstanding of moderation.

Concerning eating, kissing, drinking, and talking, I don't believe I'd bother arguing that excess is better than moderation.  Still, I abstain from alcohol entirely, and some astute individuals might note that abstinence is no more moderate than excess.  However, there are some situations where an imbalance is appropriate.  After all, in Revelations 3:16 it states, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  Dallin H. Oaks, a leader of the LDS church, once said that moderation in commitment "is not moderation, but indifference."

I think the Dhammapada, a Buddhist text, gets at the heart of moderation.  The Dhammapada says, "Even the gods hold dear the wise one, whose senses are subdued like horses well trained by a charioteer, whose pride is destroyed and who is free from the cankers."  Shortly after, it states, "Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself."

The purpose of moderation isn't to minimize ourselves, or to face life incompletely.  The purpose is to be the masters of ourselves, and not given to every whim, or force of life's tides.  Our commitment, our efforts, our love, our hope, and our faith can be full without becoming slaves to circumstance.  Even (or especially) at our best, we can magnify our callings, amplify our efforts, and enjoy our endowments.

Early Access videogames and Kickstarter: Why funding games is ruining them.

For a few years now, many videogames have funded development using the new hype of crowd funding.  Games don't make themselves, and the people responsible for the code, graphics, story, game design, and fixing bugs all need to eat.  In the past, publishers would invest in the development of a game, and the developers would make the game under the iron fist of the publisher.  Some developers have sought freedom through crowd funding, where in the past they would have to personally fund their own games to avoid strict publishers.  Publishers have been seen as "the problem" with games in the past - the reason the games are released with bugs, without additional interesting content, and without the full dream of the developer being realized.  Recent events suggest that publishers may not be all that bad for the gaming industry.

Now, I'm not saying that crowd funded games turn out bad.  However, with crowd funding the cost of failed games is directly put on the shoulders of fans who supported its development.  Furthermore, ideas are being funded even if the idea-makers can't do any of the things necessary to bring them to fruition.  Publishers are discerning like an employer hiring an employee - does their skill sound good or not?  Gamers are discerning in a different way - does the game sound good or not?  The fact is, a great game coming out is a lot harder than a great game idea coming out.

Furthermore, publishers put restrictions on developers that keep them working in a realistic goal-oriented environment.  Some developers can't stand the thought of their babies being anything less than perfect, and so the game's development has the dreamer priority set instead of the publisher priority set.  The dream sounds so good that gamers throw money at their screens, even if a game is never actually made.

One last note about crowd-funding, in general, is that the risk is entirely on the funders, but the benefits are not.  Oculus Rift raised $2.4 million in crowd-funding, and was purchased by facebook for $2 Billion.  The crowd didn't get any return on the investment, like would be seen with a standard investment.  And yet, if it had failed, as many projects do, they would have lost their contribution for nothing.

Examples of games that have successfully used crowd funding include:

Starbound
I like to explain Starbound as Terraria meets Mass Effect.  A rich space-age lore mixed with the addictive build-n-survive game mechanics of Terraria or Minecraft make for a great experience.  The game is in an open beta for those who have prepurchased the game.  It seems to be making good progress, despite the fact that no true gamer can say they're happy waiting for such a masterpiece of 2D pixelart.  Chucklefish, the company behind Starbound, has raised over $4 million in presales and support so far.  Of note, the game is not yet finished, but progress is steady, and near-daily reports are given by the team on the front of their website.
Pillars of Eternity
I don't know much about this popular RPG in the works.  However, it is being produced by the same people who made Wasteland 2, another popular crowd-funded game.  I guess Obsidian Entertainment must know how to put crowd funds to use.  This project raised $4 million on Kickstarter.
Star Citizen
Imagine flying a spaceship.  While previous space games have done a good job of giving you the sense of being in space, the vastness of the universe, and the open-ended ability to accomplish what you think is important (such as gaining riches, or amassing an army to tear across the universe), Star Citizen promises to take it all to a whole new level.  Besides the exceptional graphics and attention to detail that immerse the player in this universe unlike ever before, the game promises a sense of scale unseen in other games.  You can exit your spaceship to walk around the space-station, or land on a planet and explore; and while these things have been done before to some extent, it has never been addressed so fully in all aspects.  This project raised over $2 million from Kickstarter, and has raised over $62 million overall.  Of note, though, this ambitious game is still not completed, 2 years after being successfully funded, which is understandable given its scope.  I doubt it'll run out of budget before completion.

Examples of games that have been crowd-funded, but failed in some way:

Spacebase DF9
Double-fine hit a niche market with the promise of this space-station simulator.  It followed in the tradition of Dwarf Fortress, which doesn't tend to turn out well for games.  Many Dwarf Fortress-like games have been critically bashed, and hated by their fandom.  While technically Spacebase DF9 was completed, it wasn't what Double-fine, nor their fans, wanted in the complete product.  The game feels like a cheap/incomplete version of what it ought to be.  This title became a money pit before they reached their production goals, and that's after they spent a half million dollars.
Yogventures
An unreasonably popular minecraft-like game based on Yogscast, a popular gameplay-broadcasting group.  It raised a half million dollars and was never produced.
Dark Matter
The game's original ending so infuriated fans that the makers replaced it.  More or less, the game ended midway, and excused itself from the room.  When first released, it popped up a black screen with white text that boringly explained the end, and then stated, "You have reached the end of the game."  The replacement ending included a video instead of a black screen. However, it was still a testament to the fact that the game couldn't meet its production goals with its funding.  Granted, only about $9000 were raised through crowd funding.  If games could be produced for that much, it would make game development insanely profitable.
Broken Age
Another Double-fine debacle.  While this game was a relative success compared to most of the others on this list, the funding was still insufficient to complete the entire game, and so it was broken (no pun intended) into two games, effectively increasing the price to the gamer.  Double fine asked for $400,000 in crowed funding, and received $3.5 million.  It is beyond me how their original figure could be so far off.
Godus
My understanding is that this game was more popular than it was good.  However, being a god has always been an appealing idea to gamers.  This game has been compared to the now ancient game Populace.  Metacritic scores are about the lowest I've ever seen.  The scores should be taken with a grain of salt, since most reliable reviewers wait until a game is complete before rating it.  22cans received something like $900,000 from crowd-funding.
Prison Architect
Although the game is coming together, and it is a fun success, the game began as a cute little prison-building game, then changed.  Early access enabled supporting this title before its rather gory later version came out, including graphic criminal cut-scenes.  This may not seem like a failure to many supporters, since they never expected it to remain the cutesy prison simulator that it was.  However, it raises questions such as which countries will the game be able to sell in?  Should all early access games have restricted sales in countries that don't allow extremely graphic scenes in videogames, just in case?  For gamers who care about the specific moral education provided by videogames, can early access titles be trusted?  Crowd funding supplied about $250,000.

Update:  This post is actually somewhat timely.  Yesterday, Valve released a new set of guidelines for Early Access games.

Motivating others versus correcting them. Where is the balance?

Today, I made a decision.  I'm not sure if I should be proud of it, or if I would do it the same way again, but it was definitely intentional.  In a class I'm taking, students are giving presentations, and the professor has asked us to give honest critiques with the intent to help students improve.

One student's presentation was interesting, but they mumbled so much that I couldn't understand half of what they were trying to get across.  As a critique, I told them, perhaps a little bluntly, "I don't know you, and you don't know me.  I hope you won't think of me as a mean person for saying this, but I think it would be doing you a disservice not to.  Your presentation is my least favorite that we've had so far because you mumbled.  It was very problematic to me, since I couldn't tell what you were saying."  He took the critique gracefully, then explained why he was mumbling before class ended.

I've considered what I said and how I said it, and wonder if there wasn't a more tactful way to say it.  My hope was to emphasize to this student how important it is to work on his mumbling problem.

On the flip side of the coin, I've received criticism from individuals who overemphasized the importance of things that they thought were critical.  Several years ago, one person went to great lengths to embarrass me for "lack of preparation" whenever they could, despite the fact that I was prepared.  Besides making life difficult and hurting my feelings, it gave me a bad reputation that was unwarranted.

More recently, I had a professor ask me a technical question, and then attempted to embarrass me in front of the class.  While reading a scientific research article about breast cancer, he asked me in front of the class, "What does the article mean by the secondary structure of RNA?"
I replied, "The primary structure of RNA is the sequence of nucleotides.  The secondary structure is how that line of nucleotides folds up on itself."
He responded, "Are you sure?"
I said, "I'm reasonably sure."
He responded, "Would you bet me $100?"
I said, "So, if I'm right you'll give me $100?"
He responded, "No, if you're wrong, you'll give me $100."
I said, "No.  That's a bad bet."  (After all, who is going to be the judge of how accurate my response is.... the guy who'll be gaining $100?!?)
He then stated, "I happen to know what the secondary structure of RNA is..." and he proceeded to describe the secondary structure in greater detail.

Now, my answer was right, and if he had asked me the specifics that he pointed out, I would've been able to answer about them correctly.  However, he concluded by stating, "I don't want to know what you think, unless you know.  You think you're a charming, fun guy, but you're just wrong."

I've considered the event over and over, and I see absolutely no educational value in his making an example of me.  I knew what the secondary structure of RNA was.  I wasn't guessing or making it up.  My answer lacked the specificity that he wanted, but his questioned lacked sufficient specificity to warrant a longer answer.

So, at some point, correcting people needs to be toned down, especially when it isn't really necessary or helpful.  But sometimes it is helpful.  After all, where would we all be without a healthy serving of constructive criticism.  Where do we draw the line?

I'd like to propose the following rules about constructive criticism.  They may apply to other aspects of life, as well.

1)  Criticism should be respectful.  All criticism should be given with the understanding that the receiver is a valuable and worthwhile individual.  It should be given with a tone of voice, using wording, and at a time that demonstrates respect for the individual.
2) All criticism should be of a useful nature.  Correcting people over trivialities, over opinions, or over vague issues are not generally helpful.  At times, things that might otherwise seem trivial can be important, but on a day by day basis, I believe we have a tendency to overemphasize the unimportant when correcting others.
3) The goal should be to help the recipient to improve.  Self aggrandizement is not a good reason to correct someone.  A casual interest in correcting others is not a good reason to correct someone.  Heck, even the duty to correct someone (as a teacher should) is not, in its own right, a good enough reason.
4) Corrections should be timely and relevant.  Correcting someone about something they did weeks, or even years ago may not be useful, depending on the situation.  Correcting someone on something that can't possibly be fixed is unlikely to be useful.

If I could go back, I would probably not tell the person that their presentation was my least favorite.  Despite that this was true, I think that statement was disrespectful and unhelpful.  However, I do feel that it was important to tell him that his mumbling stopped me from understanding the presentation.

Building up courage to serve

A friend recently got into a car accident.  Everyone was fine, but their car isn't functional.  I was concerned for her, but wasn't sure how to help.  I texted to see if they were all doing alright, and she let me know about the situation.

I felt strongly that I should help.  Since withdrawing from medical school, I've had significant doubts about my ability to accomplish things.  So, I had a bit of doubt about whether I could handle fulfilling any offer that I made.  After all, Sarah was away for her grandfather's funeral, I was watching our kids, I was sick, and several assignments were due soon.

My feelings were clear, though, that the kind of person I want to be is the kind that helps when my friends are in need.  However, these feelings were accompanied by the anguish of knowing I'm not the invincible person I used to think I was.  Do I have it in me to actually fulfill an offer to help?

I remembered the teachings of King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, where he teaches his people, "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."  I remembered the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he says, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

My self doubt and anxiety would get in the way of my successfully serving others.  But this time, I decided not to let that happen.  I texted her and offered to drive her kids to school the next day.

She didn't take me up on the offer.  However, I'm grateful for the positive influence that my memory of these scriptures had on me.  I overcame the fear I felt and made a sincere offer to help, ready to overcome the weaknesses that would otherwise inhibit my ability to succeed at the task.

It may not sound like much, especially since she didn't take me up on the offer.  For me, though, it took some soul searching to make the offer.  I'm a better person for the decision I made, and hope that future offers to help will come more readily.

Update:  My heart goes out to her family.  The situation seems to be getting worse.  She finally did take us up on the offer, and I don't know what she would do without it.  Serving has made me feel grateful to be in a position where I'm capable to do so, and so very sorry for the troubles the family is facing right now.

Statistics, Memory, and Truth

I recently had a discussion about statistics in my human disease class, and included are some of my thoughts spawning therefrom.

Concerning statistics, it is interesting (perhaps important) to question how we truly know something.  If we see, feel, taste, smell, or touch something, we assume it is real, and we assume it is what it seems.  However, the reality is that there are sensations, and there are perceptions.  A group of people participated in an experiment where they watched a video, and were given a complex task.  I can't remember the task, but I think it involved counting something in the background.  The video included people walking into view of the camera, walking toward the camera, doing something like waving, then leaving.  One of the people wore a giant gorilla outfit, but participants could not recall that one of the individuals in the video was wearing a gorilla outfit.  They were carefully analyzing the video, and failed to see the most glaringly obvious thing.  They clearly should have sensed the gorilla (activation of light receptors in the eye and transmission of that data to the brain).  However, their perception was significantly lacking!

Here's a related video that gets the idea across.

The truth is that our perceptions are insufficient to make generalized claims about truth, or anything that approaches a claim about truth.  I played a videogame one time where you made bets on cockfights, and found myself losing a lot.  I went online to see if anyone had the solution for which birds should win the cockfights.  Several individuals had posted complex schemes for how the computer decided which bird would win.  I decided that I would have fun putting them to the test, so I gathered data on the cockfights and discovered that the game was random chance.  Not only was it clear that the complex schemes were wrong, it was glaringly obvious that the game was purely chance.  And yet, by just using judgement without statistics, these gamers were way, way off on what the truth of the matter was.
Consider the following scene from the movie Momento, as well.

Leonard Shelby: Memory's unreliable.

Teddy: Oh, please.

Leonard Shelby: No, no, no, no really. Memory's not perfect, it's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts.

Teddy: That's not what I'm...

Leonard Shelby: They make notes and they draw conclusions. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do. Look, memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts.

I bring these examples up to point out how amazingly weak our ability to discern truth is.  Statistics do not claim to be absolute.  They claim to suggest probabilities.  The cockfight game could have followed one of the complex schemes that someone suggested.  It was just highly, highly unlikely.  So unlikely that, if my goal were to discern the code behind the game, I would need to reject the complex schemes.  Gambling is a means of ignoring statistics in favor of hope.

So, in an effort to make generalizable statements about what is true, we are able to use probabilities.  They come with assumptions and they come with the accepted fact that the conclusions we draw from them are sometimes wrong.  But they also come with the convenience of accurately describing the probability that our reality is a certain way based on past experience.

Now, as stated by other classmates, statistics can be confusing.  People don't understand probabilities unless they undergo rigorous training.  Even a doctor might say, "You've got 6 months to live." He or she is making a prediction based on statistics, but ignoring the fact that statistics are probabilities.  What are the odds that they have 6 months to live?  What is the range?  What's the standard deviation?  What factors might alter this patient's chances?  Besides one classmate's excellent point that statistics are about groups, not individuals, this estimate, at its best, is really just a guess.  Not that guessing is flat out bad.  Check out this story about Fermi guessing the strength of the first atomic bomb.

To further complicate matters, different people, and different cultures, deal with medical information differently.  Even if someone has a 100% chance of having cancer, they may prefer not to know.  However, and I hope this point rings home to anyone planning to go into a helping profession, if the patient wants to understand their situation, it is our duty to help them understand the reality.  They aren't slaves to the system, and the system shouldn't decide what they're allowed to understand!

Being Mormon and Compassionate: Do Mormons think everyone else is going to hell?

Why am I thinking about this?

I recently did an internet search for the phrase "lovely, virtuous, or of good report, or praiseworthy", which comes from the 13th article of faith.  This article of faith emphasizes the Mormon belief in finding and contributing to what is joyous in life, instead of dwelling in the filth and sorrow of life.  I found an interesting blog post entitled "Why are Mormons so cool?" that was written over 3 years ago.

http://www.thedaybookblog.com/2011/09/why-are-mormons-so-cool.html

I don't know the name of the person who writes the blog, but I found her post and the comments very interesting.  One person commented that they found it surprising that Mormons believe that only Mormons will go to heaven.  A response post indicated that this isn't exactly an accurate depiction of Mormon belief.

What do Mormons Believe?

I think it's fair to say that Mormons come in a wide variety of flavors, and that among Mormons you will find some who adamantly argue that Mormons are Heaven bound and those who don't catch the Mormon bus are going to wind up missing out.  In contrast, there are some who will say that it doesn't matter what religion you choose in this life, because God is merciful and he gives everyone a chance.  I think both of these viewpoints miss the mark somewhat.  Although I will focus primarily on responding to the first, the second is equally inaccurate.

What is the Mormon Doctrine?

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (nicknamed Mormons) is that everyone needs to receive Jesus Christ as their savior, repent of their sins, be baptized, and be sealed to a family to enter into the highest degree of glory in the Kingdom of God.  This may seem rather unilateral and strict, but the Mormon belief continues.  We believe that people will be able to accept or reject Jesus Christ (including baptism, etc.) after their death, and that being a good person is far more important than being labeled a Mormon.  Christians (such as Mormons) who fail to live up to the standard of love and goodness set forth by the Savior in the New Testament are Christians in name only.  Although none of us can hope to be worthy of returning to the presence of God on our own, we are each capable of being worthy of the gracious gift of forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ.

I want to clarify that this isn't an excuse for honest seekers of truth to say, "Well, I don't need to investigate the truthfulness of this stuff, because if it's true, I can accept it after death."  In contrast, it is a demonstration of God's mercy.  He isn't out to eternally mess with as many people as possible.  He is doing whatever it takes to save as many as possible.  At the same time, death isn't going to change people all that much.  Someone who rejects truth because they don't like truth is different than someone who rejects truth because they had some valid reason.  A person might reject truth because it is presented to them by someone they don't trust, or because it is presented to them during a time when they aren't really ready to understand or accept it.  Should they be ETERNALLY shafted?  I think not.

It is also important to note that the church doctrine includes a concept novel to Mormons, as far as I'm aware, known as "degrees of glory."  This concept refers to the fact that, as wonderful as Heaven is, there are many different kingdoms within it.  Each kingdom will be distinct in location and population.  In essence, people will end up living with others like themselves.  To Mormons, Heaven is partially about a heavenly society, and the happiest society requires certain standards of behavior.  There can be no greater reward or punishment than to live with people like yourself.

So who gets into heaven?

In the end, I think there are two important sides of the same coin.  The first is that God expects us to do our very best.  He will accept nothing less than our very best.  We're all hoping to live together in Heaven, and yet, Heaven wouldn't be all that great if it had all the social problems that earth has.  He needs to defend the inhabitants of Heaven from the frailties of humanity, and so he has to strictly guard entry.  At the same time, none of us is good enough to earn our way into heaven, which would make Heaven a very lonely place.  As cool as I think I am, if everyone in heaven was like me, it would be mediocre at best.  Furthermore, the better any individual in a heavenly society is, the more unjust and unmerciful it would be of God to make them spend eternity with people who are harder to get along with.  So, the standard of entry increases infinitely.

So, the other side of this coin is that God has a plan.  He isn't just letting us wander around in hopes of one day becoming perfect.  In contrast to what some people believe that Mormons believe, he isn't expecting us to become perfect entirely on our own, either.  He gave us this life to improve, to learn, to practice heaven-worthy behavior, and to prove ourselves.  He also gave us the atonement of Jesus Christ to bridge that infinite gap between our current selves and the perfect person we hope to be.

Although, culturally speaking, Mormons like to say that there are no spiritual mysteries, since God doesn't want us wandering around in the dark, I'm hard pressed to explain fully how the atonement will take who I am and help me reach a state where you, the reader, would be glad to be stuck with me forever in Heaven.  I obviously couldn't reach that point on my own merits, and I don't think there's a mathematical formula for goodness where he can just add to my current goodness and suddenly I'm ready.  This is wonderous, mysterious, and very gracious.

So, do Mormons think that everyone else is going to hell?  No.  It would be more accurate to state that everyone will find happiness that far exceeds what they have on earth.  God isn't cruel, and even the worst among us will find ourselves in a better place; that doesn't mean that you or I have to hang out with jerks for eternity, though.  The degree of our happiness will be based on our ability to accept true happiness, and our heavenly companionship will be based on our ability to be a good companion.  However, there is, of logical necessity, going to be a big difference between people who try their best, and those who also use the unfathomable power of the atonement of Jesus Christ to bridge the infinite gap from good to perfect.