Do you know what computers are really good at? You know, but I'm going to tell you anyway so what when you see it you'll be like "yay, I knew all along". They are really good at this:

1. read number a from memory
2. add to number x
3. read number b from memory
4. add to number x
5. ....

Computers are so immensely good at this that there is no reason why you should try to compete. A computer can perform the operation of adding two numbers a million times and not make one mistake, can you? No, so stop trying.

See, computers are stupid. Everyone says that, I know, but it's true. Computers can do smart things, but only if you manage to tell them exactly what to do in a very specific way. Imagine that you want to make someone win the Nobel Prize for advances in astrophysics and to do that you have to give him instructions like "open the door", "walk through the door" etc. Yes, that's how dumb computers are.

But you aren't. If you compare the most sophisticated things that computers do compared to what goes on in your brain, it's a blowout. The computer uses a primitive algorithm to compare two words and count how many letters are missing from one compared to the other, while you can do this instantly just by looking at them. Yes, the computer is faster, but only because it does these really primitive things really fast. While your thinking is at an immeasurably more advanced level, even if you're not that fast.

So when you degrade yourself to doing the kind of work that is meant for a computer to do, you are losing your whole advantage. Not only that, the mind is just not precise enough to repeat the same thing over and over without making mistakes, it's not a machine, so don't use it as one.

Don't hand edit your document to replace all occurrences of Bonn by Berlin, use the Search/Replace tool. Don't manually count up the cells in a spreadsheet, use a formula. Don't open a file and manually read off 1's and 0's into a new file, use the copy function. Don't repeat the same simple action over and over if you can help it!

So you say "yeah, but I can't get a computer to paint my house". Unfortunately, that is a necessary evil. But try to save your sanity, play music (or listen to an audiobook), or get someone to paint with you so you can talk.

Our minds and bodies are not optimized for machine operation. Oddly enough, there are people who try to imitate machines and do so quite successfully. (One could ask oneself why they bother.) There are people out there who have trained themselves to remember thousands of decimals of pi.

Working out at the gym also approximates this kind of behavior. This is actually an interesting example, because most of what goes on at a gym is constant repetition of incredible simple muscle motion. Your muscles are actually capable of far more complicated things, in orchestra. For instance, the first time you turn on the light in your room, you have to look for the switch, if it's dark you fumble for it. But the 5th time you do this, you know where the switch is, so your motion is far more efficient. It's not just that, it's also not focused. You know this motion so well that you can synchronize it with walking, with thinking about something else. Now, if you're lifting weights you are focusing all your attention on flicking that switch. On. Off. On. Off.

Running and swimming are examples of this as well. Although both far more complex than lifting weights, because they require more muscles to participate, they are inherently completely obvious. There is only one ideal in running, and swimming, and once you learn to do that "correctly", you're no longer learning anything new, you're just pushing down that button, waiting for the spring to recoil, and pushing it down again. This is why it's more satisfying to play sports that, even if they are entirely repetitive, are hard to master, so the learning process constitutes that variety we're looking for. (Admittedly, swimming is of this category, if you aim to learn all the various styles, rather than just peddle water and stick with that.) Don't get me wrong, if you lift weights in some kind of way that allows for variety and improvisation, then you are being less of a machine than someone playing football, whose idea of the sport is limited to 6 fixed scenarios and never tries anything new. It's more about how, than what.

But don't act like a machine. Try to bring some variety and improvization into everything you do, where possible.

As a kid I was a master at wasting time. My two main activities were computer games and sports. And tv. And although I don't do it as much anymore, some skills are just so innate that you can stop practicing something for years, and then it comes right back to you when you need it.

So for those not fully expert yet, let me recommend three handy online, available-from-anywhere time wasting spots.

Wikipedia

A marvellous site. When you look up something you can find yourself clicking around to more and more pages, more and more content, it never stops. Wikipedia isn't at a point yet where you'll find everything there, but it's working hard to close the gap. Give it a couple more years and chances are you won't even need the rest of the internet, googling will be a mere memory.

Youtube

Who knew that Youtube would be such an amazing success? The reason I introduced Wikipedia first is that there's a parallel to make here. Youtube is the Wikipedia of video. Whatever it is you're looking for, chances are you'll find it. For instance, say you heard about something happening on the news, or a talk show, or you want to track down a scene from a famous movie, or you want to see last night's buzzer beater, all you need is Youtube. In fact, Youtube is so vast that the "similar searches" option will ensure that for any search that finds a match, you have about 20 videos to watch. And for each of those you have another... well you get the point.

Reddit

Reddit is an amazing kind of site, because every time you load it, it has lots of items you want to see. It's hard to account for how this happens, but the content has such a diversity of topics, and such a depth of content in many cases, that scanning the top25 seems terribly compelling. And because it changes constantly, you can come back in 12h and it will be completely refreshed.

I was playing basketball at the campus last night. The court is actually atop a kind of bar, right outside the main building. It was probably around 8pm, so dusk was setting in and there weren't many people about, mostly those heading home.

As the laws of physics dictate, once in a while your shot comes in at an angle such that the friction is sufficient and your ball gets caught between the rim and the glass/board, stuck. This is no big deal, it's happened to everyone lots of times. As a kid, you can't reach up there so you have to improvise. If you have a second ball you can hit the ball that's stuck and dislodge it. Or you can find something else to throw up there. Or you can climb the basket. Or you can fix your bike next to it and reach up from the seat. There are all kinds of possibilities.

Last night, before I had decided what to do, a guy came up the stairs, approaching me, threw down his backpack, muttering something in Dutch with a smile, and jumped for it. It was quite the shocker. Then he said "I saw from down below that your ball got stuck". First he used his super vision to see, then his super leap to get up there. I was amazed. And just like that, hadn't asked him or anything, didn't even have a clue what was going on when he came up the stairs. I mean if he'd been right there, sure I would have seen it coming. But he wasn't even in the vicinity. And yet he both saw it and decided to help out. Fantastic.

If you're wondering why he could reach it and I couldn't, it's because Holland is a country of giants.

I've never read a philosophical argument before I started Plato's The Republic. The book is basically one long argument, it's quite interesting. Socrates is debating (or explaining, rather) his thoughts on justice to his friends. That's the core of the argument. From there on, he touches on a plethora of other issues, all of which is tied together to fit his rather succinct argument.

For the most part it's quite straightforward reading, you just have to make sure you have a clear understanding of the terms that are used, because they are meant in the full capacity of their meaning. In parts, especially when he explains what is good, it's harder to follow and it takes some concentration.

What strikes me about this kind of argument is that it could easily be criticized on its lack of completeness. I suppose it is inevitable that if you want to pursue a philosophical argument, then you have to agree to accept certain claims in the argument to be completely true, even though you wonder if you could find counter examples. This is what Socrates's friends do, they accept every claim to be true in its full meaning, even when sometimes I don't necessarily support that conviction.

Plato writes with a great mastery of expression. He repeats things once or twice, for ease of recollection, but never more than that. He always uses words exactly to their meaning, never having to digress to explain something that could have been said in one word. This kind of succinctness (but at the same time broad enough to follow easily, not cutting too much) is quite remarkable to witness.

In terms of practical results, Socrates describes facets of man, like justice, wisdom, knowledge, and how they interrelate. He uses many comparisons to sketch the similarities between a just man and a just city. These characteristics of man are examined on the scale of a city, and then applied to man. In this way he describes different forms of government, and the perfect form of government (and by implication - of man).

It's a book that contains a great richness of thought, knowledge, and wisdom. So for a complete appreciation I believe it should be digested and analyzed piecemeal.

There is no better starting point for learning than to be a child. Actually if you had known, you may have been quite stressed. You have all the potential and you haven't made one single mistake yet. Can we make it a flawless game? Kids need a lot of guidance. They know nothing, and they are about to learn everything.

When you're a kid your parents will guide you in all sorts of ways. They will try to shape your behavior, whatever it may be in its most natural, unfeathered form, to something they believe is correct with respect to the society they live in. They tell you to respect people, to be nice, to shake hands, to say goodbye when you leave, to be unselfish, to not abuse people's trust in you, and so on. These are all very simple rules, and you will choose at some point which ones you are going to follow. It's entirely up to you.

But that was then, you aren't a child anymore. What have you decided? Do you have it all figured out, or do you think you could use some more guidance? Do you think you've outgrown that kind of influence? Would it be possible for someone to exert an influence on you that would make you behave more good or more evil?

I believe that studies have shown that people are very susceptible to outside influence. I also feel this to be true from experience. But one thing in particular that has concerned me for a long time is how it is that people decide to be decent and to what extent to be decent.

This is something that's very easy to observe, because wherever they are people they are exhibiting what is their standard of decency to that particular situation. And I believe we have a general standard as well, that covers every eventuality, to which we refer in cases of uncertainty.

What I'm implying here is that there is a range of behaviors we allow ourselves. You will allow a different standard when you're fighting with that guy at work you just positively hate (and you're being attacked), compared to when you're dealing with your parents.

Another point to consider is group influence. It isn't just the person you are dealing with that is affecting your decisions on how to behave, it's also people around you. Just being an observer already attunes you to the standards of interaction that are the norm in this environment. Observing one conversation between two people has a direct influence on your next conversation with someone from that same group.

Eventually, through all of these influences, we set the bar for ourselves somewhere. And I feel the urge to ask where and how. Why are people so classless sometimes? Why do they laugh at the most base jokes?

Every person has their standards, but people, if they can co-exist, tend to balance each other out, to fit into the social context. So if you think racist jokes are bad, and your coworkers love them, the only way you'll fit in is if you'll accept them, at work. It's also very clear to me that people, as a group, can choose to raise their standards or to lower them. One person's choice affects the next, but if one person or part of the group decides to move the bar, the rest tend to follow.

Influence is possible, but is it a good thing? This goes back to the very well established question of whether it's right to influence people because we know what's best for you. Are you an adult who makes all of your own decisions or do you need some guidance yet? Without that influence people will work out the balance among themselves. And that outcome tends to be fragile. An influential person (without any conscious effort to influence the group), a person people pay attention to, can tip that balance up or down.

Of course, if I were more serious in any of my endeavors I would actually research the subject at hand instead of just plainly talking about it. I would grab that relevant book in sociology or group psychology or whatever the exact term is, read the conclusion and say "so that's the way it is". But that would be denying myself the satisfaction of being able to figure out something for myself, even if it is a well established scientific truth since 1873. :P