A friend asked for my reading list. This was the result. Get on GoodReads and you'll get an e-mail every I add or finish a book. Starting with January '09...
Read
No One Belongs Here More Than You by Miranda July
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
The Monsters of Templeton by Lauren Groff
Flesh and Blood by Michael Cunningham
The Genocides by Thomas Disch
Kafka On the Shore by Haruki Murakami
The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis
Black Hole by Charles Burns
People Are Unappealing: Even Me by Sara Barron
Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life by Len Fisher
The Ghost Map... by Steven Johnson
Bonk by Mary Roach
My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientists Personal Journey by Jill Bolte Taylor
The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
The Black Hole War... by Leonard Susskind
Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman!... by Richard Feynman
13 Things That Don't Make Sense by Michael Brooks
Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell
Alex and Me... by Irene Pepperberg
Eating the Dinosaur by Chuck Klosterman
How Proust Can Change Your Life... by Alain de Botton
The Book of Basketball... by Bill Simmons
The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2009 edited by Dave Eggers
City of Thieves by David Benioff
Inventory... by The Writers of The Onion
How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read by Pierre Bayard
Why God Won't Go Away... by Andrew Newberg
Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn
The Book of Lost Things by John Connolly
Jesus' Son by Denis Johnson
How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer
Let The Great World Spin by Colum McCann
Pleasurable Kingdom by Jonathan Balcombe
Big Machine by Victor LaVelle
Professor Stewart's Cupboard of Mathematical Curiosities by Ian Stewart
Reading
Twitterature by Alexander Aciman
Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder
The Magicians by Lev Grossman
Avoid Boring People... by James D. Watson
News, Nudity, Nonsense: The Best of Vice Magazine Vol. 2 (2003-2008)
To Read
The Biology of Belief... by Bruce Lipton
Slapstick by Kurt Vonnegut
Speaker for The Dead by Orson Scott Card
House of Tomorrow by Peter Bognanni
Aristotle and Aardvark Go To Washington... by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
The Tall Book by Arianne Cohen
Wigfield by Amy Sedaris, Stephen Colbert and Paulo Dinello
The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut
Professor Stewart's Hoard of Mathematical Treasures by Ian Stewart
Second Nature by Jonathan Blacombe
The Age of Wonder by Richard Holmes
Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson
The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas
Supermob by Gus Russo
The Collected What If... edited Robert Cowley
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
It's A Number Game But Shit Don't Add Up Somehow
From the time I got on the bus yesterday morning until when he stopped texting me back seven hours later, Smallz and I exchanged mini-diatribes about the NBA Draft ranging from which player the Wolves should take with the fourth pick to the proper way to evaluate talent and construct a team to the other person's deficiencies at evaluating talent and those of their chosen method to constructing a team. Basically our arguments were this.
Smallz loves efficient players. Thus Kevin Love is his one shining beacon on our entire roster. As such Al Jefferson inspires much hatred in Smallz's gut. Not only does Jefferson play the same position as Love but inefficiently uses the ball in offensive situations Love would efficiently use them. His evidence is statistics and his team-building philosophy is to find other efficient players to pair with Love.
I, on the other hand, believe Jefferson is inefficient because he needs to be. Love is a good player and a compliment to Jefferson. But efficiency statistics don't tell the whole story. As the most offensively-skilled player on the Wolves, a less-than-efficient attempt from Jefferson is still better than passing the ball to a less talented teammate. Being the focus of the offense and the volume of his shots he can't cherry-pick only the best attempts. Basketball is scored as a quantitative game, not an efficiency game, and to remove Jefferson without a suitable replacement will only focus the defense on another lesser player.
(Further reading found HERE.)
This is especially important with the NBA draft coming up. Since the Wolves didn't get one of the surefire guys at the very top of the draft, their path forward is a lot less clear. Smallz wants to trade Jefferson to free playing time for Love and draft Kentucky's DeMarcus Cousins, a freakishly large center who may have character issues. I want to keep both Jefferson and Love while drafting Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson, a lower risk lower reward player who plays a position of need. We could argue back and forth for hours (and did) about which one would be a better fit for Minnesota. I wanted to model the problem and get some results now.
How I Used Math To "Solve" the Problem
So let's assume three things. First that either Cousins or Johnson could boom or bust with equal likelihood. Let's just say Cousins wider range of possible outcomes averages out to Johnson's thinner range to make things easier. Second, let's assume the pick is an independent outcome. Let's say if Minnesota picked Cousins they wouldn't keep Jefferson and his minutes would go to DeMarcus. Third, the actual outcome will be one of many possible outcomes. When a weatherman says 55% chance of rain and it doesn't, he was right. It just fell in the 45% he didn't mention.
Here's the "game" I developed. Imagine every possible outcome for DeMarcus Cousins' and Wesley Johnson's careers is represented by a playing card. Since they are top draft picks they are more likely to succeed than fail so all face cards represent complete success (being a cornerstone), ten through six represent qualified success (being an NBA starter) and five through two mean they bust. I could look up the real success rate but let's keep it simple. Now draw two cards, one representing Cousins and the other representing Johnson. Reset the deck, reshuffle the cards and repeat the process 100 times.
(Or do like I did and use a random card generator like THIS ONE.)
What I found is Cousins is a cornerstone 37% of the time, a starter 38% of the time and a bust 25% of the time. Likewise Johnson is a cornerstone 38% of the time, a starter 33% of the time and a bust 29% of the time. In 48% of the cases Cousins is the better player while Johnson is the better player 45% of the time. (The remaining 7% is when they're even.) It's also worth noting Cousins is significantly better 27% of the time while Johnson is significantly better 26% of the time.
So what do the results tell us about who the Wolves should take? Nothing. This is a simplified model of an enormously complex system. But within the context of the system it says we should expect any result to be possible. In that way both experience and this simulation align. In the NBA Draft eventually you have to play the odds and hope for the best.
P.S. This is the raw data from my simulation. Cousins is on the left and Johnson on the right. Ignore the symbols. That's just me coding the data.
CJ
A4**
A3**
A9**
88-
610++
610++
Q8**
QK*
63*
32*
5J++
10Q+
9J+
87*
410++
56*
3Q++
34+
5A++
67+
109*
QJ*
4K++
82**
109*
63*
56+
7Q++
86*
J8**
3A++
910+
5K++
J9*
Q4**
103**
KJ*
JQ+
A2**
9Q+
25+
K5**
9Q+
4A++
63*
44-
6K++
6Q++
9K++
K3**
KJ*
8A++
5J++
8Q++
A5**
25++
7Q++
KA+
K8**
A3**
J3**
22-
J3**
37++
24+
76*
9J+
A4**
3K++
QJ*
KA+
88-
53*
A8**
82**
36+
J8*
8Q++
J7**
Q9*
6J++
AA-
6A++
A5**
310++
92**
QQ-
JK+
56+
8Q++
8J+
Q9*
Q6**
Q5**
810+
J2**
33-
104**
A7**
QA+
Smallz loves efficient players. Thus Kevin Love is his one shining beacon on our entire roster. As such Al Jefferson inspires much hatred in Smallz's gut. Not only does Jefferson play the same position as Love but inefficiently uses the ball in offensive situations Love would efficiently use them. His evidence is statistics and his team-building philosophy is to find other efficient players to pair with Love.
I, on the other hand, believe Jefferson is inefficient because he needs to be. Love is a good player and a compliment to Jefferson. But efficiency statistics don't tell the whole story. As the most offensively-skilled player on the Wolves, a less-than-efficient attempt from Jefferson is still better than passing the ball to a less talented teammate. Being the focus of the offense and the volume of his shots he can't cherry-pick only the best attempts. Basketball is scored as a quantitative game, not an efficiency game, and to remove Jefferson without a suitable replacement will only focus the defense on another lesser player.
(Further reading found HERE.)
This is especially important with the NBA draft coming up. Since the Wolves didn't get one of the surefire guys at the very top of the draft, their path forward is a lot less clear. Smallz wants to trade Jefferson to free playing time for Love and draft Kentucky's DeMarcus Cousins, a freakishly large center who may have character issues. I want to keep both Jefferson and Love while drafting Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson, a lower risk lower reward player who plays a position of need. We could argue back and forth for hours (and did) about which one would be a better fit for Minnesota. I wanted to model the problem and get some results now.
How I Used Math To "Solve" the Problem
So let's assume three things. First that either Cousins or Johnson could boom or bust with equal likelihood. Let's just say Cousins wider range of possible outcomes averages out to Johnson's thinner range to make things easier. Second, let's assume the pick is an independent outcome. Let's say if Minnesota picked Cousins they wouldn't keep Jefferson and his minutes would go to DeMarcus. Third, the actual outcome will be one of many possible outcomes. When a weatherman says 55% chance of rain and it doesn't, he was right. It just fell in the 45% he didn't mention.
Here's the "game" I developed. Imagine every possible outcome for DeMarcus Cousins' and Wesley Johnson's careers is represented by a playing card. Since they are top draft picks they are more likely to succeed than fail so all face cards represent complete success (being a cornerstone), ten through six represent qualified success (being an NBA starter) and five through two mean they bust. I could look up the real success rate but let's keep it simple. Now draw two cards, one representing Cousins and the other representing Johnson. Reset the deck, reshuffle the cards and repeat the process 100 times.
(Or do like I did and use a random card generator like THIS ONE.)
What I found is Cousins is a cornerstone 37% of the time, a starter 38% of the time and a bust 25% of the time. Likewise Johnson is a cornerstone 38% of the time, a starter 33% of the time and a bust 29% of the time. In 48% of the cases Cousins is the better player while Johnson is the better player 45% of the time. (The remaining 7% is when they're even.) It's also worth noting Cousins is significantly better 27% of the time while Johnson is significantly better 26% of the time.
So what do the results tell us about who the Wolves should take? Nothing. This is a simplified model of an enormously complex system. But within the context of the system it says we should expect any result to be possible. In that way both experience and this simulation align. In the NBA Draft eventually you have to play the odds and hope for the best.
P.S. This is the raw data from my simulation. Cousins is on the left and Johnson on the right. Ignore the symbols. That's just me coding the data.
CJ
A4**
A3**
A9**
88-
610++
610++
Q8**
QK*
63*
32*
5J++
10Q+
9J+
87*
410++
56*
3Q++
34+
5A++
67+
109*
QJ*
4K++
82**
109*
63*
56+
7Q++
86*
J8**
3A++
910+
5K++
J9*
Q4**
103**
KJ*
JQ+
A2**
9Q+
25+
K5**
9Q+
4A++
63*
44-
6K++
6Q++
9K++
K3**
KJ*
8A++
5J++
8Q++
A5**
25++
7Q++
KA+
K8**
A3**
J3**
22-
J3**
37++
24+
76*
9J+
A4**
3K++
QJ*
KA+
88-
53*
A8**
82**
36+
J8*
8Q++
J7**
Q9*
6J++
AA-
6A++
A5**
310++
92**
QQ-
JK+
56+
8Q++
8J+
Q9*
Q6**
Q5**
810+
J2**
33-
104**
A7**
QA+
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A Joke Written for My Girlfriend
Last week I thought up a joke for Audrey. Not a joke for Audrey to tell as a part of her act. I wrote this joke for Audrey to think it's funny. Here it is.
Preface: Audrey does comedy open-mics. These open-mics are dominated by "bros" who are probably told by their friends "Dude, you're really funny. You should do stand up." The results are exactly what you would expect, especially if what you're expecting is a lot of unfunny date rape jokes. Wait, that's redundant. So I wrote this joke for her since I know how much those jokes agitate her.
When I was younger and more carefree in the world I did some hitchhiking. I spent one entire summer standing by the side of the road with a small "Need a ride" sign. At times the experience was great. Others it got a little hairy.
There was one time a semi pulled over for me and as I was running up to the cab I saw the "Ass, grass or gas: Nobody rides for free" bumper sticker which I was sure they didn't even print anymore. I didn't have a lot of money and what I did have I wanted to spend on weed. So as I was pulling myself up into the cab by the mirror (something I later learned is a faux pas) I thought to myself I would go for the "ass" option and see about calling the truck driver's bluff. I was a good looking 20 year old but noone would ever confuse me as feminine.
Well, the truck driver and I totally fucked. But I must not have been very good at it because at the next rest-stop she still made me buy her a tank of gas.
Is that funny?
I love that joke and not just because I wrote it. I love it because it contains three inversions and one negation. In other words, there are three points where what you would normally expect is flipped on its ear and once where the absurdity of the underlying point is exposed and used to destroy the point itself.
The first point (and it's a sneaky one which isn't revealed until the end) is when the truck driver is a woman. It reminds me of that "brain-teaser" where the son is in a car accident with his dad and yet the doctor at the hospital can't operate on him because the boy is also the doctor's son. Truck drivers are assumed to be men in the same way doctors are.
Secondly the traditional idea of the feminine sex drive is inverted. This is the idea of women wanting sex and wanting random sex outside of a relationship writ large. In the traditional morality, women who want sex and who want non-relationship sex are either weak-willed and easily-manipulable or whores and home-wreckers. Basically there's no room for a woman to act like we easily assume a (male) truck driver does. This joke inverts the traditional idea by giving a (later-revealed) woman that same and equal interest in sex and random anonymous sex at that.
The third inversion (and the root of this joke) is the idea of the male being made into the object of sexuality. The aforementioned date rape jokes are "funny" because if the woman (and these "bros" are never date raping dudes) is made from a subject into an object she loses her humanity and her rights. The reason rape is a crime is because it infringes on the right of an individual to choose their sexual partners and the extent of their sexual activities. However an object doesn't share those rights. So the making of a male into a sexual object (something which could be done to these "bros") makes that denial a two-way street and the "bros" are driving into traffic.
Which is why the negation is my favorite part. It takes the idea of the male as infallible sexual subject and eliminates it completely. The "I" in the joke isn't "the male as sexual god" whose prowess doubles as ascendancy and overwhelms any *cough* complications along the way. The "I" is an inexperienced 20 year old on the side of the road. While the virility of a 20-something male is sanctified under the traditional morality, in reality a truly experienced individual knows it's not something worth sanctifying.
For that reason the entire system is negated. If the value it holds up as the pinnacle of virtue is something of no value at all, then the system itself is of no value at all. That includes the aforementioned "male as sexual god" paradigm used as a justification for the unfunny date rape jokes. Wait, I already said that term was redundant.
Preface: Audrey does comedy open-mics. These open-mics are dominated by "bros" who are probably told by their friends "Dude, you're really funny. You should do stand up." The results are exactly what you would expect, especially if what you're expecting is a lot of unfunny date rape jokes. Wait, that's redundant. So I wrote this joke for her since I know how much those jokes agitate her.
When I was younger and more carefree in the world I did some hitchhiking. I spent one entire summer standing by the side of the road with a small "Need a ride" sign. At times the experience was great. Others it got a little hairy.
There was one time a semi pulled over for me and as I was running up to the cab I saw the "Ass, grass or gas: Nobody rides for free" bumper sticker which I was sure they didn't even print anymore. I didn't have a lot of money and what I did have I wanted to spend on weed. So as I was pulling myself up into the cab by the mirror (something I later learned is a faux pas) I thought to myself I would go for the "ass" option and see about calling the truck driver's bluff. I was a good looking 20 year old but noone would ever confuse me as feminine.
Well, the truck driver and I totally fucked. But I must not have been very good at it because at the next rest-stop she still made me buy her a tank of gas.
Is that funny?
I love that joke and not just because I wrote it. I love it because it contains three inversions and one negation. In other words, there are three points where what you would normally expect is flipped on its ear and once where the absurdity of the underlying point is exposed and used to destroy the point itself.
The first point (and it's a sneaky one which isn't revealed until the end) is when the truck driver is a woman. It reminds me of that "brain-teaser" where the son is in a car accident with his dad and yet the doctor at the hospital can't operate on him because the boy is also the doctor's son. Truck drivers are assumed to be men in the same way doctors are.
Secondly the traditional idea of the feminine sex drive is inverted. This is the idea of women wanting sex and wanting random sex outside of a relationship writ large. In the traditional morality, women who want sex and who want non-relationship sex are either weak-willed and easily-manipulable or whores and home-wreckers. Basically there's no room for a woman to act like we easily assume a (male) truck driver does. This joke inverts the traditional idea by giving a (later-revealed) woman that same and equal interest in sex and random anonymous sex at that.
The third inversion (and the root of this joke) is the idea of the male being made into the object of sexuality. The aforementioned date rape jokes are "funny" because if the woman (and these "bros" are never date raping dudes) is made from a subject into an object she loses her humanity and her rights. The reason rape is a crime is because it infringes on the right of an individual to choose their sexual partners and the extent of their sexual activities. However an object doesn't share those rights. So the making of a male into a sexual object (something which could be done to these "bros") makes that denial a two-way street and the "bros" are driving into traffic.
Which is why the negation is my favorite part. It takes the idea of the male as infallible sexual subject and eliminates it completely. The "I" in the joke isn't "the male as sexual god" whose prowess doubles as ascendancy and overwhelms any *cough* complications along the way. The "I" is an inexperienced 20 year old on the side of the road. While the virility of a 20-something male is sanctified under the traditional morality, in reality a truly experienced individual knows it's not something worth sanctifying.
For that reason the entire system is negated. If the value it holds up as the pinnacle of virtue is something of no value at all, then the system itself is of no value at all. That includes the aforementioned "male as sexual god" paradigm used as a justification for the unfunny date rape jokes. Wait, I already said that term was redundant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)