Is the world getting less uptight?

So as I was warming up around Jarry Parc before my tempo run this morning, I noticed a couple bikes (actually a trike and a bike) leaning up against the tree where I usually do my warm-ups. I looked around the field for their owners. Sure enough, two small boys were conferencing near the cricket strip. No parents in sight. Just hanging out in the park. I did not know kids did that anymore, to be honest. Eventually two moms and a sister appeared, and the boys took to their bikes and tore off elsewhere in the park. So they were being monitored, good, but it wasn't like their parents were paranoid. Nice to see.

censuslessness

Leah McLaren wrote an interesting article this week. No, really. I know, I'm surprised, too. Anyway, the point of her article is to flip Churchill's old saying about liberals, conservatives, hearts and brains on its head. She suggests that those under 30 are just naive and those over 30 are in denial, and she posits a "support your team" sports mentality to politics.

I find this interesting in light of the recent census debate. The same people who rail at Facebook for violating privacy concerns are now criticizing the government for cutting back on the long-form census for concerns of privacy. It seems to me that this is not an ideological issue at all, but a political one, in the sense that for a certain crowd, anything Harper does must be bad. But let's look at what would happen if the mandatory long-form census would be replaced by a similar, voluntary form.

The first possibility is that nothing would change. 20% Canadians get the long form. So that means instead of obliging that many Canadians to fill it out, StatsCan would need to find that many willing participants. I'm betting they could, especially considering the outcry, and the plan to distribute the voluntary form to 33% of the population. So if that's the case, what changes?

Well, certainly, the quality of the data changes. If people are self-selecting to fill out this form, that creates a whole new set of people, and all the data that is returned is only from that set. So anyone who is of the opinion that the long form census is invasive would not be represented. Is this so bad?

Objectively speaking, yes. But partisans might think twice before raining hate down on this decision. If more "liberal"-minded folks fill out the census, then they will be over-represented in all those important stats StatsCan is collecting. All those businesses that supposedly rely on the census data will now be pushed to provide services for what they perceive to be a more liberal Canada. Interesting...

Another use for the data is supposedly to find low-income areas and target services there, for example in-school breakfast programs. To suggest that a long-form census is required to figure this out is silly. You can determine needy kids in other ways. For example, check the real estate prices, or renters vs owners in the area. You can rely on the schools to determine who is in need. There will be gaps of course, but wouldn't it be better to have a gap where a school fails to identify a need because they just don't care, rather than a gap created by numbers, where an arbitrary household income determines the cut-off for help? I guess it is six of one, a half dozen of the other, as there will always be gaps and there will always be limited funds for such things.

My points are simple. 1) changing the long-form census to voluntary would not necessarily limit information for StatsCan, 2) it might benefit the political "team" that is criticizing the move, and 3) there are other ways to support the programs that this data, should it be lacking (which I doubt it would), informs.

Don't get me wrong. In terms of "teams" I am certainly not Team Stephen. If anything, I'm Team Jack (or Team Gilles, but only because of those eyes!). Like everyone else over 30, I might be a little bit in denial about that, but as far as the census goes, I'll treat it like an exhibition game, not the playoffs.

Risk management

Last summer I read a book on risk management. (I can't find it right now...it's in a box.) The basic premise was that people don't have a clue how to manage risk. The example that's always given is cars vs airplanes. Some people have a fear of flying, and they manage what they perceive to be a risk by not taking an airplane, and driving everywhere instead. Of course, statistics show that driving is many many more times dangerous than flying.

A more subtle form of this problem is in the area public health. Many people find no time to exercise or eat properly, yet complain about getting sick or feeling tired all the time. Or they don't complain, but remain unhealthy, or choose to view their lack of health as "unfortunate" or in serious, extreme cases "a tragedy." Whatever the reason, whether it is fear, or laziness, it comes down to poor risk management.

Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" is also an interesting book. It suggests that we can sometimes make better decisions if we don't think too long, and just trust our instincts. This is probably true for some things. But it seems to me that a better general rule is to think first. Michael R. LeGault wrote a book called "Think" as a response to Gladwell. There are some weaknesses in that book, as in Gladwell's, but the problem is not a question of Blink OR Think as a solution to all problems, it is a question of when to blink and when to think. Most poor risk management is simply a wrong answer to that question, and more often than not, a blink reaction is more wrong than a think reaction.

The best advice I have ever received from my dad (who was not necessarily one for advice) was "think slowly." If you think slowly, gather all the available information, then act, then you can avoid the risks you need to avoid, but you can also take the risks that are beneficial to take.

on not moving

The best part about moving is when you get to open your boxes at the new place, discover all of your "things" again, and place them around the house.

The worst part about not moving is unpacking all the boxes you thought you were going to move and putting the "things" back where they used to be. It could be an opportunity to re-arrange, I suppose.

It's also a reminder about how worthless "things" are. I realized that I probably don't need to unpack most of my clothes. The dress pants and shirts I kept aside for the week of the move, plus the duffle bag of running clothes and a couple other things should keep me going until it gets cold. I'm down to two more books to read. Then I will have to unpack the books. Maybe that has the potential to be more Christmas-like. We're going to rearrange the living room again, so that might be nice. I am interested to see how much we actually unpack, and of that, how much we actually use.

I was leafing through a book yesterday that explained how people (maybe animals too, I didn't read that far) handle change. We handle it with our rational brain and our emotional brain. The rational brain understands it and deals with it. The emotional brain doesn't really like it and would rather things stay the same. This explains why moving is considered one of the most stressful things a person can do: uproot the safe, attachment-laden, home, and start over. So you would think it would be a relief to move, but not so. I think it was because we'd prepared ourselves emotionally, and then the rug got pulled out.

We'll probably end up moving next year, when things are more stable so we can back up any similar incidents involving third-parties and make sure we get what we want.

Thought of the day

Email is weird. You know people who will reply to every email no matter what, even if it is just with a "thanks!" or a "Yes!" or an "I agree!"? Why do they do that?

I may be one of those people.