Lilith (also featuring previous Best of Wikipedia entry hapax legomenon!)

Pleroma

Keter

Mimivirus

Medusa

Periodic Trends

Benford’s Law

Zipf’s Law

Hapax Legomenon

Left and right brains are highly connected internally, but only modestly connected to each other. Does the left brain manage a coherent set of overt opinions, while the right brain manages a coherent set of covert opinions? Consider:

1. In all vertebrates left brains tend to control routine behavior (e.g. feeding) while right brains tend to respond to unusual events (e.g. fight/flight).
2. Left brains tend to initiate actions, via positive feelings, while right brains tend to inhibit actions, via negative feelings.
3. Compared to other primates, left vs. right human brains differ a lot more in function.
4. The left human brain manages language’s literal quotably-overt syntax, vocabulary, and semantics, while the right brain handles language’s less-socially-verifiable tone, accent, metaphor, allegory, and ambiguity.
5. Split brain patients show that left brains are adept at making up respectable explanations for arbitrary right brain behavior.
6. Right brains tend to be used more in crafting lies, and they can read subtle emotion clues better.
7. Left brain damage tends to distort behavior in more obvious and understandable ways.
8. Left brains emphasize decision-making, fact retrieval, numbers, and careful sequenced acts like throwing, while right brains emphasize art, music, spatial manipulation, and recognizing of shapes, patterns, and faces.

This is Robin Hanson explaining his near-far homo hypocritus with regard to brain architecture. It maps eerily well to Jaynes. What other forms of evolutionary psychology might Jaynes’ theory predict? There is also, apparently, a follow-up to the Origins of Consciousness that I did not know about. It’s going on the Amazon wish list.

I won’t pretend to know about environmental impacts of logging or Joe-schmo’s impact from one tree. However, I would imagine the impact has more to do with scale and the industrialization and large-scale practices of logging that have more influence. Of course a giant company has more impact, but if you’re talking about the cultural practice of cutting-down-the-Christmas-tree, I don’t know if it can even be compared.

I think another question would be why “the tree” becomes the center of attention. Why do people do this? Is it a symbol of why family and friends gather or a distraction that actually hinders this?

But who am I.

Indeed- the act of the one person cutting down the tree is probably very small potatoes. But what’s the fun in that? As far as the cultural impact goes, blame Thor.

My take on the environmental impact is positive- the demand for Christmas trees to chop down ensures that various swaths of land are covered in trees. Assuming a steady level of replacement trees, there’s a fairly static picture that emerges. Given that a tree takes 10 years to reach Christmas tree sizes (I have no idea, but this number isn’t all that important), and that each year a the same number of trees are planted that are chopped down, at any given moment, you have a field that looks like this:

X
XX
XXX
XXXX
XXXXX

My beautiful ASCII rendering of differing tree sizes (look how tall that 5 X tree is!) is crude, but, I believe, accurate. The very relevant question of ‘as opposed to what?’ does, unfortunately, rear its head. If the land which became the Christmas tree farm was densely wooded acreage, the tree farm may be a net environmental harm. But if the alternative is, say, an artificial Christmas tree manufacturing plant, it may be a net environmental benefit. Not that I have anything against artificial trees or the benefits they confer- some people may prefer them dramatically.

A rather thorough-looking study was done in 2008 by Couillard, Bage, and Trudel which found that live trees are more ecologically friendly. I haven’t read through anything but the linked summary yet, but it looks detailed. Does it capture all of the relevant opportunity costs for the land and the counterfactuals of those who would or would not buy the tree under other circumstances? Who knows. Even if I had read it, it’s unlikely I would know. I think the real upshot, however, is that it’s not a bad thing to want a live tree.

Every year for Christmas, many families put on their boots, throw the axe in the car, and travel to a Christmas tree farm. There, they select what will be, for the next few weeks, the most celebrated member of the family. Toddlers and animals will be locked in the basement, and the glorious evergreen will glow with joy and with the impending heat of the rapture.

While walking and conversing with Guest-Blogger Katie this morning, a question was raised: is this practice (the cutting down of a live Christmas tree) good or bad for the environment?

Leave your comments in the appropriate comment box.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/thwarted-markets-in-everything.html

-here’s a bizarre chance for environmentalist and strong government types to act on their words. very interesting scenario. i’m curious to see how this turns out.

http://www.duicentral.com/dui/the_dui_exception.html

-an issue i had never really thought about. i was one of the many that casually assumed the necessity of these piecemeal changes. when viewed together, however, they were, at least to me, a bit shocking. maybe others will have different reactions, but i thought it was good food for thought.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/

-have you ever tried to sell a diamond? well, you can’t. because de beers beat you to it. note that this was written in 1982.

This woman sounds bizarre, but she’s probably no crazier than most professional athletes. She just has the disadvantage of not occupying a high-status-crazy position. Although the excessive and bizarre hand motions and stroking do strike me as a bit eccentric.