Ticked Off

I am not a happy camper. Staples has their "techie desk," and a month ago I had them diagnose for me why this computer had no audio.

Regular readers may recall that one of my new years' resolutions was: "Regarding technology: enter the 21st century. For example, get audio back for my computer. Get Skype capacity for it. Learn how to use -- heck, become comfortable using -- my scanner."

Anyway, mid-January, I went to the local Staples for the diagnosis. They told me its a simple matter -- the old "audio card" is kaput, they need a new one. At this point they made it seem as if I could expect the new audio card any hour. By the nonce, I left the computer in their care.

After the first day went by, I told them I needed the computer back, sound or no sound.  But I left money on deposit with them so they could do whatever they had to do to get the part and give me a call.

More days go back, and January gives way to February. They start telling me that supply problems were created by the tsunamai in Japan, the flood in Thailand, every damn thing.

Last Thursday (Feb. 9th) they told me that their wholesaler, who is only about 40 miles away from them, expected to have the card the following day, so they'd probably have it Saturday.

On Monday (Feb. 13th) they couldn't explain to me what had happened to that card, but they were sure trying hard to get me one, you betcha.

On Wednesday (Feb. 15th) they told me that they had a firm date.  February 21.  Next Tuesday.  A month after the diagnosis. I'm not sure how they can be "firm" about this, if they couldn't accurately ascertain what was happening 40 miles away last week.  But hey ... patience ain't just the alter ego of Catwoman.

I'll let you know how it goes next week.

Personal Identity, Part One

Thirty years ago there was a law student at Western New England College, School of Law, that bore my name. He was a very different person from me, in just about every respect. Every cell of his body was different -- the body as a whole was younger and more energetic -- and subjective characteristics such as his tastes and opinions were very different from my own as well. Yet in some sense I want to be able to say, coherently, that he was me -- that I am simply (or not-so-simply) an older version of that person.

What does this claim of the continuous identity of a person over time mean? This is a venerable philosophical question, to which there are three traditional answers: the core of identity is an unchanging imperishable soul; it is the continuity of memory; it is the continuity of a physical organism.

Professor Anderson Brown, of the University of Puerto Rico, has recently spoken to this issue on his blog. In his mind, the only live alternatives it seems are the second and third. And on that I have to agree. Though I am in my own manner religious, as regular readers will know, I think trying to tie personal identity to an immutable soul is a racket.

So we turn, with Brown, to the choice between the other options. Is identity over time more of a subjective, psychological fact? or more of an organic, physical fact? Brown is exercised by the sort of thought experiments that are often employed to argue in favor of the psychological/subjective answer to that question. "What if a mad scientist transferred your thoughts to somebody else's body...?" He asserts that the questions presume what is to be established. I won't argue with him over those thought experiments.

Rather, I will say that in my view the case for the psychological/subjective answer can be made and has been made in ways independent of the counter-factual arguments that Brown finds deficient. The strongest argument of which I am aware is that put forth by William James in Chapter X of Principles of Psychology. I say so in my comment to Brown's post (the fourth comment there) -- and I will retrace that argument with more particularity here tomorrow.

Social psychology and music

Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2003). The do re mi's of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236-1256. Also ...

Rentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2006). Message in a Ballad: The role of music preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17, 236-242.

Rentfrow and Gosling divide music thus:

1. Reflective and Complex (blues, jazz, classical, and folk)

2. Intense and Rebellious (rock, alternative, heavy metal)

3. Upbeat and Conventional (country music, Broadway Showtunes, Top 40 formats)

4. Energetic and Rhythmic (rap, soul, electronica....).

According to Rentfrow et ux, people who prefer (1) are likely to be open to experience, intelligent and aware of that, verbally agile, emotionally stable, and politically liberal. Those who prefer (2) are also open to experience intelligent etc., but are more extraverted than the first group, more likely to be athletic and have a "social dominance orientation" -- i.e. they'll want to become the president of whatever outfit they join. Those who prefer (3) are friendly extraverted folks, conscientious, probably not as intelligent as members of the first two groups, and are politically conservative. Finally, the folks who like (4) are extraverted, agreeable, physically attractive and aware of it, and also politically conservative.

You can now have some fun deciding whether any of this describes you and your preferences. Personally, my iPod is split between songs that these professors would probably put in (1) and those they'd put in (3). But utterly lacking in songs they'd put in (2) or (4).

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Please don't conclude that I refrain from giving credit where it's due, though. I didn't run across this research, I lifted it from a science-oriented blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2007/03/what_does_your_music_say_about_1.php