Thursday, February 5, 2015

Book Review V: A Mind for Numbers

Overall rating: 4/5


Estimated Reading Time: 4.5 hours 
  • (269 pages, ~ 1 minute per page)

Disclaimer:
  • My primary reason for summarizing A Mind for Numbers is to complete my final project for the book’s associated Coursera massive online open course (MOOC). It is worthy of making my Recommended Reading List, however without the need to complete a final project I would have chosen another book to review.
  • My assignment requests I “substantially address” three topics. Thus three of my key messages will be presented in greater detail than typical.


Why I chose to read -
  • I was interested in taking a MOOC and found the course "Learning How to Learn" very intriguing. A Mind for Numbers was the recommended reading.
  • I desire to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of my learning.
    • Flows from the possibility of enrolling in a one year masters program this fall and my desire to be a life-long learner
  • Learning/reading is a shared interest Renae and I hold. We felt taking a course together would be fun and exciting. Indeed it has!


Background Details -
  • Subject: A summary of research on how our minds learn and retain information. Specifically details techniques and methods for maximizing one's ability to learn.
  • Year Published: 2014
  • Author: Barbara Oakley
    • MOOC Co-instructor: Terry Sejnowski
  • Setting: In the midst of an age demanding a high ability and capacity to learn new information and continually adapt to new technologies and knowledge, knowing how to effectively and efficient learn has never been more essential to career success.



  • Education
    • Professor of engineering, Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan (current)
    • Ph.D. in Systems Engineering, Oakland University (unspecified)
    • B.S. in Electrical Engineering, University of Washington (1986)
    • B.A. in Slavic Languages and Literature, University of Washington (1977)
  • Interesting Notes
    • Worked on Soviet fishing trawler on the Bearing Sea as a Russian translator
    • Radio operator at South Pole Station in Antartica
    • Creator of 3rd most popular MOOC on Coursera


Reflections (book and MOOC) -

I feel I am being a little critical as I think both the book and MOOC were really good. However other books have excited me much more (see Recommended Reading List).

What I Appreciated -
  • Excellent content – Synthesized hundreds of references to present many effective learning techniques and habits research has found.
    • References were also cited extremely well
  • Easy and quick read that will benefit my learning for many years to come.
  • Utilizes analogies and metaphors to teach and improve the retention of key messages.
Shortcomings -
  • Knowledge does not always translate to action.
    • I feel realistic expectations could have been stated regarding time to adopt new learning methods.
  • Seems almost too basic. But maybe that is because knowing how to learn is basic, but actually doing it is difficult :).
  • While it is beneficial to understand the biology and reasons certain techniques work, I feel these at times unnecessarily lengthened the final text.



Key Topics -

1) Focused and Diffuse mode
  • Our mind uses two modes, the focused and diffuse mode. Many are aware of the focused mode which we use when intensely concentrating on understanding new material. The focused mode is essential for transferring new information into memory, however in order to fully comprehend our newly acquired material the diffuse mode is also of great benefit. 
  • The diffuse mode of thinking is a more relaxed state of learning. The diffuse mode engages when we remove our self from intensely concentrating, and instead loosely hold the information in our minds. It often operates during activities such as light exercise, showering, eating, and even sleeping! Unlike the focused mode, the diffuse mode allows our mind to connect new information with more distant parts of our brain to further our understanding and mastery of new information.
  • It is important to recognize both modes of thinking are essential to effective and efficient learning. As one cannot be in both modes at once, it is beneficial to improve one’s ability to quickly switch between the focused and diffuse modes of thinking.
  • The Pomodoro technique is an excellent technique to engage both modes. The Pomodoro technique consists of removing distractions and intensely focusing on material for ~25 minutes. After ~25 minutes, a 3-5 minute break with a reward is given. This small break allows one’s mind to transition into the diffuse mode and provides a built in reward system for focused, undistracted learning. Multiple Pomodoro sessions can strung together during longer study sessions. Of note, after the fourth Pomodoro session, it is recommended to take a longer break (~30 minutes).
  • To-do lists are a second application of engaging both the focused and diffuse modes. As stated by Barbara Oakley in A Mind for Numbers, it is effective to form to-do lists for the following day the night before. The focused mode is utilized in forming the to-do list, followed by diffuse mode operating during your sleep to prepare you for action the following day. Not only do to-do lists utilize both modes of thinking, but they also aid in learning through freeing up working memory as discussed in key topic #2 below.

2) Working and long-term memory
  • Similar to having two modes of thinking, our minds have two memory states, a working memory and a long-term memory. A typical person’s working memory is able to hold four “chunks” of information. Individuals are unable to expand the number of chunks they can hold, but are able to increase the size of the chunks as one becomes more familiar with material. This is demonstrated through the use of to-do lists. If you know what you want to be doing, additional space in freed in your working memory rather than having space taken up by thinking about what you should be doing.
  • Working memory is temporal in nature. Barbara Oakley describes working memory as a blurry chalkboard, able to quickly be erased and replaced with new information. In comparison, long-term memory serves as a large storage warehouse. With effort from your working memory, you are able to retrieve long-term memories.
  • Many methods and techniques were presented to aid in the development of long-term memory. Utilizing active recall in combination with spaced repetition can greatly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of forming long term neural connections. Anki is a website that uses computer algorithms to optimize the use of spaced repetition via computerized notecards.
  • Furthermore, our minds have exceptional spatial and visual abilities. Enlisting the use of evocative images and memory palaces greatly aids one in committing information in working memory to long-term memory. See Joshua Foer's TED Talk for a great video on the use of these techniques in memory competitions. Oakley also promotes the use of meaningful groups and memorable sentences to aid in the storage and retrieval of long-term memories. Two examples of these include the using acronyms such as MONA and “Old People From Texas Eat Spiders”.
    • MONA: Morphine, Oxygen, Nitroglycerin, Aspirin. Four interventions for patients presenting to an emergency department with a verified heart attack.
    • “Old People From Texas Eat Spiders” is to assist the retrieval of the names of our cranial bones: Occipital, Parietal, Frontal, Temporal, Ethmoid, and Sphenoid.

3) Illusions of Learning
  • A third main topic of A Mind for Numbers is to be aware of and avoid illusions of learning. These are behaviors and traps that trick our minds into believing we are learning, when in fact we are forming poor and temporary neural connections that are quickly lost.
  • Passive rereading, the process of simply skimming over recently read material, is an illusion I have frequently succumbed to. During passive rereading, I fool myself into thinking I know and understand material only to “choke” when forced to use active recall to retrieve the information (aka tests).
  • Another illusion of learning I have experienced in the phenomenon of overlearning. Overlearning is the repetitive studying of the same material during the same study session. Our minds are only able to learn or master a certain amount of the same material in each study session. Studying beyond this is inefficient and tricks our minds into thinking we have learned the material. Instead, we have failed to build strong, long-term neural connections. It is far more effective and efficient to use the techniques of spaced repetition as described above to commit material into long-term memory.
    • I find myself engaging in overlearning when I have procrastinated and feel forced to quickly memorize information. While I may remember some of the material during my times of overlearning, I miss how to apply or where the information fits into the big picture.
  • Other illusions of learning covered in A Mind for Numbers include the Einstellung effect, only concentrating on “easy problems”, and not utilizing interleaving to know both how and when to use information.



Who do I recommend read -
  • Anyone interested how to improve their learning
  • High school students who would benefit from the techniques and habits listed not only for their entire lives, but also avoid ingraining poor study/learning habits at an early age which would need to be corrected later.
  • Teachers - they are in an ideal position to instruct students on effective learning methods and resources.
  • Anyone who considers themselves a poor learner. It may be they received little to no instructed and/or developed productive study habits.
Who do I recommend not reading -
  • Someone who does not plan to every learn anything again. I’m not sure who this person is but maybe they exist?


While bordering on lengthy, Barbara Oakley’s A Mind for Numbers compiles and presents in layman’s terms many effective and efficient techniques and habits to improve one’s ability to learn and retain new material. In today’s marketplace, the demand for learning, synthesizing, and teaching new information has never been greater. A Mind for Numbers and Oakley’s associated Coursera MOOC are worthy of your time and effort.


Next Post Topic: Disability Part I: Overview

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Fantasy Football 2014 Recap

The 2014 Fantasy Football season went as anticipated and outlined in my 2014 Draft Recap post. Unproven RBs and injuries hamstrung my efforts in my 12 team LDF league, while a deep bench propelled me to victory in my 8 team Bemidji league.


Goal overview -
As set in 2014 Draft Prep post, I was able to achieve two out of three goals, however I fell short of achieving one goal in my LDF league:
  1. Make playoffs in all leagues
    • Went 2/2
  2. Have a 59% overall win rate amongst all leagues
    • 16-11 combined record (59% win rate)
  3. Finish in the top half of each league with median total weekly points
    • Bemidji: 1/8; LDF: 9/12


While I was able to meet the majority of my goals, I am more interested in the process as opposed to the outcome of achieving my goals. I have listed an analysis of my process on both leagues below.

Bemidji Recap - 8 team, 2 QB, ppr (actual draft)

Record: 10-4 (1st place); 1st in total points
  • As predicted had a very solid team (2014 Draft Recap)
    • Scored the most points in 7 out of 16 weeks and top 3 in points in 14/16 weeks
    • Won 9 out of 10 games to end the season
  • Lost only Cruz and Ellington to injuries
    • Also Floyd and Fitzgerald with the Carson Palmer injury
    • Gronk stayed health all year!
  • Picking up T.Y. Hilton, C.J. Anderson, and Beckham really helped
    • Don’t feel as bad about Beckham as I lost Cruz for the year
  • Disappointing year by Stafford
    • Injury to Calvin Johnson hurt him. A switch in offensive coordinators likely was a setback as well. Difficult to tell. I thought the addition of an actual 2nd receiver in Golden Tate would have helped more. Only 22 TD passes. 5 less than Flacco and Tannehill.
  • Difficult schedule as I had the 2nd most points scored against me
  • Looking at the draft board, as much as I want to say I should have taken Antonio Brown, I simply had Stafford ranked in a Tier of his own between the Top 3 and 5 through 17 QBs. I knew I could wait on RB which left me with choosing between a third straight WR (already drafted Calvin and Dez) and a QB.
    • I valued flexibility over straight value and I believe this benefited me by being able to take Gronk at 53 overall rather than feeling squeezed to take my first QB.
  • Too many good players left on the board allowed me to have a crazy bench in Pierre Thomas, Golden Tate, Rashad Jennings, Michael Floyd
  • One mistake was taking a Bill Belichick RB in Vereen over a main RB in Bell

LDF Recap - 12 team, 2 keeper, non-ppr

Record: 6-7 (8th); 9th in total points
  • Suffered regular season woes with injuries to Montee Ball, Calvin Johnson, Rashad Jennings, Carson Palmer (large effect on Michael Floyd and Andre Ellington), and lingering injury to Andre Ellington
  • Difficult year after missing on Ball, Patterson, Crabtree and injuries to Ellington, Jennings, Johnson, Floyd
  • I had picked up Ronnie Hillman, but C.J. Anderson was the Denver RB I needed. I knew one was going to have a great year. I just missed twice :/
  • Missed players during draft
    • T.Y. Hilton, Emmanuel Sanders, DeSean Jackson
  • Not a lot of opportunities. I liked T.Y. Hilton, but I liked Crabtree and Floyd better and I would have had a difficult time drafting Hilton above these two.
    • C.J. Anderson and Beckham Jr. were both drafted
  • Lost first round playoff game after not starting Baldwin against Philadelphia. Instead I started an injured Rashad Jennings at Tennessee :(

General Player Recap -
  • Rookie WRs performed very well
    • Beckham, Evans, Benjamin, Cooks, and to a degree Watkins
  • 2nd year RBs performed well
    • Lacy, C.J. Anderson, Bell
  • Top level players all performed relatively well
    • Some regression with McCoy, Graham, and Brandon Marshall

Proposed Draft Changes -
  • I am well satisfied with my drafting process and see little need for change. This is promising as 2014 was my 11th year of drafting teams.
  • In snake type drafts, I believe I thrive on have middle picks rather than end picks. This allows me to better gauge who will be available for my next pick.
    • I plan to continue trying to trade into middle picks going forward.
  • I was pleased with trading out of the early round picks and drafting a WR or QB in the 1st round. I believe I will continue to do this as well.
  • I will revert back to staying away from Bill Belichick running backs. I thought this was the year for Vereen to dominate ppr leagues, but was left disappointed.

I remain well pleased with my current approach to fantasy football and plan to continue outlining my approach in future posts (Part I). After watching a total of three games in 2014, I also firmly believe one does not need to watch games to win their fantasy football league. With another year in the books, I look forward to enjoying three great weeks of playoff football. I predict the Seattle Seahawks repeat as champions with a 4 point victory over the Denver Broncos.


Next Post Topic: Disability Overview

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Minimum Wage Part VII: Powerball

Powerball Drawing Machine
Odds to win the Powerball: 
1 in 175,223,510 
(1.75 x 108)

Odds to pick the ideal combination of public assistance programs among 126 federally funded programs: 

1 in 85,070,591,730,234,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 
(8.50 x 1037)

Disclaimer:
Unlike the Powerball where one either wins or loses, there are many combinations of antipoverty programs that may produce results close to the ideal (normal distribution). While the Powerball analogy is imperfect, I hope it highlights the problem of choosing which combination to implement.


Michael Tanner cites 126 federal public assistance programs received $668 billion in 2011. Individual states spent an additional $284 billion dollars funding public assistance programs.

Updated spending from fiscal year 2014 estimates >$1400 billion were spent by the federal government on public assistance programs.
  • Includes Social Security and Medicare
  • Estimated $880 billion was spent on public assistance excluding Social Security and Medicare
  • Source: Christopher Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com

As detailed previously, I believe current poverty alleviation efforts, including minimum wage, are failing. See:

To preface, I hold the following assumptions:
  1. There is no perfect public assistance system
    • All systems and approaches have benefits and drawbacks
  2. One size does not fit all
    • What works for one community may not work in another
  3. Individuals have various definitions of success
  4. Systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, or morality
  5. One cannot have freedom without personal responsibility

With such an overwhelming number of choices before us, is there any way to increase the chances of selecting an ideal system? Going back to the Powerball, one can increase their chances of winning the jackpot by purchasing additional tickets.

The same mindset could be employed in choosing antipoverty programs. Rather than our current system of the federal government picking a single combination, what if local communities and states were free to choose their own combinations? This would allow for multiple "tickets" (or combinations) to be tried simutaneously thereby increasing the odds of finding a successful combination.

As prefaced, individuals have various definitions of success. I define success as citizens making well informed decisions through a fuller understanding of what they are sacrificing (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) to obtain additional public assistance provision.

To optimize the path to “success”, I support the handing of public assistance provision from the federal government to states, and ideally to local communities. Currently the federal government provides ~70% of public assistance funding and states provide ~30%. Seeing this reversed could serve as an initial benchmark. As I believe all systems have benefits and drawbacks, I see the following with making states and local communities the primary source of public assistance program funding:

Potential Benefits -
Federal Reserve Printing Money
  1. Local communities are unable to hide the true cost of public assistance programs through hidden inflationary taxes under the auspices of the Federal Reserve. 
    • Communities and states are required to have a balanced budget or risk bankruptcy (Detroit). This enables elected officials and citizens to fully realize the true cost of public assistance funding (less funding to schools, roads, public services, etc.).
  2. Multiple combinations/systems may be simultaneously implemented.
    • As with purchasing additional Powerball tickets, by shifting the implementation primarily to states and local communities, we increase the number of systems being tried. The worst will be discarded and the best adopted by other communities.
  3. Communities are free to tailor public assistance to their unique needs
    • Moves away from the one size fits all approach
  4. Local citizens have greater influence in the decision making process and their vote does not get lost in the ocean of millions of others.
  5. Less political gridlock and red tape.
    • Local officials have numerous political hurdles and barriers removed to pass reform.

Potential Drawbacks -
Horse and Buggy
  1. Some communities may have insufficient resources to adequately fund public assistance programs
    • I believe this was a greater concern when relocation and transportation was more difficult. Please see Private Charities Part V for additional information.
    • I also suggest this may result in a spreading of assistance as those in need would relocate to areas with greater assistance and decrease the rise of impoverished communities.
  2. Increased costs
    • Centralizing and standardizing processes typically leads to decreased costs (especially administrative costs).
    • I would suggest the increased costs may lead to greater effectiveness for the reasons cited above.

  • Increased complexity
    • Our current public assistance system is already extremely complex. Decentralizing and removing current standardization will likely increase the complexity of antipoverty systems, especially if one chooses to relocate to another location.
    • As with increased costs, I would suggest overall effectiveness has been sacrificed to reduce complexity.
  • Increased risk for corruption
    • Local communities may have fewer safeguards in place to prevent the abuse and misuse of public funds compared to a federal system.
    • I would suggest while the frequency of corruption may be higher, the rewards would be much less. No longer would all the eggs be in one basket.
    • In addition, local communities would be able to more quickly vote corrupted officials out of office compared to the sluggishness of the federal government.
    • Again, systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, and morality.



    This concludes my series on minimum wage. While I do not believe minimum wage accomplishes its intended goal, I applaud the cities of Seattle and Oakland for exercising their freedom to increase their precinct’s minimum wage without waiting for the federal government.

    As the original founding fathers and colonies supported, I believe the potential benefits of a limited central government emphasizing individual freedom rather than forced support outweigh the potential drawbacks. I leave you with the position statement of the Republican Liberty Caucus whom I believe summarize this view well:
    • WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility; 
    • WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people; 
    • WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and 
    • WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
    Be it resolved the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles 5.0 Welfare:
    • 5.1 The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.


    Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2015 Recap