<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>DYSKE</title>
<link>http://dyske.com</link>
<description>A magagzine on philosophy, arts, business, politics, etc..</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 1990-2010 Dyske Suematsu, unless otherwise noted.</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:03:19 GMT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>It’s Not China; It’s Efficiency That Is Killing Our Jobs</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/945</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
The majority of wealth is now concentrated at the top of the social ladder. This is particularly true in the US, and the gap is widening every year. This, I believe, is because of efficiency, not China. Today the best ideas can efficiently and quickly propagate worldwide, and everyone can efficiently find them and buy them. This makes the owners of these ideas filthy rich, and those ideas that are not the best, can hardly survive. It’s not just transfer of information that is fast; wealth too is transferred very fast and efficiently.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/945</guid></item>
<item>
<title>How Your Talent Is Perceived</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/944</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Think of yourself as an iceberg. In the illustration below, you are on the right, and on the left is someone who works in the same field but is more successful than you. The tips of these icebergs are identical, and they represent talent. That is, you are just as talented as your rival is. Now, the rest of the icebergs represents things like confidence, social skills, empathy, ability to manage stress, negotiation skills, understanding what other people want, marketing skills, health, business savvy, etc.. In other words, it represents everything else that the public does not care to know about you.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/944</guid></item>
<item>
<title>What Is “Weird”?</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/943</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Being in high school I often hear “she’s weird” or “that’s weird.” I always like to ask why. What makes something or someone weird or normal? Something is weird when it breaks societal norms. For example, if someone puts his hand over his mouth while talking (in everyday conversations), you would probably consider that trait as weird (but not necessarily him as a person). But why? Because people don’t normally put their hands over their mouths while talking.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>jake@completesoccerguide.com (Jake O'Callaghan)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/943</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Computers No Longer Increase Productivity</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/942</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
In the last 10 years, I don&apos;t think computers increased our productivity. The processing power of our computers increased dramatically in that period, but for the vast majority of things we do on computers, the increase in power is actually irrelevant because the bottleneck is our brain powers; how quickly we can respond to computers. For instance, as I type this essay, my computer is using a tiny fraction of its power. The computer I was using 25 years ago had more than enough processing power to handle what I&apos;m doing right now. In terms of writing (which is still a huge chunk of what we do on computers), the advancement in computer hardware was pretty much irrelevant. It didn&apos;t make us write any faster, because the bottleneck is our own brains, not computers.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/942</guid></item>
<item>
<title>The Mysterious Power of Small Talk</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/941</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
“Small talk” has been a bane of my existence all my life. I could never figure out why small talk has such a critical role in socializing with others. Why is it that trying to talk about particle physics at a party is looked down on? In fact, why are parties necessary in the first place? Why can’t we just meet with one another, sit down in a quiet place and exchange our knowledge and insights? As silly as it may sound, this question has baffled me all my life.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/941</guid></item>
<item>
<title>What Diversity Means for Schools</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/940</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
These days, we tend to assume that “diversity” is a universally desirable quality, especially when applied to a group of people. I’m guessing it’s because the theory of evolution is now thoroughly in the domain of popular culture, and because “diversity” is a key concept that allows the process of natural selection to work. My daughter, Annika, attends a public school that prides itself for its “diversity”. In terms of the racial makeup of the school, it is indeed diverse, but having spent a year and a half there, I began to wonder what “diversity” means under the skin. I believe that diversity in and of itself is neither good nor bad. The question is how it is implemented. The fact that any school is “diverse” by itself does not mean anything.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/940</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Irrational Dr. Albert Ellis</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/939</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Other than the couple’s counseling my wife and I had about 10 years ago, I’ve never had any therapy. It’s not that I had anything against the idea of therapy; it’s just that I never thought to seek outside help. Many men don’t ask for directions when they get lost, and I’m one of them (although, in many situations, not asking for directions is rather stupid). My wife is now studying to be a therapist, so our apartment is littered with books about psychology and psychotherapy. One of them, which was sitting on our dinner table, is “A Guide to Rational Living” by Albert Ellis. My wife told me that it’s one of the classics in psychology. I started reading it and was intrigued by his definition of “neurotic” because I felt like he was describing me personally, and at the same time I was surprised to find that he talks like I do; arrogant, sarcastic, and annoyingly rational. Later I learned that Ellis himself was “neurotic”.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/939</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Moving Beyond “Feminism”</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/938</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
When feminists criticize or analyze men, they usually assume that all men are like Napoleon, Type A personality, aspired to be a leader, wants to conquer the world and leave his name in history. This is equivalent to assuming that all women want to stay home and raise children. I believe at least half of men do not aspire to be like Napoleon or Bill Gates; they just want to live a simple, modest life. Think of the father of Tiny Tim in “A Christmas Carol”. If it were culturally acceptable for him to stay home with his kids, wouldn’t you think he would have loved to do so?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/938</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Utter Bollocks — An Essay on Swearing</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/937</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Some friends of mine are having difficulties with their five year old son who has started swearing whilst at his new school. They&apos;ve tended not to discourage him from swearing at home and now they’re faced with the task of socialising him into a set of values which are somewhat different to their own but which are held by the social sphere into which their son is being initiated. It makes one wonder who’s actually being manipulated to conform the most: the child or his parents?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>jim@jimhamlyn.co.uk (Jim Hamlyn)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/937</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Difference Between “Real” Writers And “Wannabe” Writers</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/936</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
In essays, books, and interviews, many artists and writers have explained how their creative processes work. They can be quite different but at the core, there appears to be two schools. Let me quote two writers representing the respective schools describing their creative processes. First, Steven Pressfield from his book “The War of Art”
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/936</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Why Kids Do the Opposite of What We Tell Them to Do</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/934</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
I wasn’t allowed to eat junk food when I was growing up in Japan, so when I moved to the US on my own, I went nuts eating at fast food restaurants practically every day. I think everyone has similar experiences. Some women of my generation were forbidden to have pink toys or Barbie dolls because their mothers firmly believed in the feminism of the 60s and the 70s. So when they gained independence, they went nuts surrounding themselves in all things pink. Some people were forced to go to Catholic schools and now they passionately hate Catholicism. Some are even making artistic careers out of their hatred of it. We see this pattern everywhere, every generation, culture, and gender. So why do we parents keep repeating the same mistakes? Didn’t we learn the lesson from our own experiences?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 8 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/934</guid></item>
<item>
<title>What Makes Art “Fine” or “Commercial”?</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/933</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
I would say my friend Ian is a little creepy but in a good way. He is a talented photographer and cinematographer, stylish and well-groomed. You might call him “metrosexual” but there is a strong hippie quality to him that invalidates that label. Even though I’ve known him for years, I would still watch my ass if I ever had to take a shower with him in a gym. There is something mysterious about him. Usually when someone is mysterious, it’s because he is keeping some aspects of himself secret, but in Ian’s case, I think he finds himself mysterious. Every now and then, we sit down at a cafe and try to solve this mystery together.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 7 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/933</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Lying Makes a Better World</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/932</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
At 3 years of age, we don’t yet know how to lie or what a lie is. So, “Kids say the darndest things.” It’s remarkable to see how consistently kids deal with truths. If you ask them how you look, they might say, “You look really fat.” They are not yet capable of predicting the emotional consequences of their statements, so everything comes out uncensored. As they grow older, they become aware of the fact that other people have feelings too, and this consideration takes a priority over being honest or truthful. In other words, they become capable of empathy. If so, why do we tell our kids to “always tell the truth”, and scold them for lying when we ourselves lie left and right?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 1 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/932</guid></item>
<item>
<title>The Tyranny of Information</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/931</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Almost everyone is aware of the challenges posed by information management within our increasingly digitized world, but meanwhile something is spreading itself throughout cyberspace, largely uncontrolled and unregulated. Like a cancer it replicates and attaches itself as an unwanted and uncontrollable accretion invading digital space in vast proportions, consuming progressively larger quantities of energy and leaving frustration, stress and misery in its wake. This isn&apos;t some kind of natural or automated process that I&apos;m talking about here but rather the product of a Faustian ignorance, error and neglect. Some have referred to this proliferation of information as “Data Smog” but I’d like to suggest that it’s a good deal more threatening than a fine haze of irritating particles. Smog shifts and changes and often clears on a windy day. On the other hand, a cancer which grows out of control, threatens the very existence of vital organs and processes and therefore needs to be kept in check, if not eradicated altogether, before it threatens life itself.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>jim@jimhamlyn.co.uk (Jim Hamlyn)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/931</guid></item>
<item>
<title>The Luddite Fallacy</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/930</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
The Luddites held that the changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution would lead to a moral degradation of society. Many modern Luddites often argue the same thing—that technological progress opens up the door for deeper and deeper immoralities and creates a darker and darker world.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>wmjbyatt@gmail.com (William Byatt)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/930</guid></item>
<item>
<title>The Tact of Leaders</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/929</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
How do leaders and people in authority gain an accurate picture of what’s going on around them and how sensitive (in both senses of the word) should they be towards criticism?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>jim@jimhamlyn.co.uk (Jim Hamlyn)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/929</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Being an Emotional Minority</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/928</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
We all seem to outgrow our own emotions. The things I held sacred in my youth are no longer so. The songs I used to think were divinely beautiful sound rather banal now. My universal and eternal ideologies crumbled and blew away over time. This seems to happen not just to individuals, but to the whole human race. As we have become more rational, many superstitious and prejudiced beliefs and rituals have faded away. For instance, not so long ago, race had an inviolable meaning for many people. It just felt right that we organized ourselves according to the colors of our skin. We assumed that our own race was superior to others. Such convictions were largely emotional, but many probably believed that their convictions were perfectly rational. As we educated ourselves better, we came to realize that we were misguided.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/928</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Open Letter to the Supporters of DoGood</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/927</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Dear DoGooders: I am writing to you because I noticed that you use DoGood Headquarters&apos; advertising service. Please give me a moment to explain to you why DoGood&apos;s service is ultimately harmful to all of us. This is not a simple matter to explain but if you could read this letter to the end, I believe we could agree that everyone will lose by using DoGood&apos;s service. So, bear with me.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/927</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Why Manipulate Our Own Stories?</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/926</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
All my life, I’ve been told that my problem is not what I communicate, but how I communicate. Only recently, I’ve wised up to the fact that most people would not listen to me unless the idea is communicated in a form that is acceptable for them, like a restaurant accepting only a particular type of credit cards. The problem with this thinking is that it becomes habitual, and we can’t stop manipulating everything we communicate. After all, it feels good to be heard, so we become addicted to manipulating our own stories. How do we figure out when it is appropriate to manipulate and when it is not?
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/926</guid></item>
<item>
<title>Why I Would Not Teach My Values to My Kid</title>
<link>http://dyske.com/paper/925</link>
<description><![CDATA[ 
The people who know me well would probably exclaim, “That’s a good idea!” Well, sorry to disappoint, but this isn’t about the fact that my values are questionable. I would not teach my own values to my child even if I thought my values were immaculate. This brings us to the question: What do I mean by “values”? The simplest way to put it is: To deem one thing to be superior to its counter part. For instance, in the last presidential election, many parents involved their kids into politics by teaching them that Obama is better than McCain. So, we had preschool kids campaigning for Obama.
 ]]></description>
<pubDate>Sun, 7 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<author>dyske@dyske.com (Dyske Suematsu)</author>
<guid>http://dyske.com/paper/925</guid></item>
</channel>
</rss>

