Friday, April 13, 2007


It's been a while.

Now that I've given you a full and extensive account for why I've not written anything for many months, let me get on to my topic of the day; Memory. As it happens, I've done a lot of various memory tests during the last year, and I seem to be getting very high marks on all of them. Yet my psychologists seem to think I have ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and I'm finding myself rather agreeing with much of the criteria for the diagnosis. The problem is, how does the attention deficit come across in a person with a very good short term memory? Does this mean that my memory would be off the scale if I didn't have ADHD? Or have I learned not to pay attention because I can cope without doing so? What I do know is that it's probably affected my ability to organize myself. I've never kept a calender or a schedule, simply relying on my good memory to get me where I need to be. Yet as I've grown older there's less structured imposed on my life from the outside, and as a result my days are now wasted doing whatever grabs my attention. I keep forgetting things and I'm constantly late for everything(not that this is anything new, I've always been known to show up 5-30mins late for classes or any other agreed upon meetings).

You might have noticed my writing is often rather unstructured, and can easily go off on a tangent and never find its way back again. In fact, I still do a lot of my "writing" in my head. I start spinning out a story or an blog entry or the likes in my head, choosing my wording and working my way through what I want to get said. However, now that I'm trying to write down the story that I had in my head, I find myself getting distracted, and I no longer remember what it was I wanted to say, nor all the really good points that I wanted to address. This is the main reason I prefer a written medium, and despise speaking in public. You see I have a tendency to narrate what I want to say or write, and as such other people talking tends to get in the way of my own thinking. I also like to take my time and formulate what I want to say. The internet and the written communication lets me just this, helping to hide all my distractions.

Why did I just write that? The hell if I'd know.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Test Regime

I've not mentioned it yet here, but I am currently undergoing examinations for a sleep disorder. The initial bloodwork and EKG as well as the physical examinations are behind me, and I'm now scheduled for a MSLT-exam on the 19th of this month and a brain-MRI on the 27th, and a further appointment with a neurologist on the 8th of January next year. Hopefully I'll get some more definitive answers then, the current preliminary diagnosis is one of hypersomnia.

I've also just scheduled a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test for the 28th of this month, in order to get a more detailed account of my IQ and assessment of various subcategories of intelligence.

And finally, I'm considering applying for the London School of Economics. If that works out I might be saying goodbye to Finland next fall, maybe for good.

//Written to the soothing tunes of Charles Mingus Spontaneous Piano Composition.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Quick Update

Just figured I'd tell you all I'm getting hooked on the new tv-series Heroes atm and that you all need to chill out and listen to King Crimson, especially the song "Neurotica" off the album "Beat".

Also, recently started using Google Reader for viewing blogs. It's a nifty way of checking up on a number of blogs at the same time. The only drawback I see in it at this time is that it doesn't show comments on the blogs, nor apparently allow you to comment on blogs. These additional functionalities are probably coming, and as is, it's yet another useful tool brought to use by Google.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Studio 60 and why god hates the U.S.

If you haven't been living in a bubble, you've heard of a TV show called "The West Wing". After it's cancellation, we lost one of the great genuinely intelligent TV shows of our generation. Well, we're in luck. Some of the great cast and the shows original writer Aaron Sorkin are back, this time with a superbly witty drama about the making of a comedy sketch show which resembles Saturday Night Live. However, the show is having a hard time finding an audience in the U.S., running opposite to CSI:Miami which clocks in 17million viewers, whilst Studio 60 is topping off below 8million. Why then is this masterpiece not getting the attention it deserves? Simple. Wrong god damn country.

Studio 60 is taking stabs left-and-right at the religious right. Now, for us Europeans, this doesn't sound too bad. But in a nation where people take their personal religion very seriously, it's no wonder some people are offended. Studio 60 is the embodiment of the illusive concept of the "Liberal Media", which in reality doesn't exist in the U.S. It's a concept which was made up by the conservative run media to blacklabel Hollywood and actors who tend to veer to the left. But Sorkin is going against the establishment once again, and we're invited to take a peek at the struggle between expressing your mind and living with the reality of a media industry which loathes the principles so many of its prominent figures adhere to. I greatly enjoy the portrayal of the writer(Matthew Perry) struggling with self-censorship, and how his close friend and producer(Bradley Whitford) trys to keep him sharp and current. It's a wonderfully witty and fast paced show, with great acting and great chemistry, which unfortunately might well be canceled at the end of its first season due to lack of viewers.

And here, we get on to my true reason for writing this rant. How the hell did the marketing types miss the fact that the show isn't compatible with a U.S. demographic? It has "Europe" written all over it for fck sake! The demographic for the series is so obvious it's silly. Young urban hipsters of above average income with a interest in politics and with a taste for dry humour, who read the news and are up to date with the goings on of the world. The demographic reads as a description of the European youth, and it's not a bad demographic to have. What few people realize, is that when speaking of television, content isn't the shows, the content are the advertisements. The shows are created to get people to tune in and see the ads. And who do companies want to reach? Young hip people, the same people who are, to quote the series, "The first to try". They want trend-setters to tune in and see their ads and go out and buy their products. Because once they reach the trend-setters, they know the rest of the market will follow. And this is just the kind of show that will attract European trend-setters.

The problem is that a U.S. company can't get over seeing the U.S. as the trend-setter. Surely the natural market for the show is the liberal yuppies of New York? Although it is quite likely more than a few of the shows viewers are among said New York yuppies, what they are failing to see is that the upper middle class to which the show is catering is dying out in the U.S. The demographic is no more. The new trend-setters in the U.S. are lower middle class kids, who do not have the same interest in politics and witty banter as its predecessor had. Coupled with increasing U.S. personal indebtedness and you realize that the potential markets are far better in Europe at this time than they are in the U.S. So how come the show airs in North America only at this time? Because if someone is going to ignore the rest of the world, it's going to be the Americans.

The probable end to this story is the untimely demise of the show after only one season, unless the attempt to fiddle with the shows timeslot all of a sudden overcomes religious zeal in the U.S. Hopefully it'll become a classic on DVD's, and we might see yet another resurrection of a dead TV show after DVD sales showed off a failure in marketing instead of a failure in production. But for now, I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next episode which airs tonight.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

On the Fundamentals of Leadership

Some time ago during a discussion with a friend of mine, we came upon the subject of leadership. I've since been meaning to compile my thoughts on the subject into a post for this blog, so as to more easily and freely distribute it to those who would wish to read it. That having been said, let us begin.

Although I usually hold to the belief that actions, not motives, are of interest, in the case of leadership I will make an exception in so far as to the ascension of the leader. Many seek leadership for the sake of power itself rather than a belief that there is a demand to be filled. This is something which more people need to be aware of when electing their leadership, because a leader who is primarily motivated by a hunger for power is more likely to do whatever it takes to stay in power. On the other hand, a true leader is someone who ascends to leadership because of a perceived need within the community of which he is part. A true leader also works to further talent in others, and will work towards replacing himself with someone better than himself, if such an opportunity should arise. Therefore, motives are important because they will effect the actions of the leader once instated.

Some of you may have noticed that this indirectly implies that the leader should be in possession of at least an modicum of humility. The realization that you are not infallible is something about which I've talked before. Often great leaders appear to lack this humility, yet their actions testify of it. A good leader plans for all eventualities, and is always ready to revise his principles or perceptions in light of new evidence. You can't expect to make good decisions if you aren't well informed, and you can't expect to be well informed unless you keep an open mind. Once you start to try and read things into the information you are given, you start to make bad decisions. Having said this, I still feel it is of utmost importance that you know who or what you are up against, as it helps you determine the true value of the information you are in possession of. It's a tight line to walk, between applying knowledge and reading things into the intelligence, but it is essential to all leadership.

From the subject of humility and a critical examining of the facts at hand we arrive quite naturally at the subject of taking action. As I said to begin with, in most cases the actions are relevant, not the reasoning behind them. So it is in the actual application of knowledge upon the task at hand in order to make informed decisions. Your motives are not relevant, and as such you should not focus on motivating your actions according to any moral code. The outcome of the actions is the only thing of relevance to good leadership. Bear in mind that you won't always have the time to make all the plans you would like. Often you need to make split second decisions without time to consult all the intelligence you might want to. Therefore any leader must be able to take action even under the worst of circumstances, and work towards correcting his decisions after they've been put into effect. Yet many such situations can be controlled through contingency plans and other failsafety mechanisms. Once again, the more plans you lay beforehand, the better off you are, even when the unexpected happens.

I feel I need to still elaborate a bit on the subject of planning. When making plans, one should not simply plan one or two steps ahead. Plans which do not foresee the end of the line are of little use, as we can not say whether the plan will lead to the end result we want. Therefore always strive to plan for the whole of the objective, this way you can not only better foresee what is going to happen, but better react when it does. You may also be assured that your plan is always a good one in that you know it is capable of success. Even so, the best of plans is only valid until battle commences. Once things are put into motion, it is nearly always sure to fail. When it fails, the leader must move swiftly to correct his miscalculations and steer his cause back on track to success. Therefore never blindly trust in plans.

Throughout the years much has been said about the act of leading. It is, in all brevity, the act of taking the lead. Although much of leadership is done in preparation for the actual act, the way of the act of leading is simple. Stand at the head of the pack, and your followers have no choice but to follow. Leadership is the act of creating followers, and nothing more.

Yet how to conduct oneself when leading? The first distinction which is important to make is whether you've chosen your followers, or whether they've chosen you. If you choose your followers, you can demand of them what you believe is necessary. If your followers choose you, they expect of you what is necessary, yet you are working on their referendum and as such may be hampered in what you are able to do. Therefore, it is always preferable to choose your own followers.

For the act of leading, discipline is very important. If your commands are not adhered to you can not expect to successfully lead anything. Therefore you can not tolerate insubordination. Freedom of expression is one thing, people do not like to be told what to think or say, but when a command is issued none can be allowed to go against it. If people believe they can defy you without consequence, you will spend more time trying to herd them in the direction you want than deciding the direction. Your movements as a unit will slow, you will be ungainly and unable to execute any plans laid out. Many believe that an organization becomes naturally ungainly as it grows in size, yet I can't agree with this point. As the organization grows, if the discipline is good and a clear hierarchy exists within the organization, commands can be carried swiftly and precisely to the base, and thus plans can be implemented at great speed. Therefore, discipline is the key.

In order to be able to uphold a sufficient level of discipline a leader may often have to make himself less than popular. For this there are remedies however. In order to keep the morale up it is often good to have a figurehead leader with token powers within the organization. The figurehead is everyones friend in the organization, and could never be entrusted to punish anyone. Luckily, they do not need to. Infact, the perfect figurehead is one who does nothing. The figurehead seldom knows he or she is considered to be such a person, and may even try to interfere in the runnings of the alliance. As such, the actions of the figurehead need often be monitored, and when detrimental, undone. In short, the figurehead is the modern incarnation of the Jester, the court clown.

If all these points are adhered to, success is a reasonable expectation.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Net Democracy

The more deregulated media gets, the worse off are the voters. Democracy in the U.S. has for long been up for sale. As ever fewer media conglomerates control ever more of the media(practically all tv, radio and print media is in the hands of 5-6 big companies in the U.S.), they gain an ever stronger hold on what the truth of the day will be. But there is a counterbalance that's gaining momentum. It seems regular Joe is starting to realize the possibilities of the net as a tool for furthering grass-root democracy(Netroots as they've been dubbed). And just the other day, one not so regular Joe, felt the effects of just one such historic showing of netroots activism.

What happened was that the unknown political newcomers Ned Lamont toppled a political old-timer in the Democratic Party Primaries for the Senate in Connecticut. Ned Lamont ran on a platform against the war in Iraq and against Senator Liebermans close ties to the President. This is a stance which landed him the support of MoveOn, who mobilized their members to make close to 80,000 calls to get out the vote for the elections.

The possibilities for the people to organize and freely assemble on the net as well as communicate and come together behind a joint cause show great hope for the democracy of tomorrow. In the U.S., the powers that be have already taken notice. Even though the motives behind the Net Neutrality Act are primarily business orientated, there is no question that such an blow to the freedom of expression on the web would also deal a great blow to the brewing net democracy. What's shocking is that these decisions are being made by a single country even though the effects will be global. The U.S. retains control of the central servers upon which the internet operates, and any policy enacted by the U.S. government concerning the internet will effect all of us surfing the web. This even before net democracy has gotten off the ground in Europe, much less the rest of the world.

On a sidenote, it seems the net, more specifically blogging, has been providing a way for frustrated Lebanese people to vent their feelings over the ongoing aggressions against their nation. Look forward to many more days of blogging by these poor souls, because Israel is only getting started, no matter what Olmert has been saying to try to appease the international community. He can't afford to go soft or end the war, not without dooming his own political future.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Sanity is boring

The BBC recently produced a documentary called I Love Being...Mad, which deals with how we approach mental illness in society. This is an interesting subject as more and more normal people are getting a prognoses of having some form of mental illness and put on psychiatric drugs. But this was not the perspective the documentary took. Instead it looks at how we deal with people who are quite psychotic indeed. One in six people suffer from some kind of mental illness. How abnormal is it then really? Is it a sustainable approach to keep on forced drugging the mentally ill? Or should we instead look into new ways of approaching the insane? Should we listen more to the mentally ill concerning how they could best be helped, by involvement instead of shutting them out, by therapy instead of drugs, by activities instead of restraints. After all, there's a bit of madness in anything creative. How boring would the world be without any madness? I know I couldn't bare complete sanity for even a moment. Luckily, I don't have to.