On the idea of this matter of influence of desires and beliefs, it is possible to build an endless construction of beliefs and desires about beliefs and desires.

Favorite succinct comment from the article: I posit that free will does not exist. . 1.) All that exists in the universe is comprised of matter and/or energy. 2.) Nothing that exists outside the universe can affect anything that exists within. 3.) All interactions of matter and energy, including on the quantum scale, are governed by immutable laws, whether these laws are known or unknown. 4.) Consciousness is a product of interactions between matter and energy within the brain subject to the aforementioned laws. If one accepts the enumerated statements above as true, then the only logical conclusion is that the fate of every individual in history, and indeed that of every particle of matter in the universe, was irrevocably fixed at the very moment the universe was first conceived.

“Quantum healing is healing the bodymind from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level. Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy.”

I think we all have to look at men and women who make these kinds of (outrageous) claims—who offer no evidence but their own opinions and magical powers—in one of two lights. They are either so arrogant as to believe that their is no virtue in presenting evidence for their claims to fellow humans, in which case they think you are an idiot. Or they know (or suspect) that they are full of it and they are cynical enough to believe that you will listen to whatever they say, in which case they think you are an idiot.

You know what? I know you’re not an idiot.

In the New Yorker, James Surowiecki (of the “The Wisdom of Crowds” fame) makes the assertion that life is getting hard for corporations “in the mushy middle”—high, middle and low being demand markets. The high-end market is one where consumers are concerned with and will pay a premium for quality. Conversely, the low-end markets are made up of consumers that are purely cost-conscious. His two principle points are that reaching consumers with a message of quality is getting harder because of the ready availability of information that critiques products, and also that same ubiquity of information is making it easier to be a niche player. Well, he doesn’t make this second point precisely, but it’s floating around in the article. I think that there is an additional reason why this trend is occurring—one that is on the demand side. The middle class is (and has been) getting squeezed.

It used to be that brands were a signal of quality to consumers, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Or at least they are becoming more like beacons than bat signals—there to help you steer to them, but not as real indicators or anything anymore. He doesn’t cite his information, but he makes the claim that consumers now consider generic store-brand items equally as good as the brand-name items. I know this is true for me in the grocery store, but I don’t know where else this phenomena occurs. Most people don’t know it, but many of the brand name products that you buy are bought by the brands themselves from “private label” companies, usually but not always with exclusive contracts. I know a lot of the wares I used to find on Canal street in Chinatown (NYC) didn’t “fall off a truck,” they were just private label overflow with the brands added illegally. But I digress, and to this point that Surowiecki makes, I think there is a real test to be had in looking at how consumers change their purchasing strategies based on greater quantities of information. I like, specifically, the way he puts it, “In effect, the more information people have, the tighter the relationship between quality and price…” That strikes me as a testable behavioral economic proposition.

He also makes the point that because of economies of scale it has become easier for companies that specialize in “quality” of high-end products to do so with a slimmer margin of cost. I’m not sure what he means since these economies of scale are available specifically to large corporations that can leverage their size against their own suppliers. This is true to the extent that small Chinese factories can’t argue too much with a company like Apple or Dell, but does that in anyway ensure quality? I think that’s entirely up to the standards established by the designers and engineers of the contracting company. Dell would love to be considered high-end; they don’t know how to do it. But to this point as well; that’s it’s easier for any company to focus on high-end products, so long as those companies are working in niche markets (or create their niche), they have whole new channels available to them in order to reach new consumers worldwide.¹ To that extent, going after the “middle” consumer isn’t necessary since you can focus on customers with highly particular (or peculiar interests).

As has been pointed out in numerous places (among them, this MIT study the middle class has been and is shrinking. Granted, the middle class and mid-level consumers are not synonymous, but it does mean that there are fewer people overall with large amounts of cash with which to conspicuously consume. Some might be high-end consumers when it comes to power tools, but a low-end consumers when it comes to electronics. Nonetheless, overall, more folks are going to worry about reducing spending, while a few others will have far more to spend on luxury and high-end goods.

So overall, I agree with Surowiecki’s observation that companies would be wise to figure a path out of the middle. But I would also suggest that those companies wanting to avoid mere commodity markets for the more lucrative high-end markets make their number one priority the quality of their goods. The cluetrain has left the station and those not prepared for the overwhelming amount of information available to consumers will be left chomping at thin margins for price competitiveness. Advertising has been the traditional (in the last fifty years or so) way for a company to gain marketshare. With the exponential growth of information channels ahead of us in the next decade advertising will increasingly become noise in the din of public conversation.

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates was a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

We can update this simple logical framework to prove that fame is totally awesome:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates was a man.
3. Oh! Women are mortal, too
4. Therefore Socrates (and women) are mortal
5. Except for Ray Kurzweil… he might not be, in a little while; if he tries hard enough.
6. But besides crazy people like Ray Kurzweil who’s probability for immortal survival is low–no! No probability! This is deduction.
7. No man has in the past not been mortal—OR a woman, or women—they’re all mortal too. Although is this still because Socrates was mortal?
8. Men and women, since they have been, have been mortal—with the exception of those around now, who we are waiting to decide upon.
9. AND women up until now; AND including kids in the near future whom we will keep an eye on. 9.1 The MEAN survival rate for mortal men and women… no, that’s probability. 9.2 Men and woman, as we know them by their regular descriptions, are mortal, as we have always seen to be the case.

10. Of course there might be a man who comes along, ambitious as Kurzweil when the technology is available, who might not be mostly mortal depending on the end of the universe. 10.1 But MOST men are mortal–AND women–and MOST of the time! 10.2 There might be more time from here on out then there has been, of course, so… 10.2 Technology does tend to get around this mortality business doesn’t it? 10.3 MOST men, MOST women, almost all HUMANS, are mortal until later; without technology, are mortal. 10.4 MOST HUMANS start out non-mortal and at some point… barring technology, surgery, medicine, other things humans invent; then they are mortal. 10.5 And then, of course, there’s that universe-has-got-to-end—entropy and all that—everybody’s got to be really, seriously be mortal. 10.6 The universe ends; doesn’t matter what you did. Boom. Mortal. Everybody since and you too. 10.7. DISCOUNTING the fact that some individuals, empowered by a, like, harnessed super-massive black hole; he or SHE could do something to trump even entropy, i.e. jet out of the known universe, but the probability—no, this is deduction—no room for probability. Everyone out of the super-massive blackholes! RIGHT now! Everybody out!

11. Everybody who was anybody has got to stop being anybody at some point.

12. Socrates was famous
13. All men and women at some point are famous (for a mean number of 15 minu—no!)
14. Therefore all men and woman will be famous
15. but only eventually at some point dead.
16. Well, that’s rubbish.
17. Ergo, ALL, no wait–MOST men, most of the time (and women)–most HUMANS, most of the time, are dead.
18. Therefore, most of humans are dead and not famous, most of the time. Q.E.D.

So there you have it. For the most part you will be dead and not famous. Get over it.

Alan Taylor from Lubbock, TX writes:
“You have been very persistent in not becoming a public figure, and I respect that a great deal. Is there anything you would wish to tell the fans who do not understand your wishes and why it is important to you not to claim the spotlight?”

Watterson: My impression is that those who don’t get it, don’t care to get it.”

I wish reclusiveness would become a useful marketing strategy. To not have to hear the Famous pine would be a silence we’ve not known in generations. I don’t think we’d recognize the peace for what it was.

This is the golden age for aspiring writers. We have a worldwide communications and distribution network where you can publish anything you want and—if you can manage to get anybody’s attention—get near-instant feedback. Writers just 20 years ago would have killed for that kind of feedback loop. Killed! And you’re asking me what word processor I use? Just fucking write, then publish, then write some more. One day your writing will get featured on a site like Reddit and you’ll go from 5 readers to 5000 in a matter of hours, and they’ll all tell you how much your writing sucks. And most of them will be right!

Thanks, Mark. Honest and spot-on.

One, I’m generalizing this to artists, not just writers. This is a golden age for artists (actors, writers, painters, programmers, etc.). That is, if by “golden age,” what you mean is not-making-insane-butt-tons-of-money-with-what-I-did. Not talking about that. Rather, if I may add to the terse and insightful statement above, I told a friend once that “success” has to be an irrelevant measure of art. She was a little caught up in the fact that she was writing (less than she wanted) and she didn’t see any way to get her work out to the world; how to ever make a career off of it. Here’s two things to know: not everybody loves what you love. (REALLY!?) If doing what matters to everyone else matters to you, then do what you think everyone else loves and spend years investing in the fact that you were entirely wrong (or .005% of the time, right¹). I mean, how many kids are out there behaving obnoxiously while drunk in orange tans, who aren’t getting paid? There’s nearly 7 billion of us here! You can’t figure out what everybody loves unless you stub your toe on it!

But here’s a better game to play: if you do what you love and love it, you have an exactly equal chance of getting everyone else to love it as you did when you were doing what you thought everyone else wanted. You just have to keep doing it over and over beyond any level where it seems to make sense. I mean, it’s kind of funny that what I just said and the definition of insanity aren’t much different: keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Insanity fits the bill. Of course, one would hope that your art gets “better,” but only by some measure that you establish. But then, my niece’s art is pretty awesome as it is and as she grows up into an adult she’ll probably screw it up more than she improves it along the way, and then she’ll figure out that what she originally did was pretty awesome and revert back to that, only then to discover that anything retro was overhyped to begin with, and then, well, what’s this whole art thing mean anyway—was I innocent or an idiot?—did my lack of awareness of cultural norms help or hurt my work or inform my skill?

Yeah, I tricked you. Ok, lovely niece, stop pontificating the future of your awesome life that does not exist yet. These lines of questions are meant to deceive you, dear reader, into meaningfully doing what other people want—which as I’ve already established, you can’t do (except by stubbing your toe). So, again, do what you love doing? You’re not just disregarding convention. You have to assume that convention has poisoned you and that you need to find the anecdote² and that only someone you trust has the antidote, but then the virus is making people act crazy anyway and you can’t trust anyone you trust!

This imaginary rhetoric from my niece is meant to imply that she’ll try to make her stuff more like other people’s stuff, not like her stuff. (By the way, I’m 35 and have no idea where the dividing line is between my stuff and your stuff. Frankly, I’m glad that Steinbeck is dead. No lawsuits! Ah, see!—I just used a quick exclamation to end a line of thought—glad Vonnegut’s dead too!) Whatever, I’ve gone on here too long for a blog post. Face it. You suck at what you’re trying to do. That old ipod headphone jewelry is a stupid idea. But if you like it, you should keep doing regardless of what Simon Cowell thinks.