"What keeps this going is that each VC thinks they're better than average. Most of them are wrong."
Only some have this belief and only some of those are wrong, but it isn't what 'keeps VCs going' generally. That would be the high pay and our prestige culture.
As to the point about interest rates, you may be correct, but for the conclusion to follow we need an account of why capital makes yield chasing more aggressive in the private vs public markets. With public markets on all-time highs, cost of capital there doesn't look historically expensive. I suspect that you are correct about rates distorting the private market but for different reasons.
Source: am a vc, am professionally obligated to speak with vcs.
"Different brain regions including external frontal cortex, cerebellar hemisphere, entorhinal cortex/hippocampus and choroid plexus contain fungal material, which is absent in brain tissue from control individuals. Analysis of brain sections from ten additional AD patients reveals that all are infected with fungi."
I am an Everlane fan (wearing one of their tees right now, actually), but I find their low/no-markup marketing message to be a turn-off.
For example, the shirt I'm wearing is $22, but they claim a comparable shirt costs $50. The reality is it feels like a $22 t-shirt. I know what to expect from a $50 t-shirt — almost always a $20 shirt with a $30 logo. Occasionally a $50+ t-shirt has something special going on (usually in the thickness/stitching), but the Everlane shirts are standard quality with a cut that fits me well. And the "comparable value" inflation of the women's clothing seems even worse.
The style is enough; would rather not be told I'm getting a special deal that I don't think I'm getting.
Thanks for posting — after reading Pierre Cartier's article in the Inference Review it is exactly the tour of Recoltes & Clef that I was hoping would appear in time. I had no idea whatsoever that it already existed.
FYI, the phenomenon you describe is an afterimage and happens to everybody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage). You are correct that the visual cortex is involved in both phenomena but they are quite different. An after-image is still an "upstream" image on your retina, whereas a mental image is not. Whether the former can be used to increase facility with the latter I do not know. I haven't seen scientific evidence that imagery can be trained at all.
Despite all that it doesn't sound like a terrible place to start.
Ah, that's what it's called, thanks! I read about that a while back but forgot whether it was a phenomenon of the retina or of the brain. What I am wondering is if you can use the after image as almost a skeleton for more advanced visualizations. For example, imagine the retinal after image laying down the basic shape, and then you can consciously add detail on top of that after image. Maybe using the after image as a kind of training wheels..if it's even possible..
I have never been able to consciously visualize (meaning: think in visual mental images). All of my conscious thought is in the auditory mode, though I know what it would be like to visualize as it happens occasionally in a dream. I have always wished more than anything to have such experiences while fully conscious (to see my mother's face and so on).
There has been a fairly longstanding debate in philosophy and psychology about whether visual mental images even exist, yet when I discuss the issue with friends none of them can believe or understand that I lack imagery.
I've read a fair amount without encountering real evidence that the capacity can be developed. I've certainly spent time trying, but possibly in the wrong way.
If you've dreamed of a video game, or you know where things are in your bedroom without looking, or you can draw something, you're probably using visual memory, even if it's not overly detailed. You can probably train yourself to recall more detail if you observe things more closely. Remember the brain is great at compressing - there's no shame in remembering the important parts instead of just a raw photograph.
I certainly don't remember things photographically, but if I memorize a piece of music from a printed version, for example, for a while I'll remember roughly where on the page I would be at any point. But after practicing from memory without the printed version, this spatial memory will fade away.
Wow. My experience is drastically different than yours.
I've almost always thought of things through mental imagery. It comes naturally to me (which really helped in calculus 3, haha). I can say that with confidence.
Thanks for the link. I wonder how many non-visualizers are out there, too.
Reminds me how there's apparently a decently-sized part of the population that doesn't intuitively know left and right. I wouldn't have believed it much if I didn't meet someone with the issue and someone else who claims their wife has it.
I've always had problems immediately referring to left or right. As a kid I had to recall which hand I used for the pledge of allegiance to remember which side was right vs left. To this day it takes me a couple of seconds of thought to pull it out when my mind is not already primed for it.
I have a well developed spatial sense, but am very weak visually. When I try to visualize, the best I get is impressions of abstract glow-y lines that fade away quickly. I also tried to develop mental visualization but to little effect (I did have a vivid dream once. Only once, though.)
This perfectly describes me. Interestingly enough I attribute my great mathematical ability to my ability to "visualize" problems, although I don't literally see objects in my mind's eye. Its almost like my logical circuitry is co-oping my visual processing circuitry to solve abstract logical problems. So while I'm thinking of a problem there is a visual aspect to thought, but its nothing concrete enough that I could, say, draw on paper.
So you can't see the matrix? Take the red pill (No, that's not Modafil painted red) Neo.
On a more serious note, when do you understand something? For me, it is when I can visualize how the parts of the function interact with each other, for example for Summation, how many little functions (those functions are visual images too) in a long finite line stack on top of each other and create a large something, that might get fed into something else.
Think how hard it is for visual thinkers to produce one-dimensional text of their two or multidimensional ideas. They see all the relations between things directly but it is hard to express in text. It's not always a blessing.
It has been intermittently amazing to me that I not only get by but am even considered intelligent without what seems (to me) an absolute gift and superpower that most people possess.
The rest of the time it's just obvious that there are tradeoffs, or that it's behaviorally insignificant unless one is off the chart positive on some modality. Would still give anything to picture though.
Just to say you are not alone. Though my internal voice has no accent and does not sound like me. We may well differ in other respects.
I remember the day I asked my English teacher what she was talking about when she described the impact of poetry on your mind...and the expression of pity she showed.
I remember the day I discovered my sister read a novel and imagined a film as she read...this was the first time I was ever jealous of my sister.
They were not good days. People might wonder what I remember. I remember my thoughts-emotions of the moment. So when I say I remember my teacher's expression I remember my thoughts-feelings about the fact that I could see her pity.
However, there are major advantages especially as life as gone on. It seems to have taken me longer to get the hang of life as I have had to develop alternative ways of doing things that are often not as efficient as the visual method. But that has given me a powerful originality of thought and approach that I can increasingly use to my advantage now I am no longer undermined by the basics of life.
Thank you for this. Even though I consider myself pretty average now you've made me feel like I have some secret power. It helps a lot when I visualize things. Also, writing ideas out in a narrative also helps. So, I guess I can do both. Genius Here!!! (Standing up, wide eyed, looking proud with an idiotic smile)
p.s. I don't actually believe that you cannot visualize images. Can you draw a stick human figure? Did it pop into your head when I mentioned stick human figure? There you go, you just visualized it.
p.s I guess inability to visualize something could be something similar to dyslexia?
It's frustrating when people suggest I can visualize and just don't know it. The way one thinks is the most first-personally obvious thing in the world, and I've been sore about the way I do it since I was in elementary school wanting to imagine strawberries to count with.
Despite the literature I never accuse visualizers of the reverse (ie that you only think you have mental images), but when I do challenge incredulous friends about their phenomenology some discover it's actually much less pictoral than they'd believed: eg, "imagine a tiger, how many stripes?" or "imagine an ant crawling across a checkered picnic table toward a jar of grape jelly, what color square is it on now? what about now?" or "imagine a 3x3 word matrix whose rows read 'too', 'aid', 'ole' -- read the column words straight off without sounding out or going letter by letter". Granted, others can do these with an ease that amazes me.
"Can you draw a stick human figure? Did it pop into your head when I mentioned stick human figure? There you go, you just visualized it."
Yes I can draw a stick figure. I'm not an idiot, and nothing pops into my head other than the sound of the word and some xkcd affect.
Meanwhile, it astounds me that a single picture can pop into your head: how do you know what position to put the stick figure in -- akimbo, Thinker? Imagine a flower -- ok, which, a rose or a marigold? Do you decide or does it just happen? How many different flowers can you visualize, and how quickly? Do they appear embedded in soil or just floating free? How many different varieties can you see at once? What prevents you from seeing more?
Re: dyslexia -- I drew this link too, as I have very mild dyslexia. My father is profoundly dyslexic but claims vivid imagery.
Well, for me imagining a tiger is basically recalling what it's like to look at a tiger (or picture of a tiger). I can have a photo of a tiger right in front of me, and know it's a tiger, yet not know how many stripes it has without counting. I might also not notice how the back paws look if I'm focusing on the front paws. Same thing when it's in my head (except less consistent, since it's just a memory).
> how do you know what position to put the stick figure in -- akimbo, Thinker?
This is no different from other senses. If I tell you to imagine the smell of soup, do you smell minestrone or pho? (Have you cooked those dishes? When you smell soup, can you tell what spices are in it?) If I tell you to imagine the sound of a violin, is it a six year old scratching away or Yehudi Menuhin playing a Beethoven concerto? (Depending on your musical training/listening habits, you may be able to imagine a concerto all the way through, or maybe just fragments of it?)
The interesting thing is, at one point I thought, like you, that I couldn't think visually. I tried practicing it, and either that worked or I adjusted my definition of visual thinking (or a bit of both), because I definitely consider myself at least partly a visual thinker now, and it's difficult to imagine it any other way. I've noticed that my visualization ability is sensitive to how much sleep I get though.
If you can think of chocolate, but not how it tastes, how it feels in your mouth, what a square looks like, what sound it makes when you bite into it ... maybe you just need to pay more attention the next time you eat chocolate :) And my ability to imagine other things - like music or food - depends strongly on how much time I spend on such things.
I appreciate the vividness of your minestrone, pho and chocolate examples, but I can't seem to do what you describe. I can't imagine smells or tastes -- both are as foreign as the visual modality (though much less missed). When I read the example I hear the words "imagine the smell of soup" I simply hear (in my head) my voice say the word 'soup', then, when asked to elaborate 'minestrone - pho' -- more words. I can sit with my eyes closed for the rest of the afternoon but the thoughts go no deeper, or I can silently direct my attention at the memory of the last auditory image, or repeat 'pho' in my head, or say something like 'curly noodles, light broth, deep green basil' and list off favorite attributes of pho, but it's low bandwidth audio and not cumulative in the way my dreamed pictorial representations are.
With respect to music, I can occasionally imagine a few concertos most of the way through in rich detail, but more often just in detailed fragments. I don't seem to have much control over how it sounds, what it is (usually Beethoven or BWV 1004), or when I can do it. I listen to a hundred contemporary songs for every one classical and I can't so much as summon the tunes or lyrics of any of them. Truth be told I don't listen to much music as I find it impossible to think while doing so, as if it's all on the same metaphorical channel.
edit: on the tiger, I'm not expecting the person to solve the speckled hen problem. People with stable mental images can count the stripes off the picture, none should simply "know" how many are there. Some believe (until confronted with such a challenge) they think in fuller, richer pictures than they actually do.
It sounds :-) like you may have more sensory representation than me - as you have some auditory representations.
I remember emotions but I don't remember my bodily sensations.
With regard visual images (in response to words) it is like part of my brain sees it but I have no conscious access.
However, I have had one intense conscious dream where in that dream at least I had full sensory representation in every dimension. It was wonderful! I remember playing with my dreamscape and transforming things visually before I woke up...and so I - at least - have some idea of what being able to visualise means to others
Are you saying you can't hallucinataste chocolate? The soft melting of a piece of milka, the soft stickiness of your tongue against your teeth, the feeling in your throat, and of course, the sweet cacao taste on your tongue? I don't know why, but if I think really hard about it, I can actually vividly imagine the experience of eating chocolate, but I can't have any other flavour in my mouth at that time. I can mix it with other imaginary flavours though, which is why i roughly know how a sauerkraut hot dog tastes despite not having eaten one ever. (Sauerkraut ufm wurstbrötl? Sapperlot no ma!)
One really curious thing that happens to me though is that when I smoke and smoke gets into my nose, the burn in my nose might trigger one of my taste memories, leading to me tasting some random thing in my mouth, from Apple Juice to seared steak. I do get some weird stares though when I suddenly say that taste out loud.
>>>Despite the literature I never accuse visualizers of the reverse (ie that you only think you have mental images), but when I do challenge incredulous friends about their phenomenology some discover it's actually much less pictoral than they'd believed: eg, "imagine a tiger, how many stripes?" or "imagine an ant crawling across a checkered picnic table toward a jar of grape jelly, what color square is it on now? what about now?" or "imagine a 3x3 word matrix whose rows read 'too', 'aid', 'ole' -- read the column words straight off without sounding out or going letter by letter". Granted, others can do these with an ease that amazes me.<<<
I'm not a freaking computer.
"imagine a 3x3 word matrix whose rows read 'too', 'aid', 'ole' -- read the column words straight off without sounding out or going letter by letter"
You might as well tell me to add 182748+37638373 in my head. The reason I cannot do this is that it requires short term memory and I don't have much of it. I can only remember four, five, maybe even six number in a row at a time in short term memory. You giving me a bunch of instructions to visualize exceeds my short term memory so I cannot do it. In other words, I'm not a computer, neither are you.
>>>Meanwhile, it astounds me that a single picture can pop into your head: how do you know what position to put the stick figure in.
Well if nothing pops into your head then I guess you really cannot visualize. The stick figure is usually standing up straight.
I'm a big fan of this snapping, page down scroll style. It moves as fast as I can scan yet never halts in position that renders one (or two) entries unintelligible. Should I want to get to a totally different set of stories I can swipe left.
This app is phenomenal. Other readers (e.g. Flipboard) make too many sacrifices at the altar of design. I enjoy playing with them at first but the information density just isn't high enough for me. Prismatic gets the density right without being overly utilitarian.
I only started using the web version this week so I can't speak to the intelligence component yet.
It seems pretty good, however, I have a major pet peeve with the reading layout. At least on iPhone, they stick 3 random tweets about the article right in the middle of the first paragraph. You just begin reading an article, and have to scroll through a page of tweets before you can read the rest of it. That is very annoying.
Also, how about pre-fetching the full article when I start to get close to the end of the preview? Once I'm interested in the article, I have to click a button and wait for the entire web page to load before I can read the full thing. Also, to read the full article, I might as well be using Safari because it's just a UIWebKit view. I lose all of the formatting and have to deal with the site's native formatting, which is quite jarring.
Overall, a good first attempt, but please fix some of these issues.
I had not seen the tweet injection as I tend to read less popular stuff. Having just looked at a nytimes article, would have to agree that it's quite abrasive.
Asking questions takes a bit of courage at what ever level the student is at, simply because the questioner is revealing something about their understanding of the topic to the other class members. Good teaching skills suggest taking all questions seriously; the ones who ask questions help you to gauge the level of understanding in the room.
