Updating a rooted Droid

by myself 30. December 2010 16:52

This will be an odd post here, since it's a technical write-up.  But I've encountered this problem twice now, and I've found that there is a distinct lack of information on this topic online, so I thought I'd fill the gap.

The Problem

The problem:  You have a Motorola Droid which you've already rooted (to gain superuser access) and you've continued to use the stock ROM other than modifying for root access.  You receive a system update OTA from your carrier and you want to install it, but you don't want to lose superuser access or go through the laborious process of backing up and restoring all your settings, messages, etc.

Since the problem involves keeping root access which you've already gained, I'm going to assume that you already know something about the subject.  Here's a brief overview of the steps you probably took when you originally rooted the device:

  1. Use RSD Lite to flash a custom "recovery" program to the device, such as "SP Recovery".  This allows you to boot into a special "recovery" mode which, in turn, allows you to install updates that the stock recovery program would not ordinarily allow.
  2. Copy a specially crafted "update.zip" file to the SD card on the device.  This small file contains the files necessary to allow you to grant or deny applications superuser access instead of always denying such access.
  3. Boot into recovery mode and install the "update.zip".

This is the best process which I found, but there are also other processes you may have used, such as flashing a rooted ROM to the device instead of a special "update.zip", which would have required you to back up all your data and restore it afterward.  In any case, now you're in this situation.  Why can't you simply install the OTA update?

The special recovery program you flashed to your device will most likely prevent such installation.  There are two reasons for this: 1) Installing said update will most likely remove the root access you worked so hard to gain, and 2) If you used your newfound root access to install a modified ROM instead of the stock one, it might break things.

The Solution

Assuming that you are using a stock ROM, and the only modifications to the ROM which you made were flashing the recovery pogram and changing a few files to allow superuser access, then in theory, installing the OTA update should work fine.  In my case, I updated from 2.2 to 2.2.1 (referred to by Verizon as 2.3, although it is not the dubbed "Gingerbread" version of Android OS) without any problems.  As usual, I cannot guarantee your success, however, so do at your own risk.

There are basically two options for installing the OTA update without losing all your data:

  1. Flash the original recovery program back, install the update the normal way, then re-root the device afterward.
  2. Locate the OTA update file, copy it to the SD card, use the custom recovery program to install the OTA update, then re-root the device.

I chose the second option, because I didn't know where to find the original recovery program in order to flash it back without flashing the entire ROM, thus destroying my data, which is precisely what I was trying to avoid.  The remainder of this article will cover the steps needed for this second approach for installing the OTA update without losing data.

The Process

I don't feel like writing a detailed step-by-step instruction on this.  I'm just being honest.  I would, however, but there is already a great write-up on how to root your Droid regardless of Android OS version, and it's a great, excellent, awesome write-up on the topic, and most everything you need to know is in it!  So I'm going to have you refer to it for most of the details, since I'm assuming by the fact that you successfully rooted your device already that you're smart enough to figure it out.  I will give details on the portion of the process which is not already covered by that great article.  Anyways, here's the link to it:

Root Droid 1 - regardless of OS version

General Overview

Here's a general overview of what to do.  Some of you may be able to do everything with just this summary, but more details about each step will follow in the next subheading.

  1. Before beginning, your Droid should be pestering you to install an update.  If you installed a special update to disable this, then you may need to find a way to download it from somewhere, or just go and hope you find the update sitting there.
  2. Optional: Backup your data.  I highly recommend this just in case.  Your contacts and calendar should be synchronized with your Gmail account.  If not, set this up.  Backup SMS messages and call logs if you want.  Don't forget additional programs you've installed.
  3. Boot into your custom recovery program and perform a full "nandroid" backup, including cache.  (Backing up cache is not optional because it is needed for the next step, but I recommend also backing up everything else so you can restore right back to where you were in the event of catastrophic failure.)
  4. Connect the USB cable and enable USB access to the SD card.  Extract cache.tar from the nandroid backup you just did to your local hard drive.  Find the .zip file for the update, copy it to the root of the SD card, and rename it to "update.zip".  (In my particular case, this is where I found the update file, but it may have put it somewhere else, even on the SD card, depending on the current OS version.)
  5. Boot back into your custom recovery program (if you left it to perform step 4) and install the update.zip from the SD card.  (NOTE: This will remove root access and revert your recovery program back to stock.  After this point, you will have to root the device again.)
  6. After you've booted up into your updated OS, connect the USB cable and enable USB access to the SD card.  Delete the update.zip file if it still exists.  Copy the specially crafted update for superuser access to the SD card and name it "update.zip".
  7. Use RSD Lite to flash your custom recovery program back.
  8. Boot into your custom recovery program once again and install the update.zip from the SD card.  You should now have superuser access on your updated device.

It looks more complicated and time-consuming than it is.  I did all this in about an hour, and I was figuring out the above procedure as I went.

Specific Details

  1. Your Droid should be pestering you to update.  I really don't know what to tell you if it isn't.  In my case, it was asking me to update every day at least.  You will know if the update was downloaded before making any changes to your system, so you can continue if you think the update has already been downloaded OTA.
  2. Synchronize your contacts and calendar to Gmail, if they are not already.  I used an app called SMSBackupRestore to back up SMS messages, CallLogBackupRestore to back up call logs, and MyAppsList to save a list of apps that are currently installed.  I couldn't find a free MMS backup utility that worked, so I did without.  Don't forget any currently installed apps which you may want to backup data for.  Some of them include import/export options.  If you can't do the backups I mentioned without more details, then you shouldn't be rooting your phone.
  3. I will be assuming that your custom recovery program is SP Recovery.  If it is not, you will have to search for information about your specific recovery program, or see step 7 to flash SP Recovery.  Refer to steps 12 and 13 of the "Detailed Procedure" in the excellent article I linked to above for all the details you could ever want about how to boot into SP Recovery.  Once there, here's how to perform the nandroid backup:
    1. As the program itself so kindly states, use the volume up and volume down buttons to move up and down the list of options, the camera button to select an option, and the power button to cancel or go back to the previous menu.
    2. Select the "backup/restore" option.
    3. Select "Advanced Nandroid backup".
    4. Make sure "backup CACHE" is checked (has an asterisk inside the parentheses, like "(*)").  I would just check all of them if I were you, so you have a full backup in case of catastrophic failure.
    5. Select "Set backup name" if you want to name the backup for easy reference later.  Once selected, use the keyboard to enter the name and press the enter key when finished.
    6. Select "Perform backup".  The program will now back up everything and show progress.  When it is finished, it will say "(done)" and you will find yourself back in the advanced nandroid backup menu.
    7. Use the power button to back out to the main menu.
  4. There are two ways to go about accessing the SD card over the USB cable: 1) Select "reboot system now" and use the main operating system, which prompts you to enable USB access when you connect the cable, or 2) Use SP Recovery to enable USB access.  The 2nd option is quicker if you are still in SP Recovery.  If not, use the 1st option, then start from step 3 below:
    1. In SP Recovery, select "mount options".
    2. Select "Enable USB Mass Storage".
    3. From your computer, go to the drive that is now there to access the SD card contents from the device.
    4. Look for a directory named "nandroid" and open it.
    5. There should be a directory for the backup that you did above.  If there is more than one directory (if you did nandroid backups in the past), check which one has the most recent created or last modified date or has the prefix you specified when doing the backup.  Open the directory.
    6. Within this directory, there should be a file named "cache.tar".  If you do not have a program which can extract .tar files, I recommend 7-zip, which is free and can be downloaded here.  Extract this file somewhere on your local hard drive.
    7. Go to the directory where you extracted cache.tar to.  In this directory, you should find a .zip file for the OTA update.  Mine was named "bede60e851bb.signed-voles-FRG83D-from-FRG22D.bede60e8.zip", but yours may be different.  In my case, there was only one .zip file here, and it was fairly sizable (about 3.5 MB).  I knew this was it, because the name contained the version code for the update ("FRG83D" also saying it was "from-FRG22D", which was my current version).
    8. Copy this update file to the root of the SD card, then rename it to "update.zip".
    9. In SP Recovery, select "Disable USB Mass Storage", then use the power button to back out to the main menu.
  5. If you are not already in your custom recovery program, boot into it.  If you are using SP Recovery and are not already booted into it, see steps 12 and 13 of the "Detailed Procedure" of the excellent article I linked to above for how to boot into it.  Installing this update.zip file follows the same procedure as outlined in the excellent article I linked to above; just follow steps 14, 15 and 16 of his "Detailed Procedure".  This update will take a while.  When it is finished, use the power button to go back to the main menu and select "reboot system now".  This is the last you will see of your custom recovery program until you re-root.
  6. This step--copying the specially crafted update.zip to the SD card--is covered very nicely in step 3 of the "Detailed Procedure" in the excellent article I linked to above.  There is also a link to the specially crafted update.zip file that you will need here, if you do not already have one.  Note that you will be overwriting the previously installed update.zip file.
  7. This beast of a step--flashing SP Recovery (or your recovery program of choice)--is covered very nicely in steps 4 through 11 of the "Detailed Procedure" in the excellent article I linked to above.  There are also links to the RSD Lite application, the SP Recovery program, and whatever else you need to accomplish this here.
  8. This is essentially the same as step 5 above, except the update.zip file you will be installing is different, since you overwrote it in step 6.  This particular update will not take nearly as long.  So just repeat step 5.

And you're done!  Enjoy your updated and re-rooted device!

In the event of catastrophic failure...

Assuming you backed everything up like I recommended to you, then take the following steps to restore everything:

  1. Try booting into SP Recovery.  If it doesn't work, follow step 7 of my procedure above to flash SP Recovery to the device, then boot into SP Recovery.
  2. Select "backup/restore".
  3. Select "Advanced Nandroid restore".
  4. Select "Choose backup".
  5. Select the backup you want to restore.  If there is more than one and you're not sure which one to select, press the power button twice to go back to the "backup/restore" menu, then select "Simple Nandroid restore (latest)" instead.
  6. Check all the restore options that you selected when backing up, or select all of them to be safe.
  7. Select "Perform restore".
  8. When it is finished, use the power button to go back to the main menu, then select "reboot system now".  Everything should be as it was before you started.
  9. If the Nandroid restore doesn't work, you may want to try flashing a complete ROM.  Do an internet search to find a stock ROM.  After copying it to the SD card, you can install it using SP Recovery by selecting "install" then "Choose ROM from SD card".  Afterward, you can restore your contacts and calendar by syncing from your Gmail account, then restore SMS and call logs using the programs you used to back them up, and refer to the apps list you saved and reinstall all your apps from the market.

Tags: , ,

The Brain as a Tool

by myself 20. October 2010 17:51

I was driving home from work today, deeply engrossed in thought, when suddenly, a minor unexpected event happened on the road requiring me to react.  I drive a manual transmission, and the reaction required me to shift gears.  I then realized that I did not know which gear I was already in.  I found this unusual, so I thought, “Why didn’t I know what gear I was in?”

I then realized that I had no memory of how I got where I was.  I remember being stopped behind some cars at a red light.  I was now on the other side of that intersection a ways and was going fast enough to be in 4th gear.  I have no memory of the light turning green, traffic starting to move, starting from a stop in 1st gear, and shifting through 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gears while accelerating and making sure to keep a safe following distance; yet, that is apparently what I did.

My brain had effectively relegated the mundane driving tasks to a pure involuntary action to allow the conscious part of my mind to focus on more interesting things.  When my brain encountered an unexpected stimulus, it notified my conscious mind so it could respond to it.  This was a multitasking feature of my brain that I did not know it had.

I suddenly became aware of my own self-awareness.  There I was thinking about how I didn’t know something about myself.  “But I’m me,” I thought, “how could I not know something about me?”  Yet, the experience was much like using a computer program and discovering a bit of functionality that I didn’t know it had before.

I realized that, as humans, the conscious part of us essentially uses our minds and bodies to accomplish tasks much the same way as a person uses a tool.  It’s easy to see this idea when it comes to the body, since it plays a physical role like many tools often do.  Although it is paradoxical considering that the brain is supposedly the source of consciousness, I am realizing now that the brain is also a tool with capabilities that we must gradually learn how to use.

That makes me wonder: What else is the brain capable of?

Tags: ,

Perception Principle

by myself 13. September 2010 11:25

It’s been too long since my last post.  At first, I was busy adjusting to a new job and getting my affairs in order.  After a while, though, it got to the point that it had been so long since my last post that I knew I had to come back with something big—something worth reading.

Or so I’m telling you.  What really do you know now that you read the above paragraph?  Do you know now that I was holding off posting for a while in order to wait for something big?  Well, not really.  To believe that, you would have to make the assumption that I was informing you sincerely when I wrote the above.  I could have simply wanted to introduce this article in a way that would make it seem profound.  All you really know is that I chose to begin this article by saying that’s why there was a long break between posts.  That’s what you perceived.  The rest are assumptions.

When we are born, we begin to perceive.  That perception yields real information.  Very quickly, we begin to make assumptions based on that information, and we use those assumptions to build our concept of reality.  Eventually, we have such a large repository of assumptions that we forget the fact that perception yields the only real information available to us, and that our assumptions merely make up a work-in-progress understanding of that information.

To illustrate:  When I see a table, what information can I gather?  That there is a table in front of me?  No.  That is actually an assumption.  The ambient light reflects off that table and it has a physical effect on the retina of my eyes causing them to trigger neural impulses which are encoded and transmitted through the optic nerve into my brain.  What I am directly aware of is not the existence of a table, but only the mental image my eyes provide me as a result of the table’s existence.  Or so I have assumed.  In any case, the image given by my eyes is all I can be definitely certain of.  This is what is perceived.

Say I was a brand new human being looking at a table.  Like a newborn, except without even the experience in the womb.  I have no knowledge whatsoever.  After I make the assumption that the image in front of me is of an object, I might wonder, “Did the object exist before I perceived it?”  With no previous concept of reality to base my assumption on, there is no way to know at this point.  If the object spontaneously appeared the moment I looked in its direction, the perception would have been the same.  Then, after I look away, I might wonder, “Does the object still exist even though I no longer see it?”  Again, there is no way of knowing, because regardless of its existence, I would not perceive it.  After looking back and seeing that it’s still there, I might wonder, “Does the same object that I perceived before still exist or is this a new object that appeared as soon as I looked back?”  I start to answer each of those questions with assumptions.  Thus begins my concept of reality and the way it works.

There are things we would now believe to be ridiculous that at one time would have been reasonable assumptions based on available perceived information.  For instance, when I turn around, does my body spin or does the room around me spin?  Either way, the perception would be the same.  Taking that a step further, does the Earth revolve around the Sun or does the Sun revolve around the Earth?  It depends on our perspective.  From here, it looks like the Sun revolves around the Earth.  From the perspective of the Sun, it looks like the Earth is revolving around the Sun.  The latter assumption makes it easier to explain other perceptions about the way objects in space move, so we have established it as “true”, but it really depends on what we define as the point of reference.  When you drive a car, how fast are you moving?  That also depends on your reference point.  We assume the surface of the Earth is the reference point and consider its motion in relation to the Earth’s surface as “absolute”, when really we are also moving around the Earth, around the Sun, within our galaxy, etc.  It all depends on your perspective.  What is our absolute motion?  There's no way of knowing, but since our motion beyond just with relation to the Earth's surface is not relevant while residing on it, we disregard it.

There’s another assumption that comes to mind that for millennia humans actually believed, which we now believe to be false.  In fact, billions of humans lived their whole lives believing it: The Earth is flat.  That’s ridiculous now, since we’ve circumnavigated the Earth and also seen it from space!  But before we accomplished that, it was a reasonable assumption.  From the surface of the Earth, where most all humans remain their whole lives, it appears to be flat.  No one can ever deny this, because it is the perception.  The assumption is what failed the test of time.

The idea of perception and assumption can be taken to a higher level when you consider communication.  A child, for instance, is instructed by his parents.  After learning to communicate, he perceives that his parents tell him things.  Then he perceives that those things ended up being true.  He then makes the reasonable assumption that everything his parents say is true.  At that point, he will begin believing instantly anything they tell him.  However, eventually, his parents will be wrong about something, and when he realizes it, he will be disillusioned.  Why?  Where was the illusion?  His perception was accurate; everything his parents said up until that point seemed to be true.  His assumption that all future tellings would be true as well was the illusion.  What made it an illusion?  The fact that it was faulty?  Or the fact that it was an assumption?

If a person tells you a fact, you don’t perceive the fact; you perceive that the person told you that fact.  Of that you can be certain.  Whether or not that fact is true is an assumption that you will make; just because a person told you a fact does not mean they believe that fact or even that they were well-informed when they learned that fact.  Often, people take things they are told for granted, depending upon the source, without realizing that they are fooling themselves.

Perception is real, assumptions are illusionary.  We revised our assumption about the shape of the Earth when we sailed around it, because our perception then appeared to disprove our previous assumption that the Earth was flat.  Our venture into space yielded perceptions that appear to support our current assumption.  But the fact is we may yet encounter future perceptions that will yield our current assumption about the shape of the Earth obsolete as well.  However, the fact that the Earth appears spherical from space will not change, just as the fact that the Earth appears flat from its surface has not changed.  These perceptions are real and reliable.  The assumptions that we make based on them are subject to revision.

When we realize this, it’s easy to see the need for open-mindedness.  Too often, people hold on to their assumptions, defend them, and impose them on others.  What we see as unquestionable reality is really the illusion.  When another person comes to us with different assumptions gleaned from similar perceptions, who are we to say that our assumptions are better?  It would be like saying “My illusion is better than your illusion.  Your illusion is illusionary; my illusion is real!”  Where is the harm in opening your perception to others’ assumptions?

After all, merely perceiving the fact that someone has an assumption that differs from you does not mean that you now adopt their assumption.  It also does not necessarily mean that they are intending to challenge your assumption—that would be an assumption in itself.  The fact that other people have different assumptions and thus different systems of understanding their perceptions is not a bad thing.  In fact, it’s very useful.  It’s really a miracle that our systems of understanding turn out to be as similar as they are!  But who is to say that the majority are not wrong in their assumption, and only a single human being has a correct assumption?  After all, that’s what happened before—everyone in the known world believed the Earth to be flat, but Christopher Colombus made the assumption that it was round, and he was daring enough to test out his assumption instead of conforming to the popular opinion.  That’s just one example of how a single person’s alternate assumption can be useful.

It may seem that I’m knocking assumptions and saying you should only believe what you see.  However, assumptions are necessary; without them, no meaningful understanding of our perceptions could exist.  What I am advocating is realizing that you are making assumptions when you are making them and what those assumptions are.  By doing so, your understanding of things can reach a new level.  You will in effect have an understanding of your way of understanding things.  When you hold your perceptions above your assumptions, you can be ready to abandon poor assumptions in favor of better ones when you encounter them.  By doing so, you become less gullible and less prone to repeat the same mistakes others have made.

Tags: ,

The nature of money

by myself 8. July 2010 10:55

This may seem like an unusual post for me.  I usually talk about abstract ideas and fantasy, whereas money is concrete and absolute.

Well, that's kind of the point of this post.  Money is a fantasy--an abstract idea.  It's not really concrete.  Rather than writing about it using numbers and complex mathematics, I want to break down its nature, because it is really an abominable, senseless thing.

Consider the following illustration:  I come to you and I ask you for a meal.  I tell you that in exchange for that meal, I will give you a piece of paper that says "I will pay you back with something of value equal to one meal."  We'll call this an "I owe you" note.  This note itself does not have any value.  You can't feed it to a person.  You can't build something out of it.  You can't directly make use of it.  However, in theory, you could come back to me one day and say, "I have this note you gave me which says you owe me" and ask to redeem it for something of value, in which case, I would be obliged to pay.  At that point, I would destroy the note or give it to someone else in exchange for something of value.

Now let's say instead of doing that you go to someone else and ask for a meal, and in exchange, you give them the "I owe you" note that I gave you.  Essentially what happens there is that this third party pays my debt to you on my behalf; therefore, the debt is transferred from me owing you to me owing the third party who now holds the "I owe you" note.  This third party could in turn do the same, and so on and so forth, such that whoever holds the "I owe you" note is the person that I owe.

This is exactly how money works.  Money is nothing but an "I owe you" note.  But who owes who?  Well, in the illustration, since I was the one who wrote the note and gave it in exchange for something of value, I remained the person who owed something of value until I finally paid back the debt.  The person holding the note is the one who is owed.  Therefore, whoever creates the money is the entity which is in debt, and whoever holds said money is the one who is owed.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank creates the money.  What is the thing of value in which they create the "I owe you" notes in exchange for?  Federal Treasury Bonds.  What are these bonds?  Why, they're nothing but "I owe you" notes!  So the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve Bank exchange "I owe you" notes, and that's how money is created.  Then the government uses the "I owe you" notes that it gets in exchange for products and services of real value.  This puts the money into circulation.

So really, whoever holds a dollar in their hand is owed something of value by the Federal Reserve Bank.  However, since the Federal Government owes the Federal Reserve Bank something of equal value for every dollar in circulation, the bank really acts only as an intermediary; the debt is owed from the Federal Government to the people who are holding dollars.

Now here's where it gets abominable:  When the dollar was originally conceived, it represented value in gold.  It was redeemable for gold, which was something of real value.  You could actually go to the government and say, "I have this 'I owe you' note that you gave somebody sometime which got circulated for a while and now I have it.  I want to redeem it for something of value now."  Then the government would say "OK, here's something of value in exchange for our 'I owe you' note."  Then the "I owe you" note is no longer in circulation and may be either destroyed or used to incur a debt again.  That's how it should work, but it changed.  Dollars are no longer redeemable for gold.  What are they redeemable for?  Nothing.  That's right.  The Federal Government essentially made a law saying they can create "I owe you" notes which everyone must grant something of value in exchange for, and also a law saying that these "I owe you" notes can never be redeemed!  They can essentially at any time choose to put themselves in a debt which they never have to pay back.

So all a person holding a government "I owe you" note can do is try to pawn it off on someone else in exchange for something of value.  But how much these other people are willing to give in exchange for what is essentially an empty promise from the government is entirely variable.  It's easy to see how inflation (which is really currency devaluation) results when the money supply is arbitrarily increased without requiring the government to actually provide anything of value in exchange.

Then there's tax!  Imagine that:  Not only does the government stipulate that it doesn't have to redeem its "I owe you" notes, it also stipulates that when you use said "I owe you" to get something of real value from someone else, you have to return part of the "I owe you" back to the government!  Meaning you can't even get something of equal value in exchange for it!  Furthermore, of what use is it to return an "I owe you" note back to the person owing you when they were never obligated to pay back the debt in the first place?  On top of all that, tax is portrayed as a debt that we owe to the government, when in reality, they are the ones who owe us something of value for every dollar we own!  So not only can they arbitrarily create debt and never have to pay it back, they can also arbitrarily reduce their debt by endebting us part of their debt to us!

There is a point to tax, though:  To reduce inflation.  If the government only created new money when it needed revenue, inflation would not be the measly 3% a year that it is now, that's for sure!  Yet, inflation only exists as a result of decoupling the money from things of actual value!  If the Federal Government were required to have in their treasury enough gold (or other things of value) to cover every dollar in circulation--as it originally was--inflation would not exist.  Furthermore, if dollars were still redeemable, then tax would actually free up real resources owned by the government which it could offer in exchange for the additional products and services that it needs!

The reason money seems complicated is not because it is.  It's because it's so much more messed up, immoral, and just plain stupid than people expect it to be.  All the education around money tries to justify that which is in reality entirely unfair at its very core.  Each dollar represents an empty promise--and not just a promise which may be empty, but a promise which by law is defined as empty.  It's amazing how so many people remain unaware of this, including me up until recently.

Tags: ,

Hollywood is reality inverted

by myself 25. June 2010 10:04

While many would agree that Hollywood is an exaggeration of reality, I would argue a few steps further.  While in principle, there's nothing wrong with an entertaining story where everything works out in the end, I believe the fact that we are exposed to such stories repeatedly from an early age tends to warp our perception of reality--especially for those who are disposed to be idealistic.

So is Hollywood reality exaggerated reality or reality inverted?  Well what are some concepts that Hollywood teaches us?

The first one that comes to mind is "The guy and the girl generally always get together in the end."  Have you ever seen a romantic comedy where the main guy and main girl end up with different partners?  In Hollywood reality, that would be impossible.  Even under the most strained circumstances, somehow one of them has a last-minute spur-of-the-moment change of heart and they end up together, because fate would not have it any other way.  Is this an exaggeration of reality?

Well, what is the reality?  A nice girl is looking for a nice man to live happily ever after with.  She meets a nice man, but he's too nice.  He's so nice that he's afraid to show too much interest in her before he knows her well enough to be sure of how he feels, because he doesn't want to lead her on and risk hurting her.  Since he doesn't show obvious romantic interest, she starts thinking of him the same way she thinks of her girl friends.  Meanwhile, she meets a selfish man who decides he wants her, but she doesn't notice how selfish he is.  That's because he, unlike the nice man, has no reservations about leading a woman on before he is sure of his true interest in her.  He does everything the nice man doesn't--buys her little presents, sweet-talks her, all the showy niceness etc.--while missing the essentials that the nice man has--like, you know, actually being nice when it comes down to it.  The nice guy sees her being interested in this other guy, but he's too humble to make a move, thus recommending himself instead of someone else.  The girl doesn't even think of the nice guy as a prospective mate, much less is she aware of the interest he has developed.  She generally goes for the selfish man, and the nice guy gets hurt.  This is a realistic scenario.

It also works in reverse.  The nice guy gets frustrated that girls never recognize how nice he is--or at least how that niceness would make him an excellent mate.  Along comes a selfish girl who sees him as easy prey.  Rather than going for an equally selfish guy, she sees the nice guy as more valuable because she can manipulate him to always get her way.  So she gives him the attention that he never gets from nice girls, and he falls into her lap, refusing to see her true nature.

This doesn't sound like a played-down version of Hollywood reality to me.  It's not "The guy and the girl often get together in the end", it's "The guy and the girl generally don't get together in the end."  Or more specifically, "A nice guy and a nice girl would more likely end up in unhappy relationships with other selfish people than in a happy relationship together."

I think this concept as well as most Hollywood concepts are specializations of the more general Hollywood reality: "Good will always triumph."  The two good people will always end up together.  The good guy always wins.  The bad guy always gets punished.  The honest business flourishes, while the evil business fails.  The real reality, however, is not a less intense version, such as "Good often triumphs"; rather, it's inverted--more like "Evil usually triumphs."  The good guy usually isn't as skilled in evil things like violence, so he will generally lose in a fight.  The bad guy often gets away.  The most aggressive business generally flourishes, regardless of what unfair tactics are used.  Selfishness, aggression, covert operations, treachery, etc. are what increase the odds of success in reality.

I see all this now, but when people are young they are preconditioned to believe the Hollywood reality is real.  Imagine the disillusionment that occurs when they wake up and see reality for what it is.  I must say, I am against shielding children from the reality that we live in.  We are not doing them any service by making them believe in a bogus reality; it will only cause them to make naive decisions early in life and suffer a personal crisis when the disillusionment hits them like a firm slap in the face.

Furthermore, if we grow up thinking that good actions will be rewarded while bad actions will be punished, then we rely on an illusionary external reward system to be our moral guide.  We do good actions in order to gain a reward.  However, when we rarely receive the reward we expect for our good actions while observing others doing bad things and getting rewarded, it often frustrates us to the point where we give up doing good.  It is better, then, for us to understand from the beginning that our good deeds will likely go unnoticed, and that the reason we do good deeds is because it makes us feel good about ourselves, and because some people may appreciate it.  We thus generate our own reward internally.  This idea is sustainable, because we are not relying on a warped sense of reality to motivate us.

Tags: ,

Sometimes I really mean what I say

by myself 5. June 2010 15:55

My parents (and others) have gotten irritated with me on countless occasions due to my seemingly ambiguous responses to questions, such as "nothing" and "I don't know".  I recently had an epiphany, though:  When I say those things, I really mean them.

For instance, I am asked "What are you doing?"  "Nothing."  The natural response to this is "How can you be doing nothing?  I asked you what you are doing, so what are you doing?"  "I already told you, nothing!"  This seems like I'm just trying to get out of answering the question, but it is in itself a meaningful answer.

The word "nothing" has more than one meaning.  Among the meanings are "something or someone of no importance or significance" and "a trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark".  So really, when I say I'm doing "nothing", I mean I'm not doing anything significant or worth mentioning.  In fact, often I pay so little attention to what I'm doing when I'm doing trivial things that I am unable to answer exactly what it is, so "nothing" is my natural and truthful response.  At the same time, those "nothings" that I'm doing may be so transient that, at the point at which I am asked that question, I might just as well say "Answering your question."  Be glad I consider some actions trivial enough not to mention, because otherwise "answering your question" would be my answer every time.

Another example: "Why did you do that?"  "I don't know."  People look at me with a bewildered expression when I shrug my shoulders and give this reply.  The problem is not that I'm avoiding the question; the problem is that the person asking the question is fallaciously assuming that I know the answer.  In reality, I often haven't the slightest clue why I do half the things I do.  Not to drag the MBTI into this, but I'm a P, so not all of my actions are planned out in advance down to every last detail like a J.  Often, I'm like a kayaker floating down a river, just going with the flow to wherever it takes me.  Asking "Why did you do that?" is sometimes like asking "Why did the river take you here?" to which I am confused, because the answer seems obvious: "Because that is the way the river flows.  Did you mean why does the river flow this way?  How should I know?", but of course I do not know the vocabulary (if it even exists) to put that into non-metaphorical terms that are universally understood, so "I don't know" is what comes out, because there is really no other way to put it.

I don't know if there's a conclusion to this post.  I guess I just wanted to share my epiphany.  In any case, I think people shouldn't assume so much.  Next time someone gives a seemingly ambiguous or bewildering reply, try taking it at face value.  It might make perfect sense.

Tags: ,

How intuition works from my perspective

by myself 24. May 2010 10:15

For a change, I decided to write about how I see something without attempting to present convincing evidence.  Instead, it will be just how I see it.  I recently read an older blog entry in The Rabbit Perspective about how ignorance can be useful.  By ignoring the body of established information, you can better contribute something totally different.  Or you could just end up rehashing the same things others have pondered.  I guess we'll see.

One of the dichotomies in the MBTI is sensing vs. intuitive.  As an INFP, I prefer intuition, but I don't believe that sensing people simply don't have intuition.  Rather, when confronted with conflicting information from both sources, they prefer to trust their senses more so than their intuition.

I must admit, though, that despite my virtual obsession with the MBTI and expert knowledge of every other preference, sensing is the one I understand the least.  I believe this is because I rely so heavily on my intuition that it's hard for me to imagine any other way of gathering information.  But for those who don't understand intuition, perhaps I can explain how it works.

A person's mind can be divided into the conscious and the subconscious.  What goes on in the conscious mind is what we are directly aware of.  What goes on in the subconscious mind we are not aware of.  However, the two can communicate in certain ways.  Your subconscious can see what's going on in your conscious mind, and it can "inject" its own data into your consciousness.

So what's the advantage of dividing the mind in this way?  I think of it in terms of computer science.  Up until the past few years, most computers had a single processor with a single core.  Such a processor can only process one instruction at a time in sequence.  This was OK until processor manufacturers hit a wall in the invention of faster processors.  It became clear that it was unrealistic to make a single core faster than it already is.  So they came up with processors with multiple cores.  Then, as long as a process could be programmed to run on multiple threads in parallel, you would have a significant speed advantage.  You could also run more programs at once.

This is how I see the mind.  You can only be conscious of one thing at a time, just like that single core processor.  But by having a subconscious that can do processing in parallel, it improves performance and you can reach conclusions faster.

I see intuition as just your subconscious "injecting" its conclusion into your conscious mind.  This is what gives you that "ah-ha!" moment, where you suddenly realize something, but don't know how you know.  At least just yet.  See, your subconscious mind injects things into your conscious mind in reverse order of how your conscious mind would normally encounter them.  In your conscious mind, first you gather information, then you reason upon it, then you form a conclusion.  If your subconscious mind made you aware of those things in the same order, you would not reach the conclusion any sooner than you otherwise would have.  Therefore, your subconscious mind injects the conclusion first, then the reasoning and information pertaining to the reasoning are injected afterward if you keep your conscious mind quiet enough to listen for them.

This is why I think sensing people do not trust their intuition.  When presented with a seemingly random conclusion from their subconscious, they immediately think "Yeah, but where are the facts to support that?"  In my experience, though, the conclusions of your subconscious are typically well-reasoned and based upon information you've already gathered.  It seems a waste to me to ignore the many insights of the subconscious mind.

That's why I believe my understanding of sensing is poor.  I am a firm believer that each function is an equally acceptable and equally effective way of doing things, but I can't see how sensing could ever equal intuition, so my understanding of sensing must be poor.

Tags: , ,

Ethics of the MBTI

by myself 18. May 2010 09:00

To me, the MBTI is a life-saver.  Before I knew my type and the types of others, I never understood why I am the way I am or why others could not understand me.  To me, it is a priceless tool.  So that is why I hate to see it misused or abused.  While I have my own strong opinions on the subject, I thought it would be better to present them in light of the official ethical guidelines of the MBTI.

Type not trait

While I don't think this is the most important ethical guideline, it's important to understand it first before considering the others.  The ethical guidelines make plain that the MBTI does not measure the strength of preference or the degree of ability.  For instance, it does not say "You're a strong P" or "You're good at F" or even "You're somewhere between I and E".  Instead, the MBTI determines the "clarity" of each preference.  For instance, "You clearly prefer F", "You may prefer P", or "You may prefer I or E."  In short, the test attempts to determine your type and provides a percentage of how sure it is of that result for each preference.

In reality, strength of ability is not covered by type.  That may surprise some, since many personality profiles for types talk about all kinds of natural abilities that they have.  This can be misleading.  A person being of a particular type does not give them inherent skills.  Instead, it predisposes them to develop them.  Take, for instance, hand preference.  How much skill does a newborn baby have at using either hand?  At this point in their life, they may not even know that have hands!  But eventually, when they do learn to use their hands, it's going to become clear that they prefer to use one over the other.  A person is either right-handed or left-handed.  If that child prefers to use their right hand, you could say they were predisposed to become skilled in using it, because they are most likely going to end up having more skill using their right hand than their left, as long as they are allowed to use their preferred hand.  In the same way, if you prefer one function over another, you are likely to develop more skill using it than the other.

So this is why I find it irritating when people use phrases like "I'm a strong T" or "I'm a weak J", because they are applying a quantity to a type, and it doesn't make sense.  It's like saying "I'm a strong right-hander" or "I'm a weak left-hander" or even "I'm a weak woman, so I have some manly traits".  A person is either a man or a woman.  It doesn't matter what traits you develop or even if you resemble one.  You're one or the other.  How strong you are in the various functions is a matter of functional analysis, but it is not part of type.  Type is only which functions you prefer.

Own best judge

The MBTI ethical guidelines establish that only the individual him- or herself is the best judge of their own type, even beyond the MBTI results.  The reported result of the MBTI is referred to as a "working hypothesis".  How the process is supposed to work, according to the guidelines, is that after the questionnaire is taken, the individual is given an understanding of the four dichotomies to form their own hypothesis of their overall type.  Then using the differences between the hypothesis and reported type, as well as any reportedly unclear preferences, the individual chooses their best fit type by reviewing descriptions of two or more whole types.

This directly counters the common misconception that the MBTI test result is conclusive.  Many people take the test and assume that the result is their official type, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  According to the ethical guidelines themselves, the hypothesis of the individual differs from the reported type 20% of the time.  That is a very significant margin of error!

Some people will take the test multiple times at different points in their life and, since they got different results each time, conclude that their type "changed".  It doesn't mean their type changed.  It just means they responded inconsistently to the test questions.  Also, many take it when they are very young, before they have had a chance to know themselves very well.  An accurate result requires a certain amount of self-knowledge and the ability to decipher between a natural preference and a learned behavior.

No right or wrong

The ethical guidelines also make plain that there are no right or wrong answers, no right or wrong types, and that no preference should be considered better or worse than another.  Type should also never be used to label or evaluate people, since it says plainly, "type does not explain everything."  I have heard all kinds of crazy things from people such as "I don't like Js, they're too rigid" or "Ps are so lazy".  You can't judge someone from their type.  Each preference is equally acceptable, and there is so much room for variation within a type.

The whole point

So I've reviewed some of the ethical guidelines for the MBTI.  You can read them for yourself here if you don't believe me.  When people argue with me about these topics, it brings to mind that what I believe the whole point of types is would be completely undermined if any of these ethical guidelines where removed.  I'll sum up what I believe the point is:

People are fundamentally different in certain ways, they cannot be made to change in those fundamental ways, and they should not, because there is never anything wrong with how a person is fundamentally.

After all, the title of Dr. Keirsey's book on the subject is "Please Understand Me", not "Please Judge Me" or "Please Sculpt Me Into Your Ideal Person".  He dedicates at least a whole chapter of the book to stress that people should be understood and accepted for who they are, comparing people who try to change others to Pygmalion--a mythical Greek sculptor who fell in love with a statue of a woman that he carved, wishing she were a real woman.  We will never be able to sculpt others to be in line with our ideals.  Instead, we should accept people as they are and celebrate our differences.

Tags: , ,

My song in progress on YouTube

by myself 17. May 2010 08:29

My friend Alex ("THE lighting guy") was impressed enough with my song in progress that he decided to use it in one of his videos to demonstrate lighting equipment for his lighting business (Stellar Entertainment & Lighting).  Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58n9anQh3X0

This particular track was my first attempt at a danceable club-worthy anthem, which was to be the beginning of a DJ set so I could start playing some gigs.  It is, of course, still unfinished lol.  I am INFP, after all.  Unfortunately, working 40 hours a week sitting at a computer, working out to stay healthy, keeping up with my friends and other INFP necessities don't leave much time for music.  (I miss the days when I stayed up every night working on music for hours...)

In any case, if you haven't heard much of my music before (since I don't exactly have a huge following or web presence), it's generally moody and ambient, often with breakbeats.  Not exactly danceable...  So giving in to the generic "four-on-the-floor" was quite the experiment for me.

Tags: , ,

Music

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.6.1.0 - FunkyGrunge Theme by n3o Web Designers

 

About myself

I am David Meyer.  I am an INFP.  I am a musician.  I am a software developer.  I am many things.  But as an idealist, I am always progressing towards my ideal self, and sometimes I need to focus on who I am at the present moment: myself in progress.

Page list

    Recent comments

    Comment RSS