Memory Lane
Recently, I had to provide my college transcript to a foreign client, to prove my credentials. Since I was ordering a transcript for them, I requested a second copy for myself, for a refresher on an experience that continues to recede in time and memory.
Hampshire College provides written evaluations instead of grades; thus what arrived was a 17-page packet, with copies of the core evaluations from my time there. (Thankfully, certain things – like my self-evaluations – were not included.) I have not read the whole package cover to cover, but scanning snippets has been a good reminder of the pleasures of my experiences there, and of how much I learned.
One paragraph in particular jumped out at me, because it relates so directly to aspects of my current life. In the evaluation for the completion of my Division II, the Committee wrote (in part) the following:
The substantial body of written work that Sascha included in his Division II portfolio documents his fine intellectual growth and the development of his academic skills. ... His short papers were particularly sharp and perceptive. His longer research papers at this first stage of his Division II were also promising ... but they also tended to need more systematic development. It seemed that once Sascha conceived of his thesis or interpretation, that he preferred to present it quickly and journalistically, rather than developing a mass of evidence in support of his conclusion. It is to his credit that Sascha recognized this characteristic of his work and sought to redress it.
Here I am, years later – and this analysis of my writing still rings some bells. I am certainly a better, more confident, careful, and fluid writer than I was then; my style, language, and tone have all evolved (as one would hope and expect). But in pinpointing my approach to “quickly and journalistically” articulating my thesis, the evaluation reminded me of two things in particular.
The first is the importance of intellectual flexibility, in writing as in most things. It was undoubtedly true at the time that I tended to punch out my thesis at the beginning of a paper, and it was also true (as the evaluators noted) that I tried to self-correct for this “problem.” (A problem in the social sciences, anyway.) Now, as an adult for whom writing is so much a part of my life, my approach varies according to the situation. What Hampshire helped me learn was the application of different styles for different settings, a set of skills that make it possible for me to move easily between writing reports for clients, writing for a publication like The Art Newspaper, and writing about politics or other elements of contemporary society.
The second reminder from this packet of evaluations is about the tremendous value of Hampshire’s structure. The professor(s) writing the evaluation I quoted knew me – well. At the time they wrote those words, we had spent three years working together, reviewing my progress and my intellectual and academic development, and with their encouragement I learned, I challenged myself, and I learned some more. Had my transcript consisted principally of a listing of courses and grades, I would not have had the same opportunity for reflection all these years later. In turn, I might be less aware of the evolution of my own writing, an awareness that helps me be a better writer now and will continue to help me in the future.
I have written about Hampshire before, and I continue to believe it is the right school for some people – and definitely not the right school for everyone. For those lucky enough to attend, I highly recommend a similar trip down memory lane. Not too soon after graduation; wait just long enough for some transformational event to help put a new perspective on the world. Then take a peek back at the person you once were, and might still be today, and see how it feels.
Words, More Words
In the midst of everything I do on a daily basis, it is sometimes easy to forget that, ultimately, words are my business: ideas and concepts, clearly expressed through words, are the engines upon which my life depends. If this sounds rather obvious, I will not argue the point! Still, it is important to remind myself periodically that the clarity of language can be subjective, and to look for opportunities to improve my writing—even while recognizing that subjectivity.
Therefore, I was thrilled to stumble across the “Simple Measure of Gobbledygook” or “SMOG Calculator.” The approach was developed in 1969, by clinical neuropsychologist Harry McLaughlin, who described his formula in plain terms: “...count the words of 3 or more syllables in 3 10-sentence samples, estimate the count’s square root, and add 3.” The online version of the tool makes it possible to submit texts for an instant analysis of the writing level, resulting in a score on a scale of 1 to 19+. The score correlates both to reading level (e.g., junior high school or university degree) and to a sample publication that fits the reading level (e.g., Reader’s Digest or Atlantic Monthly).
The SMOG calculator then reminded me of a similar site I came across a few years ago, the so-called “Gender Genie.” This tool uses a word analysis algorithm (developed by Moshe Koppel of Bar-Ilan University in Israel and Shlomo Argamon, from Illinois Institute of Technology) to determine the gender of the author based on the presence and repetition of certain words. Again, a submission box generates an immediate analysis, a pair of scores showing the female / male weighting of the text, a list of the critical words that were evaluated, and the tool’s final conclusion about the author’s gender.
Taken together, these two tools can be addictive. To start, I tested eight items I have written, with interesting results: my average SMOG grade for these five items was 15.17, which places me between the “Some college, New York Times” range (a SMOG score of 13-15) and the “University degree, Atlantic Monthly” mark (a score of 16). This sounds right to me: I would say that these texts should be generally accessible to a reasonably educated audience, without being as obtuse as “IRS code,” the highest (or, worst) SMOG score available. (See below for a summary of the specific writing samples I tested, with links to those pieces, and the cumulative and average scores from each tool.)
The Gender Genie guessed I was male 88% of the time, though the difference between the male and female scores on certain texts was in one case as low as 39 (in favor of a male author) and in another as high as 1381. If one takes the science behind the Genie as meaningful, these results suggests there is great variability in the gendered language I use in my writing. I’ll leave aside broader implications about my personality, but for fun, I did test a more personal piece of writing: the Gender Genie pegged the author as female by a lead of 46 points.
***
Over time, I have come to two different, but complementary, conclusions about writing. The first conclusion is that good writers tend to be confident that they know what is readable, and that they have a good handle on the clarity and calibration of their writing to specific audiences. At the same time, good writers are also aware of when their writing needs the work of an editor (even if they do not always take advantage of one). From my own experience, I have developed various processes to evaluate my written work—from different approaches to re-reading, to knowing to whom I can turn for an edit—and each of these steps help identify problems and catch inconsistencies. I also use other tools periodically, and have even been known to enjoy writing-style brain teasers like this one, which help keep me alert to mistakes I may be making.
So it is interesting to me to think about how the SMOG Calculator could be used to evaluate something I have written before I share or publish it, to evaluate very basic, but important, questions: Is this piece of writing as readable as I think it is? Is the language effectively calibrated for the intended audience? Simple formulas can have their drawbacks—but may also reveal very different elements than the more contextually driven feedback provided by a human reader. And while (generally speaking) my gender is irrelevant to much of what I write, there have certainly been moments when (perhaps in recognition of the different styles of language men and women tend to use) feedback from female friends or colleagues has helped me write more clearly and effectively—suggesting that even the Gender Genie could provide useful information.
The late comedian George Carlin once said “Words are all we have, really,” and he had a point. All the more reason to take care with the words we use, and to make sure that we continually evaluate how we use them, and that we are writing (and speaking, too, for that matter) in a manner that most effectively conveys what we mean.
And for anyone interested: the SMOG score for this op-ed? A grade of 15.25. The Gender Genie is convinced the author is male, by a score of 1369 to 667.
***
Writing evaluated for this article, analyzed by both the SMOG Calculator and the Gender Genie: Chinese Torture, Olympic Style
SMOG Score: 12.24 Female Score: 859 Male Score: 1015 In Pursuit of Happiness SMOG Score: 14.6 Female Score: 1069 Male Score: 1532 The Jobs and Education Con Game SMOG Score: 16.78 Female Score: 2799 Male Score: 3132 Women Aren’t Commodities SMOG Score: 17.11 Female Score: 2438 Male Score: 3581 V for Dissociate SMOG Score: 16.42 Female Score: 935 Male Score: 1413 R.I.P. ElinorSMOG Score: 13.49 Female Score: 695 Male Score: 649 Arts & Public Policy - A Book Review SMOG Score: 16.2 Female Score: 1388 Male Score: 1427 On Trends & Statistics SMOG Score: 14.48 Female Score: 835 Male Score: 2216 Average of all the above scores: SMOG average score: 15.17 Female average score: 1377 Male average score: 1871
BudaCatchUp
It’s been a terrible, ridiculous, complicated few weeks since that trip to Budapest. Clearly, things haven't worked to my advantage in terms of writing much either. But as a quick means of catching-up ...
You can read my other piece about Budapest (the one I actually finished) over on the other side.
Goose liver and fruit brandies. If I had to add any specific, distinct, driving, and unforgettable memories to my recollections of this trip, those five words would do it. In three days on the ground in Budapest, I ate more goose liver than I have in the previous three decades. I should add: it was all delicious. As for the fruit brandies, it seems to be a Hungarian tradition to drink them as an aperitif rather than as a digestif, which certainly does set a tone for the meal. By and large, these drinks were delicious, and the quince-flavored variant I had Muzeum Restaurant was a real treat.
Food overall was a highlight. I don’t know what I was expecting – and it certainly helped that one of my guides was a former restaurant / food critic – but everywhere we ate, everything was delicious. Great flavors, very different kinds of flavors than one typically has here, and even different cuts of meat. In my piece on Budapest architecture, I mentioned the strudel we sampled, and I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to have more of this while I was there. We did have phenomenal desserts, too, but not much in the classic vein of pastries (like strudel) that one might associate with Hungary.
That will have to do it for now. But for anyone reading this and considering a trip to Budapest, I highly recommend it. Also, the so-called “art’otel” was a nice place to stay, right on the river bank in Buda and an easy trip over to Pest via the nearby bridges. There’s a lovely buffet breakfast available, the rooms were very nice and modern, and the views east to Pest with the rising sun are just delightful.
This Buda's For You
I'm in Budapest - and enjoying it! Some thoughts on the history, culture, and overall experience coming soon.
Spam Bam
I want to call attention to Placentia, California-based internet company
VPLS and their related company
KRYPT.
They are the single biggest sources of SPAM e-mail I receive. If you do business with VPLS or KRYPT, you should stop. If you are considering doing business with them, please don’t.
Both VPLS and KRYPT have web pages showing their policies that prohibit SPAM or bulk e-mail –
VPLS’s is here,
KRYPT’s is here – but based on the flow of junk to my inbox, these policies are irrelevant.
These two companies seem to do business with a range of spamming clients – and one of the biggest is someone named “Joseph Small.” Mr. Small is the owner-of-record for a wide range of spamming web domains, including (but not limited to):
assiststop.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
metalglivequick.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
mapthissite.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
aidobstruct.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
aboutglivequick.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
newsubset.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
regfinishnow.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
mapthisbase.info – click here for the WHOIS information for this web site
Actually, clicking for the WHOIS info is an exercise in futility, since they all lead back to “Joseph Small” and show his address-of-record as being in Point Roberts, Washington. The listed phone number in these domain records is 250-448-6460, but a reverse search of the number turns up a location in British Columbia – a fair haul from Point Roberts. The listed e-mail address for Mr. Small is info@changedlife.info, but doing a WHOIS search for changedlife.info is basically a dead-end: the records block the name of the registrant and provide a new address, this time for a company based in Westchester, CA.
Moreover, the information that is blocked can’t be accessed even if one tries directly: WhoisGuard, a company that says it hates SPAM, actually enables spammers by sustaining a system in which links of web domains can be managed from a company or individual whose identity is totally protected. In order to report a spammer to WhoisGuard, I have to provide my own e-mail address; but why would I want to do that? And anyway, Mr. Small or whoever he is, does not send his SPAM through the changedlife.info domain, as I noted above – so reporting it would lead nowhere, because that domain appears innocent.
WHICH is why it is so important to report on VPLS and KRYPT. They allow their servers to be used to send these SPAM e-mails and, regardless of who the owner of these various domains actually are, VPLS and KRYPT also have the power to stop the flow of SPAM. If not, they should be forced out of business.
R.I.P. Elinor
My grandmother, Elinor Sachs Mandelson, died last Wednesday, May 21, 2008; she was 95, and in an advanced state of decline both physically and mentally.
Elinor was a complicated woman. Very smart, and educated beyond what was typical for her generation, she tried hard to apply the Dewey(esque) philosophy she learned at Radcliffe College to every area of her life, imparting a clear sense that one should speak truth to power (though she probably wouldn’t have used that phrase). In my experiences with her, it seemed clear that she believed that knowledge and logic could serve as the mechanisms for overcoming life’s hurdles, and I think she felt this particularly strongly where women were concerned: that women had, in some way, an obligation to try harder to be logical and unemotional in confronting life.
But in spite of my ability to articulate this sense of her, Elinor and I never quite understood each other. As a child, I found her stern, and her love of many of the same things that interested me – books, for instance, or discussing politics – never compensated for that feeling that I was always bumping up against her rules. That was one area where her devotion to logic failed her: her own rules, once established, were hard to break no matter the external (or exigent) circumstances.
Later in life – hers and mine – we both tried to push past this early history, to redefine our relationship and find more common ground. It worked, for a time. Elinor took an avid interest in my writing, and since the web was hard for her to access, I took to sending her large-print copies of many of my articles, along with letters about one thing or another. In 2001 alone I sent more than forty letters. Invariably, within a couple of weeks, I would receive discursive replies in her classic long-hand, on the same stationary she had used for as long as I could remember. This was, I think, a cathartic series of exchanges for us both.
I say “it worked, for a time,” because my grandmother’s deteriorating mental abilities made such exchanges impossible after a certain point. I cannot imagine how this degrading experience must have affected her, and can only wonder (or, perhaps, hope) that her decline was maybe less obvious to her than to those around her.
My lingering sense, from childhood through early adulthood, was that Elinor always wanted something from me that I couldn’t seem to give to either of our satisfaction. And I suppose I felt the same way: I wanted a more emotional connection from someone for whom that kind of love did not, I think, express itself easily. I also had developed such a bond with my
paternal grandmother that working harder to evolve my relationship with Elinor did not seem like a priority until very late in her life. We only get one life in which to work out these relationships, and all we can hope for is that we tried our best to do so. Ultimately, I tried, we both tried. What remains now are memories – the very things that, as my grandmother herself discovered, are never as easy to hold on to as we would like to think.
Visual Search
A few years ago, I read about a new kind of internet search engine, which held out the promise of a different, better way of presenting information from the web: as a series of visual worlds, with lines delineating the interconnections between each piece of information, and thus emphasizing relevance. In other words, showing search results from the web as map of the web itself. That search engine was called
KartOO, and from time to time I have returned to it, to see how it has changed or improved.
In the years since, the basic KartOO presentation has stayed the same, while the features and functionality have evolved and expanded. Users can subdivide their search according to specific categories (e.g., images, videos), or zero in on better results by selecting from a “topic” on the left side navigation. Moving the cursor over the results reveals the connecting lines between different bits of information. Scrolling forward generates a new “map,” showing the next set of results and their web of connections. Searches can also be saved for later use.
The reason I keep coming back to KartOO is the hope that it might somehow prove useful – more useful than it so far has. “Visual” searches have an intellectual appeal, a la
mind mapping software, but do I necessarily care that page X links to page Y if one, both, or neither have the information I need? Maybe a system like KartOO is just ahead of its time: maybe the reliability of information within and throughout the internet remains so inconsistent that revealing the relationships is currently more confusing than clarifying. Still, I encourage people to test KartOO: each of us processes information differently, and some may find such visual representations more effective than Google, Yahoo, or other’s straight lists.
That said, I have also wondered when a competitor to KartOO would appear. There are two other visually based search engines of note, though neither functions with KartOO’s level of detail. The first is
Snap, launched about two years ago, which tried to expand upon the basic search approach by providing users with a “preview” of the web site related to each search result, with a list of links and text on the left, and the preview pages on the right. Conceptually, this is used the idea of visual identification to support search: if the preview picture showed a blog, but users wanted a newspaper, it would be easy to dismiss the result and move to the next one.
SearchMe (currently in beta testing, but accessible to the public) takes a similar approach, but with an even stronger emphasis on the pictures. Results show “pages” for the user to scroll through, with the relevant text highlighted at the bottom and literally circled on the page. Recognizing this is not a fully launched product, it’s hard to be too critical – but I found that the search tool itself generated inconsistent results, while the idea of trying to decipher the often-small print on a pictured web page made determining the right result a real challenge.
Neither Snap or SearchMe aims to do what KartOO does, however: they are “visual” search engines only in their reliance on pictures of web pages. For now, as far as I know, KartOO stands alone in trying to map the process of searching the internet.
Users who have comments on these search engines - or recommendations for others - are encouraged to submit them, and relevant comments will be published.
Use OpenOffice.Org