Wordsmith

Another term for Stephen's Dictionary:

Buggling
[verb]
Participle form; to lay on one's back with arms and legs waving in the air while struggling to move or right oneself, as in a bug stuck on its back (wings/shell) that can't flip over onto its feet

Reel Reviews

Nightcrawler -- Jake Gyllenhaal is really good in this movie. In fact, he's so good that his performance almost undermines the premise of the plot; if his Louis Bloom were as sharp and focused as he is made out to be as he descends into the TV news underworld, he never would have been the loser whose desperation drives him to his success in the first place. Leaving aside that Escher knot, this is an absorbing piece of filmmaking, with just enough mixture of action and social commentary to give the viewer a lot to think about and feel at the same time. Definitely worth a look.

Reel Reviews

The LEGO Movie -- There's no way that this movie would have been given nearly the high appreciation it received upon release had it not been for the fact that the animation involved all those billions of blocks. Everything in the film is formulaic; we've seen it all before--the misfit hero, the vaguely inaccessible love interest, the odd mentor(s), the cliches about belief and everyone's intrinsic value, all set in a fantasy world. If the visuals were not as impressive as they are, this brick flick would have passed by without nearly as much praise. But the blocks have a following, to be sure, and that almost guaranteed success regardless of the script. I guess it's not awful, but this one never really grabbed me at any deep level. Chances are you could entertain yourself more with a few buckets of bricks and a free afternoon.

Insanity and Stupidity, Defined

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein  

It is noteworthy that the quote given above is attributed to Albert Einstein; apparently, it takes a recognized genius to get this quote right and actually understand its meaning.

I have heard that line, or something very similar, quoted time and again to define "insanity." The problem often arises when the quote is subtly changed; the line is often misquoted as:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." (emphasis added)

This formulation is in error. Notice the difference at the end of that statement versus the one at the top. "Expecting different results" versus "expecting a different result." That minor change from the plural to the singular may seem innocuous, but in fact it changes the entire meaning of the statement, and indeed changes the statement from a definition of insanity into a definition of a different mental condition: stupidity.

Let's break this down. In both cases in question, the perpetrator of the dubious action commits the same act: he does the same thing over and over again. Nothing changes there. Whether you're stupid or crazy, you will apparently engage in repeated behaviors as a matter of course.

This repeat performance without variation tells the observer something about the perpetrator's state of mind--the question is, what does it tell us, and how? That depends upon the object of the repeated action. Changing the object of the action--doing the same thing over and over again, but with a different set of expectations for the result--defines either insanity or stupidity, depending upon those expectations.

When the expectations are focused on a singular outcome--"and expecting A DIFFERENT RESULT" (singular)--this is a hallmark of stupidity. This becomes clear if you consider a likely scenario for this test. Imagine a perpetrator who has been asked to perform a task similar to a classic IQ test assignment: place the correct peg in the correct hole. Someone who takes a square peg and tries to place it in a round hole of similar diameter is destined for disappointment. If that someone continues to try to place the square peg in the round hole, despite previous failures--because he apparently expects that a square peg somehow should fit into a round hole--then that individual displays a distinct lack of ability to learn from previous experience. That is the very essence of stupidity: inability to learn. In this example, there is one specific goal in mind--fitting the square peg into the round hole--which is never achieved, and that fact is never grasped because of the subject's inability to learn.

Things are different when the expectations change from repeated action to repeated action. When the perpetrator performs his deeds "EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS" (plural), the equation changes. Now the subject repeats his action not due to a lack of learning from past failures; each time the actor performs his action, he does so with a brand new set of expectations for the result. The first time he tries to fit the square peg in the round hole, he may expect it to simply fit. The next time, he assumes the round hole will grow to accommodate the square peg. A third time, he may believe the peg will change shape, or simply disappear the instant it meets the edge of the hole--or any of dozens of other possibilities. Hence, different results. Expectations in such a case are untethered from the specific reality of a square peg not fitting in a round hole; in the perpetrator's mind, anything can happen, each and every time he tries the repeated action. Being detached from reality is, of course, the very definition of insanity.

Thus, when we encounter someone who does the same thing over and over again, determining the repeat actor's expectations for the results of his action is vital to figuring out if the person in question is stupid or crazy. If said person makes a clear declaration that "I will do X, and Y will result" and the continues to do X despite Y never occurring, you can make a pretty safe bet that that person is stupid. Otherwise, without that clear declaration of intentions and expectations, the individual who performs that same action repeatedly without ever getting anywhere--that individual is most likely insane, or at least not entirely in full possession of his proverbial marbles.

What this case study shows is how important it is to get your terms absolutely correct. Being sloppy or lazy with the language--shifting a singular to a plural, or vice versa, without fully comprehending the implications of the difference--can hinder understanding of what's really going on in this world, especially when a formula like Einstein's quote is casually tossed around by people who are not themselves "Einsteins." Modifying one letter--changed and then shifted within the phrase--can make for an entirely different meaning, one that the speaker never intended and that the listener will never fully understand.

Such are the perils of a lack of precision in using the language.

For The Record, Scale Check

You'd think that such a gigantic milestone would merit an immediate post to this site, but no, this picture is from three days ago, Monday June 1. But all distraction and lateness aside, this is very big news--the first time I've stepped on the scale and seen a number below 270 in at least 13 years (2002), and probably more like since 2001 (as my records for my weight back then are somewhat spotty).

Keen eyes will note that this photo was taken in different location from where I usually set up the scale for these weigh-ins, and that perhaps makes this number questionable, if not completely invalid. Maybe. For the moment, I will let this stand as an official entry; presumably, future weigh-ins will confirm the reality of this reading.

And I do expect future--near future--weigh-ins to do just that, since I have hardly been working at all lately, and the upshot of that has been me getting a great deal more exercise than had been usual. So I won't be surprised if I get to see some even smaller numbers soon.