Laying off a bit seemed to have helped significantly.  I felt good on test day and was able to overcome the feeling of desperation that comes from doing worse as you try harder to do better.  Ultimately I probably could have gotten a few more points, but I’m not going to complain.  At this point, I have other things to think about.

So anyway, you might want to reference my earlier post about my LSAT studying strategy.  I have a few more months in the U.S. before I leave for the Peace Corps, and don’t anticipate many more posts on this blog until I have returned in two years.  In the meantime, you can check out my Peace Corps blog.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Strategy.

I began by taking a couple of tests to get a baseline. There are two test that you can download from the LSAT website. I ordered The Next 10 Actual Official LSAT Prep Tests as well as Powerscore’s Logic Games Bible and Logic Reasoning Bible. Powerscore has an edge on other LSAT prep providers because they actually license the old test questions from the LSAT for use in studying.  I also ordered 9 of the most recent unbundled prep tests (Prep Tests 42-51).

My initial strategy was rather unstructured, starting with taking the oldest tests first and working through the Logic Games Bible simultaneously. Two important things helped me add some points to my score. The first is that while the LG Bible system is excellent, it is easy to spend too much time on the initial setup of the game and waste time. The system itself also takes getting used to. My first few tests using that system I was consistently five to 10 minutes over the time limit. However, by reducing the time I spent trying to draw inferences in the initial game, I was able to significantly reduct my time.

I also began keeping track of my scores in each section. In the beginning I missed roughly six problems in each logic games section, three or four in each reasoning section, and four in each reading section. After working through the LG Bible and simply practicing with the reading section, I’m down to missing one in each.

Improvements in the reasoning section were more difficult to come by. I began by working through the Logic Reasoning Bible while continuing to take tests, but wasn’t seeing much improvement. After a week of that, I postponed taking tests for a week to focus exclusively on the LR Bible. This focus on strategy for the reasoning section allowed me to reduce the number of missed problems in each reasoning section by one or two. The best part about this is that I get a double bonus for my work in this section because there are two reasoning sections on each test.

I also set up a spreadsheet of each problem in the reasoning sections, classifying it according to the LR Bible categories and indicating if I got it right. This has allowed me to focus more heavily on those categories of questions I get wrong most often.

My overall strategy hasn’t been particularly complicated: find the areas where I do the most poorly and focus on them. As these areas improve and returns to effort decrease, shift to the new worst area. I see several other things as having made a big difference as well. Working through each bible before rather than in tandem with working through prep tests is when I saw the biggest increases in my score. Additionally, I choose not to focus heavily on time after my first couple of tests. While time is an essential aspect of the LSAT, I think getting the process down in the beginning allows for substantial increases in speed later on. By focusing on time early on, you cheat yourself of a full analysis process for each problem. Simple repetition is a big factor as well. At this point I’ve taken thirteen tests, and I’ve noticed patterns that allow me to move more quickly and confidently in answering each question.

With one more week to study and eight more prep tests, I’m hoping to increase that a few more points before I take the test on June 17th.

There is other interesting stuff on LSAT strategies from sites such as the forums at top law schools and the LSAT Discussion forums.

The whole process has been an interesting experiment in testing how trainable standardized tests are. I tend to blow of studying for standardized tests, and haven’t ever studied for a standardized test as methodically or thoroughly as this one. As a consequence I expected this test to be rather trainable, as I’ve always thought about standardized tests. While my score has certainly improved, it has not been as large and improvement or as easy a process as I expected it to be. Does this mean that the LSAT is a good measure of a person’s skills in reading comprehension and logic? Is the GRE or the SAT a corresponding good measure of general knowledge? Does the MCAT accurately measure scientific knowledge?

I’ve always held that standardized tests were somewhat bogus, and I still think that as a measure of intelligence they are quite lacking. But perhaps if their scores are taken with a grain of salt, that is, with the recognition that they are only measuring the specific skill set associated with answering the types of questions on the test, they can be a useful tool for evaluating potential students.

In the end, the test’s usefulness as a predictor of student success seems dependent on how well the activities of students are similar to the test taking process. In law school the LSAT is supposed to be an excellent measure of student success. But is this because the people who do well on the test are simply good at taking tests, since in law school grades are dependent on your final? I worry that we correlate intelligence with test-taking ability, when the reality is almost certainly more subtle.

Anyway, I will have to present some data on my score improvement after the thing is done with.

Good luck to the rest of you test takers, and to you non-test takers trying to make your way.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Strategy.

The Design Process

I have to begin by asking myself how I use my computer. From there, does it make sense to have an icon-based desktop (I click icons to start programs) or a menu-based desktop (I click a menu that lists my programs that I select)?  Do I want files on my actual desktop, or is it better if it is kept clean?  Do I want a taskbar?  What kinds of information do I want continually displayed?

Regardless of whether I’m using icons or menus, I usually put the programs I use most often in the easiest place to access.  But I realized that the ease of starting a program shouldn’t be based just on how often I use it, but also on how often I close and restart it during a typical session.

For example, I use a web browser basically every time I start a session.  But I also never close it once it’s open.  So while the number of times that I start the web browser is higher than any other program, the number of times per session is relatively low, and in fact, is basically one.

In contrast, I use the terminal often, but not every session.  However, any session that I do use a terminal typically involves multiple terminals and, rarely, closing terminals and starting another one.  So while my frequency overall is lower than for my web browser, my frequency per session is much higher.  The same goes for quick note takers such as tomboy, or quick text editing such as gedit.

So this time around I am organizing my menu in such a way that a terminal, tomboy, gedit, and maybe firefox are at the top of the menu, while my other programs are buried in the typical sub-menu structure under headings like “office”.  The same most-often used programs will get the key shortcuts, along with a generic “run” box.

Why menus instead of icons?  All of this is happening on my laptop, which has a 14″ screen.  As such, I want to keep the entire desktop available for programs.  If I use icons, then I either have icons on the desktop, so I have to move a program that is covering them before I can start them, or I have icons in a taskbar, which takes up permanent space on the top and/or bottom of the screen.

On the other hand, a menu can be brought up with a click anywhere on the desktop, or with a key shortcut, and allows quick access to any program that I need with either the keyboard or the mouse.

Which actually brings up another point: minimizing the need for a mouse.  Touchpads are abominably slow, and there are times when I don’t have a usb mouse with me.  It’s much easier if I can start a program with several keys than by navigating via touchpad.

Finally, there is the multiple desktops aspect.  My use of additional desktops hasn’t changed much since I started using linux back in my first year of college.  I have one desktop for terminals, one for text, one for web, and one for media.  I think this setup is pretty standard, and using ALT+Left or ALT+Right to switch desktops and CTRL+Left and CTRL+Right to move programs between desktops, it’s very easy to effectively have 4 separate spaces that are very fast to switch between.  I wonder though if there isn’t a better setup for these somehow.  At the very least, the order of the desktops can be important.  I’m often referencing the web when programming, writing, or playing with my distribution, so there is a question of whether the web desktop should be between the terminal and text desktops, or to one side.  I’m not sure what the best answer is.

Of course, a lot of this is heavily dependent on the fact that my work is heavily text-based.  If I was doing graphics work, I may want a different setup.

In addition, whenever I do these distribution change and corresponding desktop redesign phases, there is always a little voice telling me that no matter how much time I save by having a key shortcut to start a terminal and all my other little tricks, it’ll never make up for the 20 hours I spent designing the whole thing.  But then, the design process isn’t entirely utilitarian anyway.  A big part of it’s fun is trying new things and new looks.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Ideas, Technology.

This is a chronological list of all the things you have to do from the time you apply to the time you leave. I will add to it as new things come up.

Make sure to use online forums and other resources as you consider Peace Corps and go through the application process. They are great for answering questions and providing support. The Worldwide Peace Corps Blog Directory is a great place to find writings by PCVs (Peace Corps Volunteers). Yahoo groups has several Peace Corps groups, including peacecorps2, where many excellent topics are discussed. Along those lines, consider joining the facebook group futurepcvs if you use facebook.

• Thinking about applying. There are lots of difficult, personal (and interpersonal) questions here. Thinking about them now can save trouble later.

• Applying. Generally done online, though it can be done on paper. You need your references to fill out a form online. Allow at least a few weeks.

• Interview. Expect some typical questions about what you want to do, why you want to join, etc… but also be ready to discuss how you will make cultural adjustments and what coping mechanisms you might use to deal with stress.

• Legal Clearance. Requires fingerprints and a background check. Nothing serious here. Takes only a day, but allow maybe a week to actually submit it.

• Regional Interview and Nomination. A regional director called me to discuss a couple of different nominations and get my thoughts on them. I think this was three weeks after I submitted my legal documents.

• Medical and Dental Clearance. Getting medical clearance can be a pain if you suffer from some conditions. It is made easier if you fill out all the paperwork before you visit the doctor/dentist, and bring everything with you so that they can do everything in one visit. I think mine took two visits because they didn’t have a polio vaccine the first time. It took me over 3 months because I waited to make appointments, so be proactive with this.

• Placement Office Contact. A placement officer will call or email at some point to discuss your position and get a better feel for who you are and what you can do. This can be months after you get medical clearance, and the wait is very difficult. Message boards can be a great place to commiserate with others in the same position. Try not to bug PO’s and don’t give out their contact info. They are often behind and very busy.

• Invitation. Your invitation arrives in a big blue plastic binder. It’s very exciting. You have 10 days from the time you receive it to reply by calling your placement officer and telling them you accept. Make sure you really consider it, because they will ask you some questions.

• Post Invitation Paperwork. Includes applying for a passport and sending off a resume and aspiration statement.

• Make Travel Plans. Peace Corps contracts out their travel plan work to a private company. Roughly 4 weeks before your staging, they send you a staging kit that includes information on how to make your travel plans to get to your staging city.

• Staging. From what I gather, basically two days of ice-breakers and paperwork.

• Departure. After 2 days of staging, you leave for your country of service.

That’s it. All told it will take me a full year. Primarily because I started a year before I wanted to leave, but also because I didn’t complete my medical clearance as quickly as I could have.

Good luck.

-zot

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | 2 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Peace Corps.

Thanks.

-zot.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Fun.

I know this isn’t an exact fit. It is of course possible, as we are increasingly finding, to learn new skills and modes of behavior as an adult. But it is much more difficult.

The brain has a natural limitation in terms of it’s capacity, perhaps defined most literally as the number of possible connections between neurons. When we are young there are plenty of unused connections available to develop new capabilities.

But at some point, most of our neurons have been used in one way or another. We can still learn new things, but it is more difficult. It is easier to strengthen the connections already existing, and perhaps make new connections between existing groups of neurons.

Then, as we age, we reach the limits of our capacity and have to start re-wiring to make room for memory or any new skills we are still managing to learn.

I think its an interesting idea because it suggests that it is necessary that as we age we become forgetful and less mentally agile. Retaining the ‘youthful’ abilities of the brain would require giving up a set of previously made connections.

There is also the sense here of a neural network sagging under the weight of it’s own connections.

I mention all of this because, as an almost-thirty-undecided human, I am waiting to hear from the peace corps regarding an invitation and filling the time with thoughts of law school (and/or grad school) after the peace corps. But at what point does it make more sense to focus in on a subject I already know than to continue trying to learn completely new ones?

I like to think that we are free to pursue new avenues for as long as we like, but is there some natural limit in which the decreasing returns to scale yield increasingly small returns for my time? Or by learning new fields, am I keeping my brain agile and young just by virtue of exercising it?

I don’t know very much about neurology, so someone can probably correct some misconceptions I have here.

-zot.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Ideas.

I was gearing up the other day to start working on new projects again, and went over my primary goals for 2007. It turns out I did ok. I was officially out of debt in November (not counting the dreaded student loans), made a lot of progress on projects, have been running, and maintained a pretty healthy diet. I could have done better, especially without the devil game referenced above, but I’m not as disappointed as I thought I would be.

Which brings me to two different but related thoughts. First, I feel like my life is composed of a number of cycles. It’s vary noticeable with respect to my work on individual projects. I tend to have a few months of hard work and extreme motivation, followed by a few months of a lack of enthusiasm. But there are other areas: exercise, games, jobs, etc… In fact, I’m starting to think that I only enjoy a particular job for about 2 years before I start to get bored. I spent two years at REMI, have spent two years at BBER, and am now looking at spending two years in the Peace Corps (by the way, I received my medical clearance the other day).

The second thought is about my expectations as I pulled up my list of personal goals for 2007. Why did I feel like I had failed? Are we predisposed to feel unsatisfied with our efforts? To some extent it seems like this is common-place, even in areas where other people think our work is spectacular. At work people and clients have been pretty happy with what I’ve done, but I tend to focus on the aspects of any given project that I didn’t explore fully, or had to make uncomfortable assumptions.

So is it just a difference of information? Clients have only the end results of my work to evaluate, and don’t see all the missteps or excluded possibilities. They don’t have access to full information. Is it yet another case of the signal to noise ratio?

Unequal information and the signal to noise ratio have something to do with it, but then why was I convinced of my own failure to achieve my goals? My perfect information of my own thoughts and actions should have kept me online with how I was actually doing. Of course part of feeling like I didn’t do well has to do with the non-trivial impacts of environment and my state of being, which could be related to any number of factors.

But a bigger force was at work. The major source of my disappointment came from my work on launching decyder. I had hoped that by the end of 2007 I would have a working framework for group decision-making, not to mention well-developed web application development skills. In reality I have only a basic framework, and though I know much more than I did at the beginning of 2007, I still have a long way to go.

This means that one goal, ‘launching a decision-based startup’, overrode my other goals and became a proxy for my success in 2007. Why is this? If you asked, I wouldn’t put it above my other goals, especially ‘developing stronger connections with the important people in my life’. But I think there are several reasons why it naturally rose to the forefront:

• It is measurable. My success or failure can be easily discerned by the health of the project, especially in metrics like number of users (0) and income generated (0).
• It has glamor. The idea fits into a society-wide story in which a lone person creates a business with spectacular success.
• It is perhaps most closely related to my future career (in my mind at least). If ultimately I’d like to be more involved in creative idea implementation, this is a good building block for my development.

The other possibility is that we, or at least I, are inherently optimistic about what we can achieve, and pessimistic about what we have achieved. Most people, programmers especially, have a terribly difficult time estimating how much they can accomplish in a given amount of time, often largely overestimating their abilities.

The key for me was that I realized that even if I didn’t accomplish all of my goals, I had made some fairly significant strides in all of them. Perhaps then the point of goals isn’t so much to accomplish them, but to give you something to work towards if you are floundering.

Baby steps

-zot

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | 2 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Fun, Goals, Life Purpose, Planning, Uncategorized.

But in my imagination I wasn’t walking in to my actual office. It was in the same spot, but it was much more high tech, much like the scene of any movie involving the government trying to stop a terrorist. There were several people who worked for me, and I walked in saying “Alright, what have you got for me?” in a very self-confident and assured manner. I was wearing a suit.

In reality, my office is shared with a co-worker, my furniture is modular, and though my computer is pretty high end, there are no write-on screens or anything like that. No one works under me and I am generally the first person in the office. I also biked to work and walked in wearing jeans with my pant legs rolled up.

So my first thought was that it is pretty funny how different my imagination of what was going to happen was from how it actually happened. But then I got to thinking on how a lot of disagreements and disappointments happen because we envision a situation one way and it turns out to be completely different. I was inevitably setting myself up for disappointment when I imagined walking in the door to my office.

I wonder if visual media, particularly movies, have affected our imaginations so that they tend to vary greatly from real life, or if human imagination has always differed greatly from reality. Indeed, that is essentially the definition of imagination. Are romantic movies responsible for encouraging our imaginations to create scenes wildly out of proportion with reality? Do the thrillers make everyone imagine a job that is more intense and exciting?

While the link between violence in media and actual violence is tentative at best, there is some pretty strong evidence that inaccurate portrayals of car driving make people more risky drivers. In other words, visual media affects, at least temporarily, the models of physics in our heads.

Consider our imagination of how a punch actually affects someone. In movies it takes a fifteen minute fight to knock someone out, but most fights are over after only a few strikes at most. I don’t have a lot of real world experience with fights, so perhaps it’s natural that my imagination would take after the movie version.

The same is true with how a car responds when you take a tight turn at high speeds. Generally it flips over, but in movies a professional driver and special effects ensure that the car screams around the corner perfectly.

On the other hand, my girlfriend thinks I have the causality backwards. Maybe our imagination influences are visual media to be more unrealistic, rather than the other way around.

Most likely it’s more of a give and take: the imagination informs the media and vice versa. But if movies inform our imaginations, maybe that explains why homeland security is so keen on movie script terrorist attacks and why economists are so bad at forecasting.

Just some food for thought. What is your perspective?

-zot

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Culture, Decision Making, Ideas.

Somehow geeks and the socially awkward have become in vogue. I like to think that people are realizing that most people in high school weren’t in involved in sports and cheerleader activities, and that their stories are also interesting. Take for example both Superbad and Juno. They are the first movies I can think of in a long time (in truth ever, but there must be others right?) that accurately capture the awkward phase of being in high school and very unsure of yourself, but focus more on the rejects than the cool kids. The soundtracks for both movies are also notably devoid of songs by top 40 artists. I know the names of four artists on the Juno Soundtrack.

I think there have been lots of movies about the ‘rebel’ elements of teenagers, but few about the ‘normal people’ element.

But it’s not just movies. Music seems to be diversifying away from the big hits and toward increasing eclectic genres. It doesn’t seem to be happening to television, but that shouldn’t be surprising since TV’s supporters are advertisers and so want to cater to the biggest group possible. And younger generations seem to be more interested in watching videos on youtube than in following television series.

I think it’s more than just another reiteration of the ideas behind The Long Tail or the effects of the internet, though both are important here. It’s more of an active embracing of quirkiness with a touch of not taking things so seriously.

Of course, it also has a lot to do with each generation rejecting the views of the previous generation, so maybe ultimately nothing has changed and I’m just getting old enough that my alternative culture bias is becoming the norm. Either way I’m glad of the explosion in variety and tastes.

Oh yeah, and if you know of other movies, books, or music in the folksy alternative geeky genre, let me know. I’d like to broaden my own tastes as well.

-zot

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2008. | Permalink | 3 comments

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Culture.

I hope all of you have a great week.

© zot for The Decision Strategist, 2007. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Fun.