February 27, 2006

On Walking

I like to walk. I live in San Francisco. Deduce for yourself then, dear reader: I am a happy man. Indeed, San Francisco has to be one of the great walking cities of the world. Concentrated within a 7x7 mile sachet at the edge of the San Francisco Peninsula, its proximity boasts a dynamic hodgepodge of wildly individual and historically significant neighborhoods, hills serving as both subject and vehicle for expansive vistas, lovely parks and a generally temperate climate. I could go on, but I must admit: there is far too much in this subject to condense into a single post. So I’ve decided to “run her through” (not a subtly-sexual pun but in the British sense of the phrase) in a series of periodic installments dedicated both to the art of walking itself and the myriad wonders of doing so in San Francisco. Today, I hope to offer a brief introduction to both.

Humans have been walking for at least five million years, and over this stretch of time we’ve developed a number of clever ways to apply, modify and even circumvent this ability. Today, people walk for the purposes of travel, income, exercise and (quite farcically) competitive sport. Certainly all of these approaches are entirely valid though, in my opinion, only harness a fraction of walking's potential. My manner of walking seems to encompass each of these categories and, because of this, is difficult to define or codify in a way that offers the reader a trim understanding of what I’m getting at.

It may help to note that I am certainly not the first to embrace this approach to walking. The French have their Bourgeoisie “strolling,” the English their free spirited “rambling,” Thoreau wrote an entire treatise on the blessings of “sauntering” in 1862, while Buddhist sects have espoused “mindful walking” for centuries. And though I have an admittedly summary understanding of the role walking played in world cultures throughout history – a fascinating sociological issue that I hope to explore in greater depth with time – the ideals present in each also lie at the heart of my own love for walking. Quite simply, it is the notion that walking forges a connection between person and place, mind and body. It is the only way to truly come to know a city, and it is a remarkable way to come to know oneself.

With this as our foundation, a spectrum of approaches to walking becomes clear. Over to the left (or right, if you are so inclined), there is what I might call the “controlled” approach. The path is clearly laid out beforehand, the areas of interest highlighted and, in a sense, one has already begun to construct their experiences, reactions and conclusions well before even stepping foot outside. At the other end of things we have the “wandering” approach, in which one walks without preconceived direction, background (historical or otherwise) or goals beyond perhaps the experience of place and self. The pros and cons of both are immediately apparent, and the trick is to find the perfect balance between the two to suit individual taste, circumstance and mood. Personally, I love to seek out the forgotten roots of an area through history. Resources such as Rand Richards’ accessible “Historic Walks in San Francisco” or the public library’s phenomenal “City Guides” walking tours (free of charge, best on weekdays) are fantastic starting points in this vein. And yet, it is only after fully assimilating this knowledge, training my eye to pick up the faint specters of what once was, that I can return to the balance of my walks and focus again on the greater picture, experiencing reality through place and time.

--------------------

"The best way to know a strange city is to walk everywhere... Like all museums, Rome is hard on the feet, and the hills of Rome, though scarcely apparent to the motorist, are real enough, especially in the evening. On my way back, footsore and weary, I would sometimes think that the hills of Rome had been multiplied by ten or twenty. I would lie in bed at night and remember a day's walk, piazza by piazza, church by church, fountain by fountain, and palace by palace... and so, gradually, the map of Rome took shape in my head, and I realized that a city which had seemed so large at first was, in reality, so small that I could walk across it from the Pincian Gate to the Gate of St Paul in less than an hour." - H.V. Morton, "A Traveller in Rome." (1957)

February 23, 2006

Things That Taste Better Than They Smell Department, Cherimoyas Edition

I have a tendency to buy exotic looking food items whenever I see them in a market, especially when I have no idea what they are. This week's purchase was a cherimoya.

As the cherimoya became ripe over the past few days, my apartment was greeted with the powerful smell of rotting vomit, bringing back fond memories of living with five other frat boys sophomore year in college.

The fruit, however, tastes sublime. It is moist, tender, and sweet, with a flavor that resembles pineapple, mango, and peach. I didn't notice any avocado-like notes, although perhaps that association is more about texture.

Would I buy one again? Not at the price I paid. (I really need to stop putting exotic items in my basket at random.) But it was delicious, and is another example of why moving to California has been such an interesting experience.

(I may make this a recurring topic. Stinky cheese and nam pla, i.e. fish sauce, are obvious items to highlight.)

February 22, 2006

How do I determine which taqueria to try?

I've just completed my fifth month of living in California. Given the stated purpose of this blog to be about perspectives of young East Coasters just moved to the Bay Area, and given that my largest personal interest right now is food, I thought I'd write down some thoughts on California food that I've gathered over the past five months.

Firstly, the produce is great. I don't have an organic fetish by any means, but I appreciate having so many local farmer's markets for specialty fruits and vegetables. I also frequent the Milk Pail in Mountain View for amazingly cheap basic produce and Trader Joe's for Whole Foods-like products at sub-Safeway prices.

Secondly, Silicon Valley has many ethnic restaurants, and it's been a pleasure trying new ones as often as I can afford.

This brings me to my question: how do I determine which taqueria to try? And, perhaps more importantly, how do I know what to get once I'm there? (This question of course applies to all cheap ethnic restaurants, but I will use taquerias as my example because of their California preeminence.)

There are literally dozens of taquerias within a short drive of where I live. I've tried a few so far, but to be honest I don't have the time or the money to sample the goods at dozens of places to determine my favorite tacos al pastor or carnitas burrito.

One traditional guide for dining advice is the local newspaper food columnist, but the kind of ethnic places I'm seeking are generally ignored by the dining section.

In contrast, the democracy of the internet would seem to be the perfect filter for the kind of information I'm looking for. One website that has become a first stop whenever I'm seeking food advice is Chowhound , a public message board of food reviews that often focuses on local favorites. However, Chowhound is a pain to navigate and it takes a lot of effort to distill advice from the message threads.

Perhaps a trusted expert is the right solution? When I lived in the Washington, D.C. area this past summer, I had great success following the advice of Tyler Cowen and his ethnic dining guide, but I haven't yet found anything so comprehensive or reliable out here.

Essentially, there is an information problem. I am seeking knowledge on local taquerias, but there is really no easy way for me to make the best ex ante decision. I can only rely on advice and intuition, and thus I will inevitably make mistakes in my eating choices.

I have several thoughts:

1. Very basic economic theory assumes that individuals only make purchases when the expected utility exceeds the expected cost. I make purchasing mistakes more often than I want to, and thus if I made better decisions my total utility would be greater. Review sites like epinions help, but it is still too much effort to become fully informed, and thus I remain rationally ignorant.

2. It is fun to discover a great restaurant. I would lose the pleasure of the search if I knew the answer ahead of time.

3. Is it possible to objectively determine the "best" taqueria? Of course not, but I do believe it is possible to categorize certain taquerias as being objectively exceptional. Determining which of these exceptional taquerias is the best is the subjective decision. My goal in the taqueria search is to narrow the local list down from dozens to the handful that are worth exploring. The internet has made this quest easier for me than for previous generations, but it is still too difficult.

I would categorize this taqueria dilemma as a "good problem". My arteries may beg to differ, but I am better off for having so many taqueria choices.

February 20, 2006

Back At It...

Welcome back, all. I'd like to thank John for spearheading this renewed effort with an incredibly effective gimmick and a tinge of humor (essential to all good political directives). With just a little momentum, I see a bright future. Secondly, I'd like to offer a public apology. My first post in 4 months will be an elaboration on John's recent post "Suboptimal Usage of Facebook.com". It is neither my intention, nor in the spirit of this endeavor, to mask criticism as creativity, which is to say: I still firmly believe in the reigning power of artistic/intellectual creation. I do have some original pieces in the works and have no intention of wasting my energies eroding the innovation of others.
And so, with God (and the occasional reader) as my witness, onward...

February 19, 2006

Response: Suboptimal Usage of Facebook.com

While I applaud my counterpart for his deft fusion of academic disciplines (how post-modern of you, sir) in his analysis of Facebook.com, I must offer some qualification of his eventual conclusions. There is without doubt a dearth of Facebook photograph posting amongst our friends of the graduating class of 2005. However, I would suggest that this is more a result of the ever-progressing role of technology in human social interaction than an intrinsic flaw in Facebook's approach.

As mentioned, I was delighted to see Mr. Vermylen examining modern social issues through the lens of economic theory. Nevertheless, I believe this model ultimately falls short of a full explanation. To extend this analysis, I offer, instead, a far less innovative approach based upon Sociological theory (predictable as it may be it is a decidedly logical step, taken by one of the forefathers of economics, Adam Smith, in the 18th century). I agree that the value of a personal picture - especially one that idealizes physical features (windswept hair and a dynamic smile that tells of the thrill of Scientific research abroad), dramatizes place and circumstance (field study in Morocco) - has inflated the number of personal pictures posted. Facebook is a means of social communication in which individuals constructs an image (in words, pictures and associations) of themselves that is then presented to the community, and, naturally, digital photographs of oneself are an essential element of that construct. It is merely the newest innovation in a long history of self-serving media spin. Yet, in terms of social value, human beings inherently place a comparable value on connections to other members of that community (in what Durkheim might call a manifestation of "Collective Representations"). In the limited means offered by Facebook.com for the self-construction of image, pictures of, or with, others are often just as valuable as self-portraits.

If there is equal value (be it in social or economic terms) to the publishing of self- and group photographs, the noted discrepancy amongst the class of 2005 must lie elsewhere. I point to the emerging role of web-based technologies in social interaction. While programs like America Online Instant Messanger and Hot or Not.com (which, coincidentally, was the subject of a hilarious newspaper expose by Mr. Vermylen years ago) are relatively old and have been well-integrated into the social lives of many "modern" teens and twenty-somethings, the Facebook is quite new to the scene. Created only in February of 2004, there was hardly the time for the class of 2005 to adjust to the service let alone place it at the foundation of essential social structures and networks. If one looks to subsequent classes, this becomes less and less the case. My own brother, Connecticut College class of 2009, gives and receives "friendships," personal and public messages and, most importantly, boasts almost one-hundred pictures of himself and his friends [for the sake of journalistic integrity as well as comedic value I've included a link to his Facebook page (Peter Courtemanche Everyone), though most will be denied access]. With each entering class, for better or for worse, Facebook becomes an ever-more acceptable, if not essential, social tool. No need for subsidies, dear John, for it seems that Facebook resembles the modern world economy far more than we may like to think: for in the end all value is created by social bonds, interaction and struggle.

February 16, 2006

On Suboptimal Usage of Facebook.com by College Alumni

A testable hypothesis: college graduates underuse facebook.com.

Why do I think this is true?

This past fall, Facebook initiated a new photo album feature. It's a really well designed addition to the site, with the ability to easily upload pictures and tag individual photos with the names of the people who are in them.

So, in November of 2005, I posted an album of some great pictures that I took in Morocco the previous March while on a geology field trip. We were a tight bunch in the Geo department at Princeton, and I expected many others to post their trip photos right away. But as I write this in February of 2006, no Morocco photos have been posted by others on the trip, and in fact the only photos of me on all of Facebook are the ones I posted myself.

What gives? Although I'm not a student in economics, I do have a good background in the subject, so I will postulate a bit on this situation using some simple economic principles. When someone posts photos on Facebook, value is created not just for the individual who does the posting but also for all individuals who are in the photos, and to a certain extent for the community as a whole. However, the others in a photo don't compensate the individual who does the posting. This leads to underinvestment in photo posting, and thus a suboptimal level of Facebook usage. In economic terms, there is a positive externality associated with posting photos. Since I as a photo poster don't gain much value by putting online more photos of my friends, I don't make an extra effort to post that many photos, and thus my friends don't have as many photos online as they'd probably like. In the same way, there aren't as many photos of me from Morocco as I'd like.

What would I expect to see on Facebook then? An individual mostly posting photos of him- or herself. I haven't done a systematic study, but from my limited Facebook photo browsing this seems to be true.

Other thoughts: The positive externality is more likely to lead to Facebook underinvestment for college alums. For those still in college, there are greater networking and social benefits to being active on Facebook. Thus, underinvestment is likely to be smaller for those in college and is likely to increase the longer one is out of college.

Is there a solution to this suboptimal photo posting problem? The classic solutions to positive externalities are to either privatize all the benefits or provide subsidies as encouragement, but in this case I don't see photo posting markets developing (and in general I don't think subsidies are a good idea). So maybe I should I simply pay my geology friends to put all their pictures online, or else just socially shame them until more shots of my handsome visage are posted. Some market failures simply can not stand.

February 15, 2006

Try, Try Again

Ned and I have decided to give this blogging thing a go again. As I wrote to him earlier this month, "If you're in, I really do think we can create something interesting with major added-value for people who come across our site."

Even more importantly than enriching the lives of would-be readers, I hope we create some value for ourselves and have some fun with this thing. We're going to try for about a month and evaluate our progress then. I stand by my first post back in November, and look forward to writing more.

Let the fun begin...