Monday, October 28, 2019

#67 lawn sign, local travels with visitors, arrogance



Good morning!

            We have a new lawn sign (for those of you who are not Facebook friends of mine).



We will have an opinion about *which* functioning adult it should be, as the electoral process continues, but for now this is sufficient.

* * *

            We had a delightful six days with our Scottish friends Rod & Morag.  To get to Minneapolis they took a trip I've always wanted to take:  the Empire Builder from Seattle.  They stopped along the way a couple of times and thoroughly enjoyed the journey.  I told them I was jealous.

            They arrived on a dismal Monday; it was cold and raining.  So we just did a driving trip around the city and went to the Museum of Russian Art, the only museum we could find that was open on a Monday.  We had intended to take them there anyway, so it wasn't a fallback.  (Note to Twin Cities friends:  If you haven't been there, it's well worth a visit.  The largest collection of Soviet-era art outside of Russia.)  I was disappointed in the museum in one sense, however:  the core of the collection, Soviet art, was in storage in order to have other displays.  I think that's a shame—they should *never* have that collection stored because it's the most interesting pieces they have. 

            Because it was still raining and cool, so nothing outdoors was possible, we went to the Blue Door in St. Paul for a beer and burgers.  About as close to a pub as you get in the Twin Cities, with the possible exception of Merlin's Rest on Lake Street.  (I know, I know, there are other places around the area that are pub-like.)

            In trying to decide what visitors from Europe who've never been to Minnesota should see, we decided that the North Shore and Lake Superior are quintessentially Minnesota.  So Kathy found a marvelous lakeside log cabin between Lutsen and Grand Marais, about two hours up Highway 61 from Duluth on the North Shore.  It was so well-furnished and equipped that we couldn't figure out how to run the pull-out dishwasher.  Rod was the only one who could make it work.

On the drive up, we stopped in Duluth to have lunch with our friends Barb & Tom Elliott, who have a home with a back yard on Lake Superior.  I was extremely grateful to Tom & Barb for accepting my invitation to their home; it turned out to be a delightful 2½ hours that included spreading out maps on their dining room table so Rod & Morag could get the "big picture" of Lake Superior and the Great Lakes.  (We learned from Tom that it takes 5 days for an ore ship to go from Duluth to the ocean through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway and that it's a 2500-mile trip.)  I met Barb Elliott through University committee service and worked closely with her for several years; she's one of those people who I quickly realized was able to make decisions that somehow seemed to benefit both the parties involved as well as the University and who garnered extraordinary respect from her faculty and administrative colleagues.  I like it when such people consider me a friend.

            The day before we left Minneapolis it rained about 2 inches in the Duluth area.  That came on top of an unusually wet summer (over much of the state—the wettest summer since records have been kept, going back to the 19th century).  As a consequence, when we stopped at Gooseberry Falls, the water was roaring so loudly we could hardly hear ourselves talk.  (Rod, Morag, Kathy—and lots of water behind them.)  There have been times when the water is so low that one can walk across that site on the boulders.  Not when we were there.

           


            We observed the same phenomenon at the Cascade and Temperance Rivers:  more water and more noise than we'd ever seen and heard.



            On the way home we stopped at the Split Rock Lighthouse, which, I told Rod & Morag, is probably the most iconic representation of the North Shore.  (Do my Minnesota friends disagree with that description?)  The visitor center at the Lighthouse is impressive and it includes a video about its history.  The video is accompanied by a narrative and music that convey a great sense of drama surrounding the events that led to the construction of the lighthouse and its subsequent life.  It is considerably more dramatic than warranted, I thought; it's a lighthouse, for Pete's sake.  But one comes away with a feel-good sense that the lighthouse saved lives and ships that might otherwise have foundered on the reefs of the lake.  (As quite a number did in a storm in 1905, which event is what prompted the shipowners to seek the construction of a lighthouse.)

            As I thought about the lighthouse on the drive home from the North Shore, I realized that it was possible to put a more cynical interpretation on the events.  The millionaire mine owners, ship owners, and steel mill owners were seeing the loss of significant profits when ore ships kept going down on the lake. Yes, I'm sure some of those magnates were concerned about the loss of life, but let's be honest, their primary concern was profit.  So, courtesy of the taxpayers of the country, they got a lighthouse built.  In the meantime, the miners were working in abysmal conditions in northern Minnesota (take the Soudan mine tour sometime) and I doubt the sailors and steel mill workers were highly paid.  It is possible to look at the lighthouse as another example of the taxpayers subsidizing the money-making ventures of the wealthy.  (But on the other hand, I recognize that federal and state governments build all kinds of infrastructure that supports business and industry as well as the general population.  I think the mine, ship, and mill owners could have coughed up the money for their lighthouse, however.)

            Speaking of the wealthy, we also took Rod & Morag to the Mill City Museum.  To have any sense of the history of the city, you have to know its grain-milling history.  We'd never been there and came away impressed.  It's well done, and even features my distant cousin, Cadwallader Washburn (he of the Washburn-Crosby Company that became General Mills in the late 1920s).  Also featured are John Pillsbury (of the eponymous grain-milling and later food company and considered "the father of the University" of Minnesota because he stepped in to save it when it was at risk of going under during the Civil War period).  The museum, in the remnants of one of the huge grain mills, has interesting displays and a funny video history of Minneapolis.  For the locals, I'd recommend a visit, especially if you have out-of-town company.

            We wrapped up their stay with a visit to the American Swedish Institute (which now has a great café) and a walk through Minnehaha Park and along the Mississippi.  I blush to confess that because we had a couple of spare hours, in taking them to the airport we detoured slightly so they could walk around in the Mall of America.  (Yes, we are embarrassed.)  Unfortunately, it has also become a symbol of Minnesota, so it was worth an hour's walk around just to see another part of the culture.  We didn't buy anything.

            We're looking forward to another travel adventure with Rod & Morag at some point down the road.  (We've met them in Barcelona, Rome, and the Lake District of England, and also stayed at their home in Scotland twice.)

* * *

            Researchers at the University of Missouri have been investigating arrogance.  Besides being interesting, at least to me, they also suggest that such research could help in evaluation of personality disorders.  They created a model of different kinds of arrogance; it's novel, so it may not survive later research, but it's an intriguing start.

            The analysis suggest three kinds of arrogance, which they illustrated with a pyramid.

"Individual arrogance—an inflated opinion of one’s own abilities, traits, or accomplishments compared to the truth.  [aka Dunning-Krueger]
"Comparative arrogance—an inflated ranking of one’s own abilities, traits, or accomplishments compared to other people.
"Antagonistic arrogance—the denigration of others based on an assumption of superiority."

            Everyone is arrogant in some way, they contend; the question is how and to what degree.  If nothing else, the six different elements provide a way to measure and confront one's own sense of arrogance. 

            From your superior friend,

            Gary


Sunday, October 6, 2019

#66 10-6-19 activities, ships, genes/environment/luck, psychiatry, secession, bankers, talking in the past, our late cat




Good morning.

            People ask what I do in retirement.  Two activities that have consumed a lot of my time come to an end this month:  helping plan our 50-year high school class reunion and the book of Krystin's writing.

            The reunion, by all accounts I've heard, was a resounding success.  We who planned it were pleased.

The book will soon be available on Amazon dot com, Diabetes Ignored: Krystin's Life.  (It was supposed to be now, but somehow the margins in the final proof got messed up, so we have to re-do it.)  I am *not* suggesting that anyone buy it.  For a paperback, it's expensive—$35—in part because there are many photos in it and in part because it's long (my editor and I—mostly my editor—trimmed ~2400 pages down to ~800).  I make very little money on it and it would require far more sales than I expect for me to break even on the cost of preparing it.  But making money was never the objective.  Krystin always wanted to be published, and while this book is hardly what she had in mind, it achieves her goal posthumously.  It has occurred to me recently that of all the members of my family, back for as many generations as I know, Krystin will have by far the most well-documented life.  She'd be pleased, I'm sure, that something was published that conveys the lessons she wished others to learn; whether this book is what she would have wanted we will never know.

            So now it's time to get on to the next chapter in retirement.  At this moment I have no idea what it will bring, other than teaching a few people to play bridge and playing the game myself from time to time.  But that is *not* going to be my major activity in life.  Unfortunately, one minor but recurring activity is "downsizing," which mostly consists of putting things in xerox boxes and labeling them "Items for Elliott." 

* * *

A response to my last message:  "On the topic of valetudinary conversations, a friend of mine recently noted that encounters with friends of like age normally begin with the 'organ recital,' i.e., which organs are still working and which not."

* * *

            I forgot to mention a topic of conversation that arose during our trip to Door County.  We somehow got on the topic of sunken ships and were wondering how many such ships there are in Lake Superior.  I couldn't find an estimate for Lake Superior alone, but the estimates of the number of ships lying on the bottom of one of the five Great Lakes range from 6,000 to >25,000.  "The Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum approximates 6,000 ships and 30,000 lives lost, while historian and mariner Mark Thompson has estimated that the total number of wrecks is likely more than 25,000."  Thompson wrote a book on the subject titled Graveyard of the Lakes.

            Now contemplate the number of sunken ships in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  World Wars I and II contributed a few.  So, I imagine, did European exploration of North and South America.

* * *

            Apropos of my grousing about restaurant food portions being much too large, this BBC headline was posted on September 10:  "Restaurants urged to serve us less food."

* * *

            I was struck by a few paragraphs in a short piece written by Michael Shermer titled "Genes, Environment, and Luck: What We Can and Cannot Control."

Let’s begin with a question: Why do some people succeed in life while others fail? Is it because they are naturally smarter and harder working, or is it because they were raised to be ambitious and disciplined, or could it be that they were simply lucky along the way and got all the good breaks? For centuries, philosophers, theologians, scholars, and ordinary people have speculated on these and related questions, for example, why there are class differences between people, why some people seem to have more power, wealth, and privilege than others, and what’s the best way to structure political and economic systems in order to create a fair and just society in the teeth of such obvious inequalities of natural ability, drive, and chance.

As with so many issues today, these are not ideological-free questions. Conservatives, for example, tend to embrace a Just World Theory of how lives turn out: If you are rich and successful, it is because you are hard working, intelligent, creative, risk-taking, and justly rewarded with happiness for your discipline and self-control; if you are poor, it is because you are lazy, ignorant, unimaginative, risk-averse and duly punished with unhappiness for your lack of will power and self-persuasion. In other words, for conservatives, the world is already just, so any injustices are the result of the natural order of things, which should be left well alone. People get what they deserve, so a just society is one in which there are equal opportunities for natural inequalities to form, so let the chips fall where they may.

By contrast, liberals tend to hold an Unjust World Theory of how lives turn out: If you are successful, it is because you were fortunate to be born in a stable family that inculcated into you the virtues that produce behaviors that translate into hard work, creativity, and risk-taking, and you were nourished along the way by people who enabled your success, or at forks in the career road were nudged down the right path by well-connected friends or family; for those people who did not have the good fortune to have been born into wealth, stable families, nurturing communities, and safe environments, we have a moral obligation to alter society in a manner to level the playing field and to allow all members of our community or society to flourish to the best of their natural talents.

These differences in how conservatives and liberals see the world very much determines their attitudes toward social policies that effects how lives turn out for the citizens of a society . . . and these differences account for the different positions people hold on a number of seemingly unrelated social issues, such as immigration, health care, welfare, taxes, criminal justice reform, police, and war.

            I don't agree with Schermer's label of a liberal point of view; a more accurate one, in my opinion, would be along the lines of "Lucky Parents World Theory."  If you are lucky enough to have parents with sufficient income, live in the right place, go to good schools, and inherit at least modest smarts, you'll likely do well in the world.  If you aren't, the odds are stacked against you.  I don't need to elaborate on Schermer's dichotomy, other than to add that I think in general he's correct, but I will make this claim:  Social science research for the last 50+ years seems to me to come down squarely on the side of his "Unjust World Theory."  The "Just World Theory" is ideological, not data-driven.  The research suggests a number of public policies that those with the "Just World" view find anathema.

            In that same vein, I saw a short excerpt from Robert Bellah's "The Protestant Structure of American Culture" (2002).  "In it . . . , Bellah worries that the cultural legacy of Protestantism is an individualism that destroys the idea of the common good and leaves nothing but the thought that 'what I have is mine, and it's mine because I deserve it, and I have a right to it.'"  So one might say that the "Just World Theory" is also divinely ordained.  Or some would perhaps argue.

* * *

            This research confirms my long-standing suspicion, a suspicion I've held since I was a grad student in psychology several decades ago.  A group of researchers at the University of Liverpool did a careful study of "five key chapters of the latest edition of the widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), on 'schizophrenia', 'bipolar disorder', 'depressive disorders', 'anxiety disorders' and 'trauma-related disorders'."  Their conclusions were blunt:

Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules
There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses
Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events
Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need
The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents 'a disingenuous categorical system'.

Or, in different words, "Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences."  And, "This study provides yet more evidence that the biomedical diagnostic approach in psychiatry is not fit for purpose. Diagnoses frequently and uncritically reported as 'real illnesses' are in fact made on the basis of internally inconsistent, confused and contradictory patterns of largely arbitrary criteria."

            I'm not railing against seeing a psychotherapist for whatever travails you face in life.  I believe they help.  I've known many people (including me) who have been aided by such professionals.  The confusion and danger lies in analogizing psychiatric difficulties with measles and mumps. 

* * *

            In what might seem the theater of the absurd, except I think it's not, I sent a short note to the leadership of Securian Financial Group (which is where my U of M retirement funds reside).  I asked if they were taking into account the possibility that if Mr. Trump wins re-election, California (or perhaps the entire west coast) moves to secede.  I suggested that New York might follow suit, and that the threat to Securian (and a large number of other business entities) was significant.  The reply message was that in their business planning, they try constantly to monitor situations that affect Securian.  Yeah, sure, but I bet that possibility wasn't part of their projections.  Probably still isn't, despite my message.  But I believe I am correct to suggest that it is measurably larger than a non-zero probability.

* * *

            Based only on personal experience, after many years I have come to the conclusion that bankers are generally not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.  Apologies to anyone whose a banker who reads this; maybe you're an exception.  I discussed this point with my friend Kevin, who later sent me this message.

The following quote is from a book review of The Big Short from the NYT -

But it took Wall Street chief executives, a bunch of feckless dolts, to light the bonfire. The Merrill Lynch C.E.O. Stanley O'Neal, taking a break from his frequent golf games, was completely surprised in the summer of 2007 when he learned Merrill was stuck with $48 billion of collateralized debt obligations it couldn't sell. Chuck Prince, the chief executive of Citigroup, wrote a shareholder letter in early 2007 in which "he devoted precisely two sentences to credit markets, which, he forecast, without elaboration, would most likely suffer 'moderate deterioration' in 2007." Farce turned into tragedy in the summer and fall of 2008 when the chief executives were forced to band together to save themselves, one another and the system.

Feckless dolts indeed.  And from what I read in the news lately, not much has changed.

* * *

A question that has occurred to me from time to time was also the title of a recent little piece that I read:  "How Far Back in Time Could a Modern English Speaker Go and Still Communicate Effectively?" by Daven Hiskey.

            To go as far back as possible, you of course have to go to England.  Hiskey points out that even today, "there are a shocking number of dialects of English in England alone despite being a relatively small area. Some of these dialects are even difficult for a general modern English speaker to understand fully if the people that are speaking them aren't interested in modifying their speech so you can understand them."  The situation doesn't improve if you go back in time.  If, however, you interact only with the upper classes, you could go back a considerable way.

            English, as many know, is a random accumulation of influences so there's almost no logic to it.  There is Old English, from the 8th and 9th centuries.  There is the impact of the Viking invasions during that time as well, adding Old Norse.  Then the Norman invaded, under William the Conqueror, in 1066, bringing Norman French as the court language; that French gradually spread and added many words to what became modern English.

            Hisken provides this example from the 9th century:

Brytene igland is ehta hund mila lang and twa hund mila brad, and her synd on þam iglande fif geþeodu, Ænglisc, Brytwylsc, Scottysc, Pihttisc and Boclæden.

In modern English, this translates to:

The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh, Scottish, Pictish, and Latin.

The language of the Normans trickled down to the masses and vice-versa, adding a whole host of words to English, which starts to give us more of the vocabulary we are used to today. This and some other changes to the language that occurred at this time all combined bring us to Middle English, which spanned around the 12th through the 15th centuries, the latter of which is also generally considered to be when the so-called "medieval times" ended.

            The 14th century is when Chaucer was writing.  I have tried to read him in the original and get nowhere.  However, it would have been possible to communicate on some level, but Hisken reports that language before the "Great Vowel Shift," which took place "primarily from around the mid-14th century through the 16th century or so. In a nutshell, this is where the pronunciation of various vowels in English changed considerably."  So before that great shift, even though the words would have borne some similarity to modern English, pronunciation would have been quite different, so a conversation would have been difficult.

            After the Great Vowel Shift comes Shakespeare and the King James Bible, which most educated people can understand.  Personally, I find the KJV of the bible easier than Shakespeare unless I'm reading the latter.  So, especially if you went to London and mingled with the well-to-do and elite, you'd be able to carry on a conversation beginning in the middle of the 16th century or after.

            Take your time machine back to the late 1500s and you're OK; much earlier than that and you'd be confronted with a largely foreign tongue.

* * *

            As my Facebook friends know, our beloved Bela died overnight.  Of our three cats—of all the cats I've owned—Bela had the liveliest personality and even had a sense of humor.  He did not eat for 10 days, although he occasionally sipped water, and, no surprise, slowly lost energy.  I took him to the vet three times over that 10 days, but to no avail; none of the meds had any effect on his unwillingness to eat.  The appetite stimulants didn't stimulate.  The only saving grace was that we were able to give him painkillers, so whatever it was that ailed him at least didn't cause him great pain.  We were out for the evening last night; when we got home, Bela was barely responsive to my attention.  So I lay with him on a sofa until 3:00 a.m., at which point he was still breathing but unresponsive.  I went to bed; when we awoke this morning, he was dead, and in exactly the position I had left him.  So we lost a good little buddy.  He's now safely buried deeply in the back yard.

            With warm regards—

            Gary



Most Read