Inside the Asylum

Politics, EnvironmentMarch 30, 2009 6:16 am

Earth Hour reminds me of Australia's "say sorry to aborigines" charades, excuse me, parades, excuse me, "marches". Everyone gets to feel good about themselves, pat themselves on the back for having made a tiny sacrifice of time, and nothing actually results from the whole game. Earth Hour is a classic case. It is a very easy thing to forgo electricity for one hour. Instead of doing the customary penance of switching off the lights you should really not use any electricity at all. This would involve turning off the mains switch on your home and not using any battery powered devices either. In that time, you can rely on the fact that the food in your freezer will stay frozen. The milk in the fridge will not curdle. Your house probably won't be broken into in the brief window of opportunity when the security is down. So what? All you are doing is living on the residual energy output (freezer takes a while to warm up, etc.) or depending on the imminent resumption of output. If people are serious, they should practice Earth Week. They should refrain from all uses of electricity or gas or coal or firewood for an entire week. Strictly speaking they shouldn't eat or breath either, but we'll let that pass. To take it to its logical conclusion, it should also be forbidden to take advantage of someone else having expended energy on your behalf. Thus it would not be permissible to walk to a supermarket since that place is only in operation because it has lights, security, electronic cash registers, and merchandise delivered by truck. You can't catch a bus, train, boat etc to work. You can't store anything that requires refrigeration. Your light source after the sun goes down consists of candles. Your heating consists of blankets and body warmth, and your cooling system consists of hand held fans. You can't even cool off in the local pool because the pumping system depends on electricity, not to mention all those nasty chemicals. No TV or radio. No newspapers (as they are produced and delivered in forbidden ways). No battery powered smoke detectors. You better hope there are no medical emergencies, because doctors' offices can no longer operate without electricity, even if there is one close enough to walk to. Certainly no ambulances. Mind you, you can't call for an ambulance either, since that would involve using electricity. Let's face it: if you get appendicitis in the next week, you're screwed. Happy Earth Week, you Luddites!

Politics, ScienceMarch 27, 2009 9:52 pm

Recently I seem to be reading a lot of research summaries where my first reaction isn't so much "that methodology is crap" but more "that interpretation is crap". Here's an example, via Futurepundit.

Vindictiveness Doesn't Pay

Vindictiveness doesn't pay. This has been demonstrated by a current study at Bonn and Maastricht Universities. According to this study, a person inclined to deal with inequity on a tit-for-tat basis tends to experience more unemployment than other people. Vindictive people also have less friends and are less satisfied with their lives. The study appears in the current edition of the Economic Journal.

We tend to live by the motto "tit for tat". We repay an invitation to dinner with a counter-invitation; when a friend helps us to move house, we help to move his furniture a few months later. On the other hand, we repay meanness in the same coin. Scientists speak here of reciprocity. A person who repays friendly actions in a like manner is said to behave with positive reciprocity, and one who avenges unfairness acts with negative reciprocity.

Positive and negative reciprocity are interdependent traits: many people incline to positive reciprocity, others more to negative; others, again, incline to both. The researchers from Bonn and Maastricht wanted to discover what influence these traits of character have on parameters such as "success" or "satisfaction with life". For this, they resorted to data from the so-called "socio-economic panel". This contains information gathered by the Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (German Institute for economic Research) in its annual surveys. These involve around 20,000 respondents from all over Germany and cover a diversity of topics.

...

The researchers then related these data to other results of the survey, whereby they stumbled upon a number of interesting correlations: "Thus, positively reciprocal people tend on average to perform more overtime, but only when they find the remuneration fair", declares Professor Dr. Thomas Dohmen of Maastricht University. "As they are very sensitive to incentives, they also tend to earn more money".

This is in stark contrast to vindictive people. With these people, the equation "more money = more work" does not always apply. Even pay cuts are not an effective means of bringing negatively reciprocal people back into line. Ultimately the danger arises that they will take revenge – for example, by refusing to work, or by sabotage. "On the basis of these theoretical considerations it would be natural to expect that negatively reciprocal people are more likely to lose their jobs", Falk explains: "A supposition which coincides with our results. Consequently, negatively reciprocal people experience a significantly higher rate of unemployment".

And in other respects, too, vindictiveness is not a maxim to be recommended. Anyone who prefers to act according to the Old Testament motto of "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" has on average less friends – and is clearly less than satisfied with his or her life.

The researchers conclude with a tenant of faith of the liberal orthodoxy: An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind. The problem with this interpretation of the results is that it's far from obvious that the vindictive do worse because of their vindictiveness. Isn't it more likely that they do worse because of their ingratitude? Let me explain.

The authors of the study use the phrase "tit-for-tat" strategy in a way that is significantly different from the way it is usually used in game theory. In game theory it's usually used to describe a strategy in prisoner's dilemma type games where there are only two possible moves: cooperate or defect. This study appears to be using a model of interaction where there are three possible moves. Players can confer benefit, do nothing, or confer harm. They claim that real people can be divided into groups according to strategy: (1) Those who only reciprocate benefit; (2) Those who only reciprocate harm (the vindictive); and (3) Those who reciprocate both benefit and harm.

The authors seem to think that the poorer performance by group (2) is due to the fact that they retaliate against harm, but it seems to me that there is a much more obvious explanation. Group (2) does worse, not because they are vindictive but because they are ungrateful - they fail to reciprocate benefit. They have fewer friends because they don't reciprocate social invitations. They are less likely to be employed because more money doesn't make them work harder. The problem is not that they respond to harm with "confer harm", but that they respond to benefit with "do nothing".

What I would like to know is how group (3) performed - the group that consistently reciprocates both benefit and harm.

EducationMarch 23, 2009 6:21 am

Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy? If not, don't bother. I can tell you the interesting part here, and the rest is pretty damn stupid. It's the premise that each generation is getting a little bit more stupid, and if you took a dumb guy from the present and sent him 200 years into the future, he'd be a genius. Every day I've gone to work recently, I've thought about this movie. I am constantly amazed at the words my students simply don't know. It's not that they just won't answer questions ... they guess, and get it wrong. Their level of vocabulary is stunningly limited. I've modified my teaching technique to include segments that I thought would only ever belong in the ESL classroom to check that the students actually know the words in front of them. I've been reading some classic sci-fi novels from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Without exception, they're clearly written for the adolescent male. (Maybe that says something about me, that I still enjoy them?) I compare the words used in these novels with the words my students know, and I can't help feeling shocked. The other thing that brings it home is that I usually have one or two older students who have retired and returned to college. I can almost always rely on them to know the words. How can you do anything if you don't have a command of your native tongue? Yet somehow or other these students have been allowed to get through high school without even learning the meanings of slightly higher level words.

Politics, Economics 12:46 am

The AIG bonus issue is a complete red herring. One thing that makes me angry, and another actually frightens me. The anger comes at the self righteous indignation of the very politicians who are most responsible for the mess. When will Obama give back the money he got from AIG?

The fear? How can the government of a major democracy that likes to pride itself as the leader of the free world possibly be so stupid as to think that passing a retroactive law could be a good idea? It's one of the most fundamental rules of any free and properly run country that its government must never never never pass a law that makes an action that was legal when it was performed retroactively illegal. If passing a 90% penalty tax in retrospect isn't a case of tyranny, then it's the next best thing. When you've had the next best thing to tyranny, what do you suppose the next step could be?

Politics, Hated by Men, EconomicsMarch 22, 2009 8:06 pm

I've never been to a protest before. I usually have nothing by contempt for the useless bums to stand on street corners with stupid signs telling me to honk if I support turnip liberation or some-such. I could barely restrain myself from giving the finger to some Prop 8 demonstrators not long ago ... and on that particular intersection there were roughly equal numbers of "for" and "against" protesters with silly signs. So, it is with a mixture of guilt and excitement that I find myself contemplating my first demonstration on April 15th when there are nation-wide Tea Party gatherings. I don't think I'm quite up to making a sign just yet. I'll just go, and stand around trying not to get my face photographed by any journalists. On that count I know I'm pretty safe, as there probably won't be any news coverage. It doesn't fit the narrative! Still, the unbelievable mixture of hypocrisy and stupidity being demonstrated by both Washington and Sacramento have me ready to take to the streets.

Cursed by the Gods, History 6:24 am

I watched the final two hour episode of Battlestar Galactica last night. In general I thought it was very good. I've not been a big fan of the series, as every time I would watch an episode it seemed to be more like a soap-opera than anything else, but I thought I would see the end.
Things I liked: the battle was done very well, except for the fact I often couldn't tell whether the guns were from the Cylon colony or on Galactica, and the viper battles got very little attention except for wide angle shots with too much going on to get more than a general impression. The escape from the battle in particular was done quite brilliantly. Poor old Galactica groaned and her whole frame moved in ways obviously not designed for, much like you'd expect a car to come apart after landing badly after doing some kind of massive jump.

The main reason I wanted to post something is that I've been going over and over the final conclusion, and I really like part of it, but intensely hate part of the way they did it. This is most especially because they could have kept the good bit and dumped the stupid bit without it causing any harm to the story. It just made the writers look like idiots.
So ... (here's the spoiler if you haven't seen it) ... the find Earth (again). Galactica arrives at a destination typed in by Starbuck, and you see a sweeping shot past a cratered moon and onto a beautiful blue planet with Africa clearly outlined. So it turns out that the Earth they discovered nuked in earlier episodes wasn't our Earth at all. They land, and see that there are humanoids living there, but they are extremely primitive to the point of not even having developed proper language skills yet. It also turns out, due to some kind of miracle, that through parallel evolution they're even genetically compatible with the new arrivals from space. The last part is incredibly implausible, but even the characters themselves are amazed and regard it as the work of the gods, so I'm prepared to take that for what it's worth. So far, so good. In fact, it's a pretty interesting twist. At one point Adama even says, "we've found our Earth", or words to that effect, showing that he knows it wasn't really the Earth they were looking for, but it will do!
Now we get to the dumb part. Apollo listens as someone outlines plans for a new city, and he says "no, we need a clean slate!" and so all the colonists decide they're not going to live in cities, but they're going to live a "natural" existence without urban living, technology, guns etc. They crash all their spaceships into the sun, and distribute themselves around the globe with nothing but what they can carry in a few sacks on their shoulders. There are nice shots of herds of antelope, and flamingos and things. That was just incredibly dumb. I kept waiting for a lion to leap out of the grass and eat the cute little cylon-human girl while everyone else looked on in terror (seeing as they just dumped all their guns into the sun). It would have been just fine if they had said that they wanted to maintain a more simple existence, living in villages, sustaining themselves with farming etc., but they would first have used the available technology to build themselves some homes etc., and at least kept some guns for hunting and self defense. As it was, most of the colonists would be dead within the year, of starvation, being eaten by predators, and clubbed by the primitive natives. It was a moment of horrible PC Gaia-loving fragging BS. It was nothing short of collective suicide for the majority of the survivors. OK, maybe that explains why no evidence of them survives ... all but a tiny few ended up dead very rapidly. Perhaps their genetic heritage came from the few females who were kidnapped by the locals? Wife stealing is pretty endemic to that level of human society. I don't think the writers intended to offer this solution!

Now I know that the writers thought they had to do all this stuff, because otherwise how could they explain that 150,000 years later the current population of this planet has no evidence of the arrival of aliens from another planet. After all, we'd see ruins of cities, spaceships in orbit etc. That just shows their general ignorance of what exactly has gone on during this period. 150,000 years ago was a very good point to choose, since it was about this point that humans suddenly start demonstrating evidence of abstract thought through cave paintings, chiseled patterns on stone, etc., when previously we have evidence of creatures that physically resemble us, but who apparently did not think/act quite like us. Battlestar Galactica solves the mystery of why this happened. So far so good. The way to explain all the possible problems: lack of fuel and inability to land the bigger ships on a planet meant most stuff had to be left in orbit, with only the ability to land the people and stuff that could be fitted on the small transport ships and vipers. They created towns and villages for themselves, in areas that were quite temperate then, but which would be covered by glaciation during the ice age that would intervene for a large portion of the time between then and now. The guns etc would stop working within a few decades at most, and they'd lack the equipment and know-how to make new ones, especially after a few generations had passed. The massive temperature variability (far far worse than anything seen in the last 10,000 years) would make farming incredibly difficult, and the communities would rapidly be reduced to simply trying to get enough food to survive, and when the ice age arrived, it is easy to see how the descendants of the colonists would ultimately revert to abandoning their towns and going off to hunt woolly mammoths etc. All evidence of their settlements would be erased by time, changing sea-levels, and especially glaciers. Maybe one day someone might dig up a fossilized machine gun or something, but it is so rare for things to get preserved, that there's really no reason why any would survive in recognizable form. The last great problem, that of the spaceships in orbit, really isn't a problem at all, or at least it shouldn't be for a science-fiction writer. They leave the spaceships in relatively stable orbits. One of the characters asks "won't the orbits eventually decay?" and another replies, "No, well, not for at least 100,000 years anyway, so don't worry about it." So, the spaceships stayed in orbit, people rapidly lost the ability to return to them, and after staying in the sky for millennia they eventually burn up on re-entry. If the writers really wanted to stretch themselves they could have even had one of the last ones being responsible for certain human myths concerning anger of the gods, or Icarus, or Sodom and Gomorrah being wiped out, etc.

Another problem arises, which is connected to the "what are they going to eat?" issue. Boltar briefly mentions that he's decided that a certain patch might be a good place to have a farm. What exactly was he going to grow on this farm? 150,000 years ago, none of the major cereals, fruits or vegetables existed in their current forms. Divergence of these plant species started when humans started naturally selecting for certain traits, and place these events within the last ten to twenty thousand years. They may have landed in an apparent Garden of Eden, but the closest to an apple tree would be some sort of horribly sour miniature crab apple. The more I think about it, the more I think that they'd have no choice other than to survive on a meat diet. Perhaps, if we get very creative, we can use this to explain why certain species were relatively easy to domesticate when human civilization began to re-emerge ten thousand years ago ... those species had already been partly domesticated by the Galactica humans before they eventually reverted to primitive hunter gatherer existence under the pressures of the ice age.

In short, I thought the end was very thought provoking, and it's kept me thinking about ways in which their arrival can be fitted into the real human story as we know it, but the whole nonsense of a return to an idyllic existence without technology was just so stupid that it almost spoiled it. In fact, at the time it did spoil it, and it's only in retrospect that I really rather like the conclusion to the story.