Caste Part III : Nature versus Nurture

I Believe

Dreamt a hundred thousand dreams before

Now I finally realize

You see I've waited all my life for this moment to arrive

And finally, I believe

If you dream that you can change your nature, is that possible? 

Albert Einstein was a Jewish refugee.  Marie Curie was a woman.  Stephen Hawking was paralyzed by ALS, confined to a wheelchair and spoke with mechanical aids.  Alan Turing was a homosexual.  John Coltrane was Black. Toni Morrison was both Black and a woman.  Benjamin Franklin was 70 years old when he helped in drafting the Declaration of Independence.  According to nativists, we are defined by our nature and that nature defines what we can achieve.  Thus, none of these people should have achieved their dreams and made the contributions that they did, but society is fortunate that they made those achievements.

Faith, nationality, immigration status, gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, age, and other measures of caste, should not define one's contributions and value to society. While, nature alone might be proper for animal husbandry it may not be the best way to define people.  However nurture alone is not an alternative.  Despite my dreams, I will never run a 100 meters in 10 seconds.  What is necessary that people be nurtured to support their dreams consistent with their nature.

Caste: Part II

You've Got To Be Carefully Taught

 You've got to be taught to be afraid
 Of people whose eyes are oddly made 
 And people whose skin is a different shade 
You've got to be carefully taught. 

 Caste is NOT the way things must be. We can choose not to teach caste. 

"Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents", the best selling book by Isabel Wilkerson, is a chilling depiction of how, among other things, the Nazis ( and for those who are against socialism, don’t forget that Nazi is a nickname for “National Socialism") modeled their own caste system after the successful caste system in the United States. The success of any caste system, where only a few can occupy the top rung, depends on convincing a majority that the ladder system of caste is the way things should be, and that everyone should stay in their place. Those in the middle rungs accept the caste system because they are promised to be above those in lower rungs. 

The lower rungs in the caste system in the United States appear to be reserved for: women, indigenous people, African Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, Asians, the disabled, etc. While the Amendments to the U. S. Constitution have attempted to grant rights to many of these groups, it is the caste system itself, not the rights that the caste system bestows, that should be in question. 

Before teaching or accepting the caste system, it is important for society to ask why there is a caste system at all? Does the existence of a caste system, which excludes the contributions of those on the lower rungs, advance the interests of society? Is violence against those who challenge elements of the caste system order,... or brutality? 

Those on the lowest rungs will soon outnumber those on the higher rungs. Does anyone seriously expect that the caste system will continue under these conditions?  It is in the best interest of society that the caste system in the United States be immediately discontinued and no longer taught.

Role of a Judge

It's Alright With Me

It's the wrong time and the wrong place

Though your face is charming, it's the wrong face

It's not her face, but such a charming face

That it's all right with me

It might be alright with Senator Mitch McConnell, but not with everyone.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, one argument that Republican Senators seem to be presenting is that the role of a judge is not the role of a legislator.  This is true but irrelevant.  If judges only interpreted the law, then there would only be 9-0 decisions of the Supreme Court.  Since there are dissenting opinions, the opinion of a judge, and what might be the basis for their dissent, matters.

Another argument that Republican Senators seem to be advancing is that the Democratic opposition to Judge Barrett is because of her Catholic religion.  If this were true then why is the Democratic candidate for President a practicing Catholic? Clearly not all Catholics have the same opinion or else a future Catholic President Biden would also be expected to nominate Catholic Judge Barrett.

Clearly opinion matters, and the consent of the Senate should be based on those opinions. 

The Mafia's definition of a Honest Man is one that stays bought.  Since the confirmation of Justice Barrett by Republican Senators appears to be a forgone conclusion, we can only hope that she has a different definition of honesty than the Mafia's definition, and that she understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law on behalf of all Americans, regardless of party.

Valuing Risk: Part 4

  It's Ain't Necessarily So

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show

It ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't nessa, ain't nessa

Ain't necessarily so !

Just because the consequences aren't what you want, it ain't necessarily the risk.

While often the likelihood has been confused with the risk, it is also possible to mistake the consequences of an event for its risk.  Risk is always the product of likelihood AND consequences.  For example voter fraud.  If the consequences for your candidate is that voter fraud will cause them to loose the election,  then consequences would be very bad (even if the backers of the opponent might view those consequences differently!)  That does not mean that the risk of voter fraud is also high.

The Brennan Center’s seminal report , The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. That means that the risk of voter fraud for that hypothetical candidate is 100% * 0.0003 %.  Even if the likelihood was 100 times as greater, the risk of voter fraud is then only 100% *0.003%= 0.003%.

Confusing the consequences of voter fraud with the risk of voter fraud is even harder to understand than confusing the likelihood with the risk.

Free Will

 

Free Bird

Cause I'm as free as a bird now          

And this bird you can not change      

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh       

And this bird you can not change      

And this bird you can not change
Lord knows, I can't change

If you really want to be free, you have to be able to chose to change.

System Optimal versus User Optimal solutions might sound like only a mathematical argument, but that is only because of the words that are used.  If User Optimal instead is called free will and System Optimal solutions are called good works, the argument become recast in terms that are more familiar and relevant.  Free will says that we are free to choose the solution that we believe is best for us  (i.e. can chose a User Optimal solution).  Good works says that there is a solution that is best for society (i.e. the System Optimal solution).  The conflict between these two is the subject of  religion, sociology, evolution, etc.

Religion deals with the conflict between free will  and good works.  Most major religions have some from of the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, even though the often rule is cynically described as “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules” that acknowledges that the golden rule is not always chosen by individuals.

Sociology deals with the changes in the choices of society in groups.  The taking of goods by force was once acceptable (e.g. the Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.) but is not accepted by society today.  Assassination was once socially acceptable (e.g. the Medicis, the Thuggees, etc.) but is not acceptable today.  Extreme revenge against your enemies was once acceptable (e.g. Roman salting of Carthage, Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula, etc.) but is not acceptable today.

Evolution is often misunderstood that it is a User Optimal solution (e.g.. survival of the fittest), when in fact it seeks a System Optimal solution, The title of the evolution's most famous work is “On The Origin Of Species", not, "On The Origin Of A Specimen. 

It is hoped that we chose System Optimal solutions, but free will means that we can chose User Optimal solutions.  We look forward to a day when the User Optimal solutions are also System Optimal solutions.

Words Matter

 

Sticks and Stones

Sticks and stones may break my bones,         

but words will never break me.

Some words can hurt. Not understanding that marginal tax rates are not the same as the effective tax rates can hurt the decisions that we support.

Taxes are meant to raise revenue for the government.  They are fair if the amount raised from each individual is fair.  That is why we have a progressive tax system.  Jesus observed in the Bible that the “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”

Taxes then might be considered fair if they are from the surplus wealth not from our whole livelihood.  So what is surplus wealth?  Might that be marginal income and not the whole income?  In the 2020 tax year, the highest US tax bracket is assessed on incomes of more than $622,051 for households filing jointly.  The marginal tax rate for this bracket is 37%.  However that is NOT the tax rate on the income below $622,051 for this same bracket.  Those taxes are $167,307.50 which is less than 27% of the income below $622,051. Referring to the marginal rate as the name for the tax bracket distorts from the fact that it is not the actual tax rate ( which i probably called the effective tax rate by an accountant).

Calling the marginal tax rate the effective tax rate, is probably as intellectually honest as referring to an estate, or an inheritance, tax as a death tax.  Yes, you have to be dead to have an estate or to bequeath an inheritance, but the tax is on the estate or the inheritance, not the death. 

The lowering of the marginal tax rates began in earnest in the 1980s with the passage of Economic Recovery Tax Act.  http://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/taxman.html .  Before he became the vice president, George H.W. Bush referred to supply side economics, which was the basis for lowering the marginal tax rates, as voodoo economics.  Since adopting supply side economics as the basis for tax policy, the growth of income in the US has been less than it was before, and the gap between rich and poor has increased.  When supply side economics was adopted as state tax policy, by then Kansas Governor Brownback in 2012, it  achieved none of its stated goals, and was eventually abandoned.   Lowering state taxes was claimed as a way to simulate the economy.  Lowering taxes may stimulate the economy, but lowering tax rates is not the same as lowering taxes, unless all tax rates are lowered equally.  We understand that there is a difference between acceleration and speed.  The fact that both effective and marginal tax rates include the word tax does not mean they are the same.  Acting like they are the same is an example of when words can hurt you.

Opportunities

 

Here's to Dear Old Boston 

The home of the Bean and the Cod, 
Where Lowells speak only to Cabots, |
And Cabots speak only to God. 

Is America the Land of Opportunity, where we all speak to  God, or the Land of Caste, where only some speak to God.

The United States of America prides itself as the land of opportunity.  The plack on the Statue of Liberty reads

 "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This is far cry from a land of caste.  Despite the Bible injunction in Matthew 18: 21-35, on not duplicating the sins of which you were forgiven, those founding America established their own version of the very caste system from which they had fled.   As the descendant of an Irish Catholic illegal immigrant, I can assure you that while blacks may not have been slaves in my home state of Massachusetts,  there is and was a caste system in Massachusetts.   As Isabel Wilkerson observed in her recent book, "Caste", racism is only the one US manifestation of casteism.

We can not be both a land of opportunity and a land of caste.  This November we have an opportunity to decide whether the spirit, or the current status, of America will prevail.

Protests

For What It's Worth

There's somethin' happenin' here

But what it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

A-telln' me I got to beware

It is time to stop and look around, but also to do something.

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and far too many people have died as the result of police activities.  Jacob Blake has been physically injured, but far too many others have less visible, but still real, emotional injuries.  Protesting these actions is a right that is protected by the US Constitution.  These protests may anger some.  This anger has been expressed by using cars, guns, pepper spray, and mace against the protesters, some of which have resulted in deaths, all of which can be morally, if not legally, considered to be assault or worse.  Is it surprising that some of these assaults provoke others to defend themselves or others, which has led to the death of Jay Danielson and his shooter in Portland, Oregon?

It is important to remember why there are protests, and not create further injustices in defense of those protests.  Two wrongs do not make a right.   The fact that a second wrong has occurred does not somehow make the first wrong go away.  Trying to fix EVERY wrong is the right response.  If the protests continue, as I believe they should, let us hope that they are peaceful.

Altruism

 Step To The Rear

Will everyone here kindly step to the rear

and let a winner lead the way.

Nice guys finishing last, assumes that a game will never repeated.

Nobody wants to be a loser, particularly the former star of Mark Burnett’s Apprentice, who is the current President.  However watching Mark Burnett's shows demonstrates that winners of one show fare poorly on future shows.  So how can a winner one day, be a loser the next day?  Does altruism ( "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known" ) have any value as winning strategy.  Did John McCain’s suffering as a POW for his country make him a loser?

The answer lies in Game Theory.  Altruism is a valid strategy if a game is infinitely repeated. So acting as if each game will never be repeated and the future has no value might be a valid strategy for winning one game.  However it does not describe the society in which I wish to live.  I expect that there will be a future, and that even if I "lose” today, that will help me or someone else win tomorrow.  Otherwise, why would I even play the game ?  And if I no longer  play the game with you, how can you ever be a winner?

It's A Wonderful Life

Buffalo Gals

Buffalo gals won't you come out tonight
Come out tonight, come out tonight
Buffalo gals won't you come out tonight
And we'll dance by the light of the moon 

The film "It’s a Wonderful Life" speaks to conditions today. 

At the Republican National Convention, President Trump was compared to George Bailey as played by Jimmy Stewart in the film It’s a Wonderful Life.  That comparison was soundly denounced by Kelly Stewart Harcourt, the daughter of the late Jimmy Stewart.  I too am reminded of the film today, but if I were Frank Capra, President Trump would be my inspiration for Mr. Potter.  ( As an aside this would not be President Trump's most famous connection to the movies.  According to Bob Gale, the screenwriter of Back to the Future, Donald Trump served as the inspiration for the bully Biff Tannen.)  In the famous bank run scene, Mr. Potter tries to take advantage of the bank panic by buying shares of the Bailey Building and Loan at 50 cents on the dollar.  Mr. Potter's housing is described as slums and broken-down shacks, while the Bailey houses are decent. 

One of my favorite characters in the film is Bert the cop. (Bert and his sidekick Ernie, the taxi driver, may have been the inspiration for Jim Henson’s Sesame Street characters)  When the system is good, Bert is good.  When the system is bad, as in the Potterville scenes, he still enforces the system but he is less sympathetic.  The police are the enforcers of the system.  The way to support good police is to have a good system.

Another reason that It’s a Wonderful Life is timely today is that its theme song, “Buffalo Gals", is not just an innocent American folk song. It came from minstrel shows.  The only person of color in the film is Annie, the Bailey’s cook.  While it is clear from the dialog that Annie is considered to be part of the Bailey family, we thankfully are not shown her fate in the Potterville scenes.  It’s a Wonderful Life is a testament to Black Lives Matter.  It is clear from the film that All Lives Matter, but left unsaid is that black lives are in danger.  That even the film did not recognize its systematic casteism, with blacks as the lowest caste, demonstrates that even if it is a wonderful life, it can be better by making it a wonderful life for everyone, including the lowliest of us.

Safer Vaccines

You Can't Hurry Love

You can't hurry love
No, you'll just have to wait
Just trust in a good time
No matter how long it takes

 We all want a COVID-19 vaccine right away, but like love we'll just have to wait.

During the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic, counties in Northern Europe used Pandemerix as a vaccine.  It was never  approved for use in the United States.  It was later found that an increase in narcolepsy was a side effect of the vaccine.  Because of this side effect, Pandemerix is no longer used or available. 

 
But the fact that there is a side effect could only be determined with time.  That is the reason that it was not approved in the United States, because the required testing time had not yet elapsed.  We will have enough trouble making people who are fearful of the side effects of all vaccines to take a corona virus vaccine.  If we rush and there are side effects we will only make it harder.

Rushing a vaccine with side effects can be just as bad as not having a vaccine at all.
 

And a Little Child Shall Lead Them

 Teach Your Children 

Teach your parents well. 
Their children's hell
Will slowly go by. 
And feed them on your dreams.
The one they pick, is the one you'll know by.

Nuff' said

Kellyanne Conway announced that she is leaving the Trump administration at the end of August. Her husband, George Conway, announced that he is leaving the Lincoln Project opposing the re-election of President Trump.  Their daughter Claudia has announced on Tik Tok that she is taking a break to focus on her mental health.

I have to assume that each of these actions are interrelated.  Claudia has previously said her parent's views have caused her distress.  If her parents and she are ceasing their positions  to focus on their family then best of luck to all of them.

Safety First

The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin’ Groovy)

Slow down, you move too fast
You got to make the morning last 

Moving too fast in the development of vaccines is also NOT a good idea. 

I remember the Thalidomide crisis and I have worked with British victims of Thalidomide. Babies were born in Europe because it did NOT safely test Thalidomide before it was approved as a treatment.  The FDA did not  approve Thalidomide in the United States at that time because its safety had not yet been proven, and in hindsight that was the correct decision.  

There is a reason that there are test periods before adopting new treatments, drugs, and vaccines, not just to determine whether they are effective, but whether they would create more harm.  If drinking bleach as a treatment for COVID-19 is harmful and hydroxychloroquine is ineffective, rushing a treatment to market before safely testing is also a bad idea.   A fetus is in the womb for 9 months.  If the desire is to protect the fetus, then how in the world is rushing a treatment to market  before 9 month is a good idea, no matter how long it is until the election.

I would rather wait and be safe, than to rush to approve a treatment.  The FDA that protects me is one that is slow and cautious.  That it has a proven record of  protection does not make them part of the deep state.

Government Services

 Please Mister Postman

Mister Postman look and see
(Oh, yeah) Is there a letter in your bag for me?
(Please, please, Mister Postman) I been waiting a long, long time
(Oh, yeah) Since I heard from that girl of mine

There is a difference between a government service and a business

The post office is under siege these days.  Since 2006 it has been operating under rules that have assumed it is a business.  Given that its very name is the United States Postal SERVICE, I am not sure why it is assumed to be a business.  It is a government service.

You can choose to use a  business.  You are provided government services.  It may be a business decision that it is too expensive to deliver prescriptions to rural areas, but that is not a governmental decision.  The Post Office has been in existence longer than the United States has had a constitution.  As a society we have decided that while it may be unprofitable, and thus not a good business decision, to deliver some letters and packages, it is still essential to deliver every letter and package. 

 
Business can go bankrupt.  If they do, then the losers are those businesses but also the creditors and customers of that business.  Governments can NOT, by definition, go bankrupt since we as the government are also its creditors and customers.  (yes, I realize that some city governments have gone bankrupt, but that is only because some other government bailed them out.  Governments can truly go bankrupt only if every government also went bankrupt and there was no one to bail them out, e.g. make their customers and creditors whole.)

Government services are NOT supposed to make a profit.  It is nice if they do, but that is not the point.  Trying to force them to make a profit is effectively making it NOT a service and if that is the case, then we should at east be honest and also remove service from the USPS name.

Rigged Elections

 Your Cheatin' Heart

Your cheatin' heart
Will pine some day
And crave the love
You threw away

Winning by cheating is not winning at all.

As we approach the 2020 presidential election, cheating seems to be the topic of the day.  It is my observation that "he who smelt it, dealt it". If someone complains that his opponent will cheat to win, that is a pretty good indication that the person making that complaint plans to cheat to win.  Donald Trump has a long history of cheating.  He even cheated against his children when skiing by tripping them,  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-instilled-competitive-nature-kids-160853221.html.  

The lesson that he instilled is that if you win, it doesn't matter if you cheated in order to win.  I am surprised that his children didn't kill him, but maybe that I am just projecting here.  Just remember this when you hear about rigged elections or that mail-in voting is subject to cheating.  The president has figured out how he would trip Joe Biden to win, and has assumed that Joe Biden wants to trip him to win.  Thank goodness the ramp may be steep for you, Mr Trump, but it isn't that steep for others.  We all are more than willing to let you trip yourself.

Unintended Consequences

 

I Didn't Mean A Word I Said

 I didn't mean a word I said
And if I hurt you, I'm sorry
I didn't mean to lose my head
And if I made you cry, I'm sorry

Sometimes we are the cause things to happen, even if that was not our intention. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren killed George Floyd.  How can that be if Justice Warren died years before George Floyd died?   Chief Justice Warren backed qualified sovereign immunity which the police officers who killed George Floyd used to rationalize their actions.  

What is qualified sovereign immunity?  If a sovereign takes an action, that action is considered to be immune from prosecution.  For example, a claim of executive privilege.  

So can sovereign immunity be claimed if that person was carrying acting on behalf of the sovereign?  This isn't just an idle question.  It is the basis for a US Supreme Court decision in Peirson v Ray in 1967 when it was ruled that “[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does.” Chief Justice Warren  voted in the majority in that decision. 

Qualified sovereign immunity is being used by police officers in their defense against murder in the George Floyd case.  It is entirely possible that the court will agree that they were covered by qualified sovereign immunity, in which case the decision of Justice Warren in 1967 led to the death of George Floyd in 2020.   The fact that Justice Warren didn’t intend George Floyd’s death does not mean that he did not in some way cause George Floyd’s death.  

It is also probable that the court will find that George Floyd's actions by taking drugs led to his death, and that death could not have been foreseen by the police officers not guilty due to reasonable doubt. If the court finds that the police officers are not guilty, then if riots following the Rodney King verdict are any indication, God help us all.

Black Lives Matter

I Will Always Love You

I hope life treats you kind
And I hope you have all you've dreamed of
And I wish to you joy and happiness
But above all this, I wish you love

If we are our best, not only black lives will matter. All lives will matter

I thought that my admiration for Dolly Parton had no bounds, but it just reached a whole other level.  Despite not wishing to upset her fans, many of whom do not approve of the Black Lives Matter protests, Dolly recently said that “Of course black lives matter.  Do we think our little white a**es are the only ones that matter?”   She renamed her Dixie Stampede just the Stampede years ago. She said  that " As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it. That's were my heart is.  I would never dream of hurting anyone on purpose."

The song “I Will Always Love You” is Dolly’s resignation letter to her longtime boss Porter Wagner.  My own resignation letters have never sounded as beautiful and I admit that I have not always wished my old bosses love.   Black Lives Matter doesn’t say that White Lives Don’t Matter.  It says that All Lives Matter, but Black Lives are in danger.  That is the problem and we should fix it.

 

Caste

Well Did You Evah!

I have heard among this clan,
You are called the forgotten man
(Is that what they're saying, well did you evah!)
What a swell party this is

It isn't enough to make fun of High Society.  Something should be done about the caste system that enables High Society.

Pulitzer Prize winning author Isabel Wilkerson has a new book titled Caste. While I have not yet read the book I am looking forward to doing so.  Meanwhile I have been following Ms. Wilkerson's appearances on her promotional tour.  Unlike Ms Wilkerson's comments during her appearance on Fresh Air, I do not think that caste in the United States is only bipolar; white and black. It is far more nuanced and hierarchical than that. I am: 

• the grandchild of an illegal immigrant (admittedly from Canada); 
• the child of a father who  dropped out of school to work at a low paying factory job; 
• was unable to speak to the only grandparent who was alive during my life because she only spoke Polish and I only spoke English;  
• the brother ( the best man at my wedding and the godfather of my oldest son) of an openly Gay Man; and 
• raised as a Roman Catholic. 

But I graduated from two Ivy League schools and, and earned a higher income as a professional engineer, and I know that I have often been assumed to be a member of a "higher caste". 

I may not have claimed that my ancestry was Swedish, did not attended a military high school but dodged the draft, and while my grandfather did not die of the 1918 Spanish Flu, I know that my father's bother and sister did and I get the year correct, but I too was also never accepted by the upper caste in Manhattan.  I know that the caste system has affected me, and I assume that it also has affected the mental health of those who practice and believe in it.

Survival of the Fittest

If I Were King of the Forest!

What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder?       
Courage! 
What makes the dawn come up like thunder?
Courage!
What makes the Hottentot so hot?
What puts the "ape" in apricot?
What have they got that I ain't got?
Courage!

The lion might be king of the jungle, but not every lion is king.

Survival of the fittest applies to the species, not to the individual.  Survival is an individual game, and the fittest individual doesn’t always win .  If you don’t believe this, I offer the CBS TV Show Survivor as Exhibit A.  It was originally expected that the fittest survivor would “win” this TV game show.  Instead the game is such that the strongest members of the tribes are among the first voted out.  The remaining tribe members do not want to sit across from a fitter player in the final tribal vote.  So the fittest player is almost guaranteed not to be the winner of Survivor.  ( For Survivor fans, I do understand about winning immunity challenges.  I am talking about “blindsides”  after the fittest loses an immunity challenge.)

In the game of life, the fittest individual also does not always win.  The fittest species, of which an individual is a member, does.  That should not be a surprise to anyone.  The Major League Baseball batting champ, or the Most Valuable Player,  often does not play for the World Series winning team. Ted Williams of the Red Sox was my boyhood idol and a great player, but he never won a World Series ring.

Acting like survival of the fittest is the only way to win the game of life is an alternate fact.

Valuing Risk:Part 3

Knock on Wood 

It's like thunder, lightning

The way you love me is frightening

You better knock, knock on wood 

The Risk of dying by being stuck by lighting is made of its Likelihood AND its Consequences

I didn’t expect to revisit the issue of risk again but a recent article by Dan Reed in Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2020/07/30/if-covid-19-really-isnt-a-big-threat-to-the-average-airline-passenger-but-no-airline-bothers-to-tell-the-story-does-it-make-any-noise/#66cb955427f6 made me reconsider this.  In the article, it appears that likelihood is being confused with risk.  Risk is the product of likelihood AND consequences, not only likelihood.  For example, the likelihood of being struck by lightning may be very low, but the consequences of being struck by lightning might be very dire.

For example the likelihood of being stuck by lightning is said to be 0.0002% or 1 in 500,000, and the likelihood of dying after being stuck by lighting is close to 100%.  The risk of dying by being struck by lightning thus is also 0.0002%.  The likelihood of contracting COVID-19 on an airplane has been given as  0.013% and there is a 5% chance of dying from COVID -19 after contracting it.  Thus the risk of dying from COVID after flying is 0.00065%.  The risk can be mitigated by altering the likelihood OR the consequences.  The likelihood of being struck by lightning if you seek shelter is 0%. Thus the risk of dying from lightning if you seek shelter during a thunder and lightning storm is 0%.  The likelihood of contracting COVID-19,  if you don’t fly is 0% and thus the risk of dying from COVID-19 after flying, if you don’t fly, is also 0%.  Of course you could also address the CONSEQUENCE of dying from COVID-19 by making sure that you have ICU beds and ventilators available.  Or you could also lower the LIKELIHOOD of contracting COVID-19 by social distancing and only visiting places that require the wearing of masks.

The likelihood of contracting COVID-19 after flying is 76 times less than being struck by lightning.  However the risk of dying after contracting COVID-19 after flying is only 3.8 times less than the risk of dying after being struck by lightning.  If we mitigate the risk of dying from lightning by seeking shelter, then not flying is also a reasonable response.

The likelihood of getting soaking wet if you are unprotected in a rainstorm is 100%.  The consequences of being uncomfortable until you are dry is  100%.  The consequence of dying from being soaked after being in a rainstorm is close to zero.  Thus I was personally reasonable , or so I say, to attend a college homecoming football game 50 years ago in hopes of seeing my team win, because the risk of harm was low, even if the likelihood of getting wet was high.  By the way, my college team lost that game anyway 😒

Bankruptcy

Hotel California

You can check out any time you like

But you can never leave!

Bankruptcy is the ultimate checking out of a game.  But some games don’t let you leave!

Wealthy individuals and corporations hate paying for insurance,  and may self insure because  they assume that they can pay any costs that insurance might have paid out.  However they object only to the costs.  Rewards such as stock markets gains (stock markets formed as a way to insure the liquidity of investments) are popular, as are corporate bailouts.   So clearly the objection is financial not one of  principle.  As a last resort, if the consequences become too dire, some think that they can always declare bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy is the ultimate walking away from a game.  But you can't walk away from some games.  The third law of thermodynamics is sometimes facetious stated as "you can't get out of the game".   A more formal statement is "It is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce the temperature of any closed system to zero temperature in a finite number of finite operations."

This may explain why the wealthy are against Social Security insurance, oppose health insurance, and gutted the stockpiles needed to insure against a rare occurrence like COVID-19. They assumed that they could always declare bankruptcy, that is take the ball and go home. But bankruptcy requires that there are creditors and they pay your costs. If there is no one to pay those costs, then you can’t declare bankruptcy, get out of the game. Societies can not get out of the game, can not declare bankruptcy, and still remain as viable societies.

In Defense of Science

The Emperor’s New Clothes

"A vain emperor hires two swindlers who promise to make him the finest suit of clothes made from fabric invisible to anyone who is "hopelessly stupid”. 

He marches in procession in those new clothes. The townsfolk play along with the pretense. 

Then a child in the crowd cries out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all.
The cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes but holds his head high and continues the procession."

 

Right now we need that child to defend science.

Science is under attack. From the science of climate change, to evolution, to vaccination, to COVID‑19, etc., the attacks have become more vicious and more frequent.  The White House recently said "Science should not get in the way schools reopening” even though science is only offering an opinion as to what is safe.

Some of the more common lines of attack ( and their refutations) are:

It’s only a theory

This confuses the term theory in common language with theory as used in science.  A validated theory makes predictions.  The Theory of Relativity is credited to Einstein.  It makes predictions and those predictions continue to be tested.  The atomic bomb and the energy from the sum are both consequences of the theory of relativity.  A theory is more than just an opinion.  Science considers every theory, model, wrong, but some theories are useful.

It’s a fact.

Just because people say something doesn’t make it a fact. A fact is something that can be observed. If it can't be observed, as far as science is concerned there is no fact.  And to paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, while people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. You have to acknowledge all of the facts, not just the ones that you like. Science does not deal with alternate facts.

I have a right to my own opinion.

You certainly have a right to your own opinions.  But when you exercise that opinion, as when swinging your arm, your rights end where my nose begins, e.g those rights infringe on someone else’s rights. For example you have every right to contract the corona virus. However when you wear a mask you are preventing me from contracting your corona virus.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is NOT My Friend

You've Got A Friend In Me

When the road looks rough ahead 
And you're miles and miles from your nice warm bed
You just remember what your old pal said
Yeah you've got a friend in me

Having friends is nice.  But the enemy of my enemy is NOT  necessarily my friend.

The old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is demonstrably  wrong.  This matters, because in the current election campaign, we are being asked to view a candidate’s opponent as an enemy.  That does not mean that the first candidate is therefore my friend.  This sounds good but can be completely disproven by mathematics. 

If a is me, b is one candidate, and c is the opponent of the first candidate, then  if <> is being an enemy and = is being a friend, then

a<>c and b<> c does not mean that a=b. 

As a non mathematical example, Stalin and Churchill shared a common enemy in Adolf Hitler during WWII.  But Churchill never thought that this made Stalin his friend.  You can make common cause with an enemy, but that does not make that enemy into your friend.  It is better to convince me that you are my friend, than to try to convince me that your opponent is my enemy.

Valuing Risk: Part 2

Let's Face the Music and Dance

Before they ask us to pay the bill     
And while we still have the chance 
Let's face the music and dance

The size of the bill, the consequences, will depend on how we view risk.

It is convenient to think of risk as the combination of likelihood  and consequences.  The recent reopening of Disney Springs and Disney World have provided a perfect example of how consequences affect the perception of risk, and how that risk affects our behavior.

During the COVID-19 crisis face masks are being required at both Disney Springs, the Disney World shopping district in Florida, and the Disney World Theme Parks.  Masks are required for entry to both the theme parks and the shopping district.  There is a difference between how long masks are worn after entry though.  Masks are being removed by some visitors to Disney Springs, but masks are not being removed by visitors to the Disney Theme parks.  The likelihood of contracting the corona virus is equal in both places.  If behavior is different, then visitors to both places must be calculating risk differently. 

The consequences of not continuing to wear a mask on the Disney Springs property is removal from the shopping district, but there was no cost for entry to this shopping district.  The consequence of not continuing to wear a mask at a Disney theme park is removal from the theme park, but there was an entrance fee of almost a hundred dollars to the theme parks.  Since the consequences are different, $0 and almost  $100, even though they have the same likelihood, they have a different risk.  The risk of not wearing a mask at a Disney Theme park is greater than the risk of not wearing a mask at the Disney shopping district.  Thus is it not surprising that continued mask wearing is greater at the theme parks than at the shopping district.  

Valuing Risk

Love and Marriage

Love and marriage, Love and marriage

Goes together like a horse and carriage

Something things just go together.  Risks can’t be understood unless you understand both likelihood AND  consequences.

Understanding and properly valuing risks has become very important during the corona virus crisis.  We are being asked to properly quantify risks.  Part of the reason is that people don’t understand both components of risk and part is because people are approaching risk from a framework that can best be understood by viewing a previous blog post. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-framework-for-human-behavior.html.

Risk is based on the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences if that event does occur.  The response to COVID-19, the disease caused by the corona virus, include measures to reduce the likelihood and to minimize the consequences.  The likelihood of catching the corona virus is lower if the chances for contracting it are lowered. That is why people are urge to wear masks and social distancing have been promoted, because they lower the likelihood of contracting the corona virus.

The other component of risk are also best understood by actions taken during the pandemic.  The ultimate consequence is that one could die from COVID-19.  That consequence is lowered if ventilators and Intensive Care Unit beds are available at hospitals treating those with COVID‑19.

However both the likelihood and the consequences are not the same for those with a user optimal or a system optimal framework.  Those with a user optimal perspective (“what’s in it for me”) can agree that they lower their likelihood by visiting places where others socially distance and wear masks.  They do not lower their own likelihood appreciably by wearing masks themselves.  Those with a system optimal outlook ( “I do this not for myself, but for others”) wear masks to protect others, not because it lowers their own likelihood of contracting the coronavirus. Even if both user and system optimalists agree on the likelihood  of contracting the coronavirus if they social distance and visit only paces wear other wear masks,  they may not agree on the value of the reduction in  likelihood of their own wearing of a mask.

Similarly consequences are viewed differently by those with a user or system optimizing perspective.  Those with a user optimal perspective only value actions that reflect consequences to themselves.  Acquiring ICU Beds or Ventilators that they will not use will have no value to them.  Those with a system optimal perspective place value if anyone in the system uses them.

The inclusion of others in the system also takes on a perspective in likelihood and consequence.  There is no value in reducing the likelihood for members not included in one's definition of a system.  Similarly there is no value in lowering the consequences of those not included in one’s definition of a system.

Even when individuals properly value likelihood and consequences, which means they properly value the risk, they may arrive at completely different values for the risk depending on their own framework.  Just because likelihood and consequences  go together like a horse and carriage when valuing risk, individuals can arrive at different assessments of risk depending on their framework.

A Framework for Human Behavior

United We Stand

For united we stand. Divided we fall

And if our backs should ever be against the wall

We'll be together, Together, you and I

Man is a social animal. What does this mean for understanding our behavior?

Man is a social animal.  When Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” it gave rise to the “Survival of the Fittest” as a phase, but Darwin was applying it to species in the plural, even if it has been often applied to the behavior of individuals.  How humans approach winning is only one dimension of understanding behavior.  In many disciplines two dimensions are used to understand behavior: time and distance; exclusive and rival; likelihood and consequence, etc.  I would propose that two dimensions are useful in classifying human behavior.  The first dimension is how they define winning, optimization; and the second dimension is how they approach others, inclusion.

Games Theory proposes two basic approaches to winning: User Optimization and System Optimization.  I would propose that when applied to human behavior this is not a binary either/or choice but instead is a continuum, spectrum. 

Humans are wary of others.  That definition of others can also be inclusive or exclusive, but also as a continuum, not as an either/or choice.

The proposed framework of two dimension is:

Optimization can be a spectrum depending on the degree of shadow prices (e.g. customs, rules, regulations, laws) that are willing to be accepted.  Libertarians could be classified as favoring extreme user optimal solutions, while socialists would favor extreme system optimal solutions.  Shadow prices must be imposed and collected by society, i.e. government.  People who believe in small government, like Republicans tend to favor system optimal solutions, but limited government. Democrats also favor system optimal solutions favor, but they favor larger government.

While Socialists favor System Optimal solutions, there is a difference between Marxists and Nazis ( whose very name is a shortening of the German for National Socialism). That  dimension is the view of others included in those system solutions.  Marxists favor a very broad inclusive view, while Nazis and other nationalists favor a narrower definition of those included in the system being optimized. This inclusion can be on a continuum from individuals, families, ethnicity, language, religions, race, etc.

A distinction is made between “Do As I Say” versus “Do As I Do”.  Humans may adopt a public System Optimal solution in theory for others, but a private User Optimal solution for themselves.  E.g. Nazis in public as opposed to Nazi officials in practice.  However, nature has stood firmly on the side of System Optimal solutions, Species, rather than User Optimal solutions, individual organisms. 

While it is convenient to define human behavior in two dimensions, it is not extreme behavior in these dimensions  Humans are a balance of both social and xenophobic.  Moderation in these opposing tendencies may be the preferred behavior.