Tuesday, March 30, 2021
Choices
Friday, March 26, 2021
Fever
Hey,
98.6, it's good to have you back again
Oh, hey, 98.6, her
lovin' is the medicine
That saved me,
oh, I love my baby
Is a difference
from 98.6 normal?
98.6 is the normal body temperature of humans. But no single value should ever be taken as
normal unless you also see an error range.
98.6 is the temperature in Fahrenheit.
In most of the world that temperature would be given as 37 degrees Celsius If a Canadian heard that the outside air temperature
was 35 degrees, he might consider it a heat wave, not because he is Canadian but
because he uses the Celsius temperature system.
Again 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is 37 degrees Celsius. The common claim that human body temperature
averages 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit originated with a study by the German doctor
Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich, who repeatedly measured the temperatures of
25,000 people in Leipzig in 1851. The error range is not often given but
based on the instruments of that
time it is assumed to be plus or minus 0.5 degrees Celsius. That means the range of average normal temperature
would have been given as 97.7 (36.5 degree Celsius) to 99.5 ( 37.5 Celsius).
But this was in 1851.
Has normal human body temperature changed in the last 170 years? A body temperature higher than the outside air temperature is a mammalian
defense against bacteria and fungus. For example, the common intestinal bacteria
Helicobacter causes open sores
called ulcers in the esophagus, stomach and small intestine and raises affected
people's risk of developing gastric cancers. Over the years, Helicobacter infections
have become less common in the U.S because of antibacterial treatments. This has meant that the evolutionary bias against body temperatures less than 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit may no longer apply. According to a recent study, American men born
in the 2000s measure an average 1.06 F (0.58 C) cooler than men born in the
early 1800s. Women born in the 2000s measure about 0.58 F (0.32 C) cooler than
women born in the 1890s.
Friday, March 19, 2021
Heroes
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight.
What does it say about you if you need a
hero?
We have been
telling stories about heroes from the time of Greek myths, to today’s Marvel
and DC Universe movies. What does it say about
you, if you believe in heroes? In a previous
blog post, I described a framework for human behavior, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-framework-for-human-behavior.html. One of the attributes in this framework is whether
someone favors User Optimal or System Optimal solutions. Heroes by definition must believe in System
Optimal solutions. They clearly don’t seek a
solution that is best for themselves, but seek the solution that is best for
others.
Superman could use his
powers to be the wealthiest individual, but he chooses instead to save others. Batman is a billionaire but chooses to pursue
justice, rather than his own pleasure. In
the movie "Civil Wars", Captain America seeks justice over order. When Spiderman
says “With great power, comes great responsibility”, it clearly means responsibility
to others even if it is to your own detriment. Greek tragedies
often describe what happens when heroes seek to advance their own interests,
seek a User Optimal solution, and abandon seeking what is best for others, a
System Optimal solution.
If you expect a hero to
not seek their own User Optimal solution and save you, or you follow a story
where a hero does just that, you probably also prefer System Optimal solutions
over User Optimal solutions. A hero may not only be someone who doesn’t get
captured, but also includes those that get captured, depending on why they got
captured and what they did once they were captured. The best way to show that we admire heroes is
to seek System Optimal solutions for ourselves. Then we can be our own heroes.
Trade Wars
War
Sunday, March 14, 2021
“Law and Order” vs. “Honor and Justice"
The Impossible Dream
This is
my quest, to follow that star
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far
To be willing to give when there's no more to give
To be willing to die so that honor and justice may live.
“Law and Order”
may only mean supporting the existing system.
We have elections to determine
who controls the government, i.e. the system.
“Law and Order” supports those who control the existing system. “Honor and Justice” supports the system, no matter
who controls it.
If there are protests against
the system, those may not be supporting “Law and Order.” However if those protests are on behalf of “Honor
and Justice”, isn’t that better than
supporting “Law and Order”.
It brings to mind the opposition
to protests when I was young as “My country, right or wrong”. The best response that I remember agreed with that
statement, but acknowledged that it was incomplete. ”My country,
right or wrong. If it is right, keep it
right. If it is wrong, make it right." That is supporting “Honor and Justice”, even
if it is not supporting “Law and Order”.
Second Chances
I
am changing
Yes I know how
I'm
gonna start again.
I'm
gonna leave my past behind
I'll
change my life.
I
make it up
And
nothing is gonna stop me now.
Is America is the Land of Second Chances?
There is a popular tale used by certain groups, the Scorpion and the Frog. A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."
If you accept the "moral" of this fable , then even
though the scorpion knows that he will drown, you believe that he can’t change his nature. You believe that the frog was “foolish” to give the scorpion a
second chance. Blaming nature is saying
that one can’t change. The problem is
that the scorpion lied when he said he knew that they both would drown and would act to prevent that. The frog would have been foolish to believe that
the scorpion wouldn’t sting him on land, but the frog acted reasonably in believing
that the scorpion would not sting him in the water where they both would drown.
If you believe in second chances, then you believe that people can change their
nature.
Friday, March 12, 2021
Cancel Culture
Imperfection
Hardly. Six out of his almost fifty books will no longer be published by his
estate, but the remaining books will be treasured by readers in the years to come. This decision not to publish was not made by
the government, or by any political party. It is purely a business decision.
Is Dr. Seuss a racist? That is a complicated matter. He certainly drew things in ways that can be considered
offensive early in his career.
https://www.businessinsider.com/before-dr-seuss-was-famous-he-drew-these-sad-racist-ads-2012-3#-3
"Wife on vacation, King?”
“Vacation nothing. Nice girl, but I simply had to swap her for this Flit Gun.”
He avidly supported the WWII wartime Japanese internment camps, but later came to view the post-war occupation of Japan as tragic and that is thought to have inspired "Horton Hears a Who".
Like Saul, Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, appears to had his moment
on the road to Damascus. If we don’t honor Paul’s older offensive letters from when he was called Saul, why are we troubled that
older, offensive Dr. Seuss images and words will no longer be published by his estate. There is a difference between honoring the
past, and remembering the past. Let us
honor the person that Dr. Seuss became, and not remember the racist images and words in some
of his early works. Not publishing those
images or words is not cancelling Dr. Seuss. It is honoring him.