Tuesday, November 15, 2011

In which I mythbust

This was brought up on a forum thread I was perusing, by someone who took both stories as true.

If you've paid any attention to the media lately, you've probably heard of the story of Aron Ralston, the hiker who was forced to amputate his own arm to escape from a boulder that pinned him down during a hiking accident. Before doing the grisly deed (with a pocket knife), he spent several days slowly dying of thirst in the desert, with no way to contact help. Later, he wrote a book about his adventures (Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which I highly recommend), and later was the subject of a major motion picture (which I haven't seen).

But before the book and the movie, and several months after the accident itself, this article appeared describing the eerily similar story of Mark Swinton, the "impatient hiker," who was similarly trapped after a similar fall and used a similar tactic to escape. There were a few glaring differences, though: Mark Swinton had lost his pocket knife, and instead used his keys. And rather than waiting almost a week before resorting to such desperate measures, Swinton only waited ten minutes.

So, which is more likely? That two hikers, within months of each other, suffered nearly-identical accidents and resorted to the same desperate, unbelievably gutsy move to survive, and that one simply went on to be famous while the other ended up the subject of a measley two Google hits? Or that a writer with an eye for the bizarre heard Ralston's story, added a few humorous and exaggerated details, made up a new name and location, and, depending on the relative obscurity of the pre-famous Ralston to protect himself, presented it as true?

Actually, neither, it seems. The source of the Swinton story is The Brushback, a site whose other news stories have headlines like "Indiana Governor Turns Wife Over To Connecticut Governor After Losing March Madness Bet" and "Jets Win After Bengals Forget Helmets". I'd guess The Brushback is basically the sports page's equivalent to The Onion.

Monday, August 29, 2011

In which I pretend to be a food blogger

Today's experimental recipe is an improvised Italian eggplant casserole... thingy. We chopped an eggplant into slices about 1/2 inch thick, then salted it and set aside while combining ricotta cheese with a generous handful of basil and lemon balm (both home-grown) and a few cloves of garlic. Then we coated the bottom of a glass pan with tomato sauce and sliced fresh tomatoes, and layered half the eggplant slices over that, followed by the ricotta mixture, more fresh tomato, and another layer of eggplant slices. More tomato sauce was spread on top, and then a generous sprinkling of parmesan and romano cheese. This concoction is now baking in the oven at 350 degrees; soon we'll find out what it tastes like.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Definition

“The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” I’ve heard a lot of people say that, and it annoys me to no end. The same definition has also frequently been ascribed to the word “insanity.” But it’s really the definition of neither. Stupidity is defined as low intelligence, which is approximated with the Intelligence Quotient, or IQ; someone with an IQ significantly lower than 100, or average, might be crudely called “stupid” (although other terms are considered more polite). Insanity is an outdated term for mental illness; the field of psychology discarded it years ago, and now it’s considered more proper to name the specific type of mental illness. Neither condition has ever been measured by asking the subject whether they expect a different result when repeating the same action.

But this is pedantic; most people fond of using the above “definition” will acknowledge that the behavior it describes can be thought of as stupid or insane, whether it defines these conditions or not. Perhaps, but consider the opposite behavior: doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result. If expecting a different result is stupid and insane, then is expecting the same result smart and sane?

Think of this example, taken from an old fable: a farmer was taking a break from plowing his field, and happened to be looking at a tree stump nearby. Suddenly, a rabbit bounded out of the brush headlong into the stump, breaking its neck and dying instantly. The farmer enjoyed rabbit stew that day, marveling at how little he had to work for it, and resolved to spend his days staring at that stump, getting easy meals by watching animals kill themselves running into it. As a result, his fields never got plowed, he never planted or harvested his crops, and he soon starved to death - all because he expected the same result (free food) from the same action (watching the stump).

Now, granted, this is a very exaggerated story; nobody is that crazy. But all cautionary tales are exaggerated. They frame a common behavior in rediculous circumstances to highlight the foolishness of the behavior. People accept Red Riding Hood as a warning against trusting strangers, even though an unscrupulous stranger is more likely to cheat you than eat you. And the hapless farmer here isn’t that different from an athlete that always wears the same underwear he wore when he made his first win, or my friend who thinks adoption is a bad idea because he knew an adopted kid who was horrifically maladjusted.

In truth, both behaviors are extreme aversions of the more moderate, sensible option: waiting for sufficient information before drawing a conclusion. As every scientist knows, an experiment must be repeated many times before a reliable conclusion can be drawn. According to the stats class I failed in college, the magic number is thirty: you need at least thirty data points to get an accurate statistical analysis. So, the common phrase shouldn’t be “if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all” but rather, “if you’ve seen thirty, you’ve seen ‘em all.”

Of course, this cautious approach can be taken too far as well. Consider a woman who keeps an abusive boyfriend around after being beaten several times (but not quite thirty), because he could change. While it may be possible for a brutal person to change, most sensible people would agree that the woman would be much better off ditching him.

So, what is correct? How many examples must one see before it is safe to conclude all future examples will be similar? It’s hard to answer this question because to do so, one must already know the answer. Each situation I’ve described in this entry is an example of a person either reaching a conclusion without enough evidence, or not reaching an obvious conclusion despite plenty of evidence. How many such examples do we need before we can reach a conclusion regarding how and when it is appropriate to reach a conclusion? Until we get a definitive answer, it’s probably best to take each situation as unique, and middle through our decisions as well as we can. Most likely, the correct answer depends on several specific factors. For instance, what are the stakes involved? In the case of the abused girlfriend, the cost of staying with an abuser far outweighs the cost of rejecting a reformed one, so it’s best to quickly conclude that things aren’t going to change. Also, is there a logical reason to connect the action to the result? In the case of the superstitious athlete, there is no logical reason to believe his performance depends on what underwear he has on, and he should probably reserve judgment until he’s had overwhelming proof. There are probably many factors which should help deptermine what conclusions you should reach and when and how.

That said, I feel the need to point out that my definition of stupidity is “repeating clever-sounding fake definitions without stopping to check a dictionary.” But that’s just my personal opinion.

Friday, December 24, 2010

A Christmas Contradiction

This thing has been bothering me for a couple of weeks now, and I thought it might be the right time to share my observation with the world.

Compare two of the most famous Christmas films of all time: How the Grinch Stole Christmas (specifically the half-hour animated show, not the newfangled live-action Jim Carrey nonsense), and Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer (the stop-motion animation extravaganza).

First, let's review the plot of How the Grinch Stole Christmas. The Grinch, a mean-spirited guy who lives in a cave to avoid all contact with happy people, decides that he hates Christmas so much that he wants to steal it. So he goes all cat-burglar on Whoville, taking away all the Christmas trappings: the presents, the stockings, the decorations, even the tree and the food for the Christmas dinner. Then, smug and satisfied that the Whos are totally lacking all things Christmas and looking forward to hearing their cries of dismay, the Grinch looks down on Whoville only to see that all the Whos have gathered in a circle and are singing. They found a way to celebrate Christmas that didn't involve material goods. So instead of concluding that next year he should improve his plan to include surgical removal of all the Whos' larynges, he has an epiphany regarding the true meaning of Christmas and decides to give everything back, even participate in the festivities.

In all, it's a great story about how although the festive trappings and doodads and baubles may make Christmas extra fun, they are not the be-all-end-all, and that Christmas is more of an ineffable, intangible, dare I say spiritual thing unaffected by such mundane setbacks as stolen hams.

Now, let's take a look at Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer. We needn't summarize the whole story, just one scene. On Christmas Eve, Santa notices that it's too foggy to safely steer his sleigh through the sky to deliver presents, and it isn't showing signs of letting up. So what does he do? He announces that he will have to "cancel Christmas." Not just "cancel the toy-delivery", but Christmas itself. Santa Claus, the ultimate Christmas icon second only to Baby Jesus, often thought of as the personification of Christmas Spirit, doesn't think that Christmas can happen without toys. Not only that, he's thwarted by a simple fog. It didn't even occur to him to bring a lantern or two. How fragile Christmas must be, and how temporal, if this is to be believed.

So what do you believe? Do you believe that Christmas is about presents and decorations and feasting, or is it about something more intangible - and therefore more enduring than the ham that will soon be digested away and the toys you'll probably have gotten bored of by New Year's? If your Christmas encounters some setback - say the feast gets burnt, your presents get lost in the mail, your relatives are fighting, the store runs out of the toy your kids desperately need in their stockings - do you give up, canceling Christmas in your heart by letting frustration and stress overtake you, or do you let joy prevail, and find a Christmas spirit that cannot be stolen?

You may find that if your Christmas doesn't depend on the material trappings, then neither will it depend on the calendar date - that, too, is ephemeral. You may find that joy follows you throughout the year, lifting you up during the darkest times in your life.

Merry Christmas everyone, and a happy New Year.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

A dream of economic realities

Last night I had a dream about a restaurant. It was located right between a high-class neighborhood and a lower-class neighborhood, and had an entrance on each side of the building. Those entering from the high-class side would find well-dressed waiters, fancy tables, menus with French words in them, and (of course) very high prices. In addition, the portions were tiny, the food tasted bad, and the waiters treated you like dirt. However, those entering on the lower-class side would find a casual diner with friendly staff, generous portions of good food, and (of course) much lower prices. The high-class diners knew nothing about the low-class restaurant - it was kept secret from them.

In my dream, a diner from the high-class side found out about the conspiracy and demanded to be allowed into the other part of the restaurant. After meeting much resistance, he finally got a table and was waited on by the manager of the restaurant herself. She proceeded to make his experience there a living hell - by making him jump through hoops to make his order, laughing in his face when he made special requests, and serving him burned, badly-seasoned food. The reason? The upper class diners were not treated badly because they were on the wrong side of the restaurant, or even because they had money. It was because they treated people of lower status like inferior beings, and got exactly the treatment they deserved.

While dining on the high-class side they were paying for the knowledge that they could afford something other people couldn't, even if the quality of what they were paying for wasn't worth the price. It wasn't about having a superior dining experience: it was about appearances and flaunting power. In my experience, that is the motive behind many of the expensive products and services that people buy or covet in our society, believing them to be better simply because they cost a lot.

One last lesson from my dream last night: as different as the two versions of this restaurant were, there was one thing they both had in common. They shared a bathroom. I still haven't figured out if that means anything, but I'm willing to bet there's something very clever in that.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Falling Out of Love

For those who don't know, I've got a new job that fortunately allows me some time to read and write. I'll say more about this later, but first, a passage I wrote today in between busy moments:


“Separate but equal” is a practical impossibility. So to achieve equality, women must fall out of love with womanhood. There must be no “women's mysteries,” no goddesses of feminine realms that punish any male onlooker for daring to intrude. If men are ignorant of women's lives, of our daily hardships and rites of passage, it is because we veil ourselve in decorum and propriety. We shut others out of our inner lives, assuming they will not understand, will not sympathize, will not be interested.

Men of this age, raised to see their sisters as equals in law and in fact, do not regard us with the curious mixture of fear and disdain that their fathers and grandfathers felt when they spoke of the mysterious, dangerous, chaotic world that was the life and mind of a woman. They could not empathize with women because they saw us as wholly different from themselves, with baffling biological functions, irrational and unpredictable behavior, and a power over them that they felt they could not control. We now know that the differences between us come more from culture than anything else, and our culture is changing.

There is no more reason to hide behind petticoats and facepaint and secrets and segregation, and whispering huddles in school hallways that turn quiet the moment a boy walks by. No reason to hide behind closed doors while feeding our babies or discussing our bodies. A woman can go to work in slacks and flat shoes and bare face and short, unstyled hair. She can go on a date in jeans and sneakers and unshaven legs. She can belch, eat heartily, and fully enjoy sports and crass jokes and carnal pleasures – but only if she lets go of that old notion, that cultural shackle, that is the feminine mystique. When she does, when she fully pronounces her personhood as much as her womanhood, she will find the men in her life appreciative of her honesty, her friendship, and the opportunity to let go of some of the pressures on them to be paragons of manhood.

But falling out of love with womanhood does not require being unfeminine. We needn't fear the loss of our intuitions, our subtleties of thought and feeling, our grace and beauty and appreciation of same. We needn't fear for our children's mothers or the state of our homes and kitchens. For as we fall our of love with womanhood, men are graduall falling out of love with manhood. They find no insult in what was once known as women's work. They are not threatened by their own need for gentleness, for empathy, for beauty, and for family. We are slowly reaching an age when femininity and masculinity are not categories we are born to, but a spectrum of choices that all are free to explore.

Womanood can no longer be a mystery. What can be a mystery is the individual spirit, the capacity of each person to invent her identity as a woman, as a man, and as something the world has never seen before. What can be a mystery is our innermost selves, male and female, free to share or to keep secret our dreams and thoughts, our joy and anguish. To achieve equality, must realize there is no womanhood. There is no manhood. There are – we are – people, as simple and as complicated as that.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

How to explain things to children

A woman at a shopping mall approached a nursing mother nearby and complained, saying "I don't know how to explain to my 5-year-old what you're doing." The same argument has been used against gay marriage (or even gays holding hands in public), a more controversial subject than public nursing but becoming more and more acceptable in the eyes of most Americans. And, more controversial still, it's been used to protest against a couple walking down the sidewalk with one partner holding the other on a leash - expressing a lifestyle that few understand who have not chosen it for themselves. It's never easy to explain to a young child something that you yourself do not understand fully, or which arouses strong feelings of disgust, moral indignation or offense. Should we prohibit or discourage such behavior in areas where strangers' children might see, in order to prevent the awkward or difficult conversations that it might bring up?

No, of course not.

First of all, as many parents should already know or will very quickly learn, a large part of the job of parenting is to explain difficult things. Children learn most of what they know of the world from their parents, whether consciously through intentional direction and instruction or unconsciously through examples set in the parents' own behavior. So, naturally, every parent must eventually face hard-to-answer questions, and explain why the family next door doesn't go to the same church as us, what is going to happen to the beloved family cat when it's taken to the vet to be put down, why the people we saw on the TV news are so intent on hurting each other, and what Daddy and Mommy did to bring a child into the family. Sometimes, especially if the child is very young, these explanations may require some gloss or a fanciful exaggeration to avoid bringing up details that are truly inappropriate, but at least the kid can know that what's happening is normal and natural - or, alternatively, that it's wrong and shouldn't be imitated, depending on which values you want to pass on. Don't get me wrong, some of these topics are real stumpers even for grown-ups. But nobody is trying to restructure society or limit others' freedoms just for the purpose of keeping kids from asking tough questions.

If anything, the complaint that "I don't know how to explain that to my child" is not an indictment of the behavior the child is asking about, but of the parent's ability to confidently raise their child in a complicated, confusing, and very diverse world.

But what if the parent really is at a loss for explaining something, and simply cannot begin to instruct their child on the meaning of what they're witnessing and what should be done about it? Don't worry. Children, as parents may remember from their own pasts, are very smart. Even if they aren't told explicitly, kids pick up on a lot. A friend of mine once worried that his half-sister, then four years old, wouldn't understand how they could be siblings although they had different dads. He needn't have worried; nontraditional families are only strange to those who have not seen them before. Growing up in one herself, my friend's sister may learn that other families are different - but that will not change her understanding of who her brother is to her.

Although neither of my parents have ever divorced, I grew up in a nontraditional family in a couple of different ways. One is that my father chose to take my mother's name when they got married. It was my understanding, as a child, that married couples choose whichever name they like best. And so, when another kid and I were playing with toy animals and wanted two of them to get married, one of the first things I asked was which name they would keep. Did this result in an uncomfortable silence as the other kid, raised by more traditional parents, tried to understand why I would say such a thing? No. Without missing a beat, she suggested a solution and our play went on uninterrupted. I don't know whether she later asked her parents whether it's really always the wife who changes her name, but I imagine it wasn't a terribly difficult question to answer if she did.

In fact, not only do children learn quickly and easily, but they will most likely understand many things that their own parents never will. Just as my generation, who grew up using computers and cell phones and the internet, tends to be more proficient in using those technologies than our parents and grandparents, so does each generation become accustomed to different social norms as our society becomes more diverse, more open, and more focused on individual freedoms and choices. That's not to say that children are smarter or better than their parents - after all, kids who learned to "type" with their thumbs on a tiny cell phone keypad may never learn to use a traditional keyboard, and since calculators became a common school supply few children have learned to use a sliderule (let alone an abacus).

And there are certain lessons that we should be glad our children won't learn. Today, a 16-year-old boy can't run a household, but his chances of being orphaned at that age are much less now then they were a few generations ago, and if he was then he'd be taken care of by a caring relative or a foster family, so thankfully he will never have to learn how. Children of color in America will never again have to ask their parents why there aren't any white children in their school, or why they can't use the nicer water fountains. I think these changes part and parcel of a more progressive society where some conservative parents may have to face the prospect of explaining the family down the street with two dads.

My final reason for this tirade will possibly be the most difficult for many parents to hear. Ultimately, no matter how much instruction you impart, or how perfectly you set your example, or how hard you try to instill your values, you will never be in complete control of your children. My very liberal agnostic mother could not stop me from dating a conservative Christian, and my abrasively atheist father couldn't keep me from experimenting with religions the way some teenagers experiment with substances. My hard-line Catholic aunt may have raised her children to be Catholic themselves, but couldn't stop them from eventually questioning many of her more conservative beliefs. Eventually, every parent much reach a point when they admit they've done all they can do, and hope that they've at least kept their children from living too atrociously. And, parents, admit it: you didn't take your own upbringing hook line and sinker either. And you turned out alright, didn't you?

Now prove it, and don't be such a pussy about your own parenting duties.