Bukharin's Lesson in Communism

A review of "The ABC of Communism", by Nikokai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, 1920.

Nikokai Bukharin was one of the 1917 revolutionaries that brought communism to Russia. He was in New York (as was Leon Trotsky) in February 1917, as the news of the budding revolution spread around the world, and joined that revolution in May. He and Trotsky were penning a socialist newspaper at the time, and were particular fans of the New York public library- a great example of a public-private partnership, (not to mention free speech), which houses countless products of private enterprise, in a public facility. Back in Russia, they helped establish the world's first socialist and communist state, destroying the nascent parliamentary system of Karensky, and then the arrayed forces of the old aristocracy in the Russian civil war. They did this by promising something even better than parliamentary democracy- a proletarian state that would forever place workers in power, and end the power of capital and the aristocracy. 

A convenient document of the thinking behind all this is the "The ABC of Communism", by Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky, put out in 1920 and republished long thereafter to provide a popular argument for communism and the soviet system. It encapsulates the economic and political theories that animated, at least at a conscious level, the new rulers. Bukharin was relatively young, regarded as a leading theoretician, and somewhat on the liberal side, not quite as ruthless as Stalin and Lenin. An autobiography and film about his wife tried to paint a positive image of him and of what things would have been like if Bukharin had managed to not get murdered by Stalin. So this work should present a relatively coherent and attractive case for communism.

Bukharin (center) in happier days, in Soviet leadership.

Well, I have to say that it is not very impressive as either economics or politics. While it provides insight into some capitalist dynamics, it fundamentally fails to understand the most basic drivers of economic systems, and obviously has not engaged with Adam Smith, who had written almost 150 years before. 

On the plus side, there is a lengthy treatment of the economies of scale, which rightly describes the advantages that large industrial enterprises have over smaller ones. The point of this, however, is mostly political, to show why anarchism, which was one of the many revolutionary threads still active at the time, made little sense. The Bolsheviks were besotted by industry and large-scale industrialization, which was at least one area where they put a lot of resources and accomplished a great deal, saving their skins in world war 2, later on.

"Consequently, THE LARGER THE UNDERTAKING, THE MORE PERFECT IS THE TECHNIQUE, THE MORE ECONOMICAL IS THE LABOUR, AND THE LOWER IS THE COST OF PRODUCTION."

Secondly, the author's treatment of cyclical crises in capitalism is not too far off the mark. They pin the problem on over-production, which then leads to workers getting laid off, loss of income and buying power, loss of credit, loss of ancillary business, and the downward spiral of depression. Whether lack of demand or over-supply, imbalances of this kind are indeed central to this kind of crisis. The author's solution? Better organization, in the form of state control over every aspect of the economy. They ceaselessly rail against the waste of capitalism- the competition with similar products, the disorganized manner of production by competing and cut-throat capitalists, the lack of overall harmonious coordination for the public good. But what of Adam Smith? It turns out that the chaos of capitalism has its beauties, and its efficiencies, squeezing every drop out of the environment, and out of workers, in its Darwinian competition.

Thirdly, they make a great deal out of the ambient excesses of capitalism, which were truly horrific, and were clear enough all over the world, leading to the communist's program of world-wide revolution by the working class. The monopolies, the strike-breaking, the child labor, the inhuman conditions, and the vast inequality- these were unquestionable evils, some of which remain endemic to capitalism, others of which have been ameliorated through reform in (relatively) democratic countries. As is typical, criticizing is easy, and there were, and remain, plenty of problems with capitalism and with democracy as well. The question is whether Bukharin plumbs the essential depths of economics sufficiently to come up with a better economic system, or of its associated politics to come up with a better form of the state.

And here the answer has to be, as history demonstrated, no. In their discussion of large scale enterprise, they go through a rather particular example to show the power of scale.

"How great is the advantage of this system was made manifest by some American researches instituted in the year 1898. Here are the results. The manufacture of 10 ploughs. By hand labour: 2 workers, performing 11 distinct operations, worked in all 1,180 hours, and received $54. By machine labour: 52 workers, performing 97 operations (the more numerous the workers, the more varied the operations), worked in all 37 hours and 28 minutes, and received $7.90. (We see that the time was enormously less and that the cost of labour was very much lower.) The manufacture of 100 sets of clock wheels. By hand labour: 14 workers, 453 operations, 341,866 hours, $80.82. By machine labour: 10 workers, 1,088 operations, 8343 hours, $1.80. The manufacture of 500 yards of cloth. Hand labour: 3 workers, 19 operations, 7,534 hours, $135.6. Machine labour: 252 workers, 43 operations, 84 hours, $6.81."

... "All these advantages attaching to large-scale enterprise explain why small scale production must invariably succumb in capitalist society. Large scale capital crushes the small producer, takes away his customers, and ruins him, so that he drops into the ranks of the proletariat or becomes a tramp. In many cases, of course, the small master continues to cling to life. He fights desperately, puts his own hand to the work, forces his workers and his family to labour with all their strength; but in the end he is compelled to give up his place to the great capitalist."

If we read this carefully, and do the math in the case of the ploughs:

$54 / 1180 hours = 4.58 cents per hour in wages

$5.40 per plough in cost

$7.90 / 37.5 hours = 21.1 cents per hour in wages

$0.79 per plough in cost

... we can see that not only is the plough almost ten-fold cheaper (some of which is presumably shared with the buyer in the market), but the workers were paid almost five-fold more per hour. How is this a bad reflection on capitalism? This is by way of telling why small scale production dies in a capitalist system ... it doesn't stand a chance. But the authors fail to mention that, in their own example, some of these gains are apparently shared with workers. So the gains in efficiency are shared quite widely- with customers, with workers, and also with the managers and capitalists, since this new form of work requires much greater contributions of management and capital equipment.

Bukharin and Preobrazhensky are "doctrinaire" communists, blind to a gem hidden in their own data that tells us how and why the capitalist system really works. Why did workers flock to the cities when there were agricultural jobs to be had? It was higher pay. Were the new capitalists holding workers as serfs against their will? Not at all. In the US likewise, whatever the horrors of capitalism, it did not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery.

More broadly, Bukharin and the communists generally had little appreciation for the difficulties and role of management. The surplus labor theory of Marxism leaves no room for management contributions of value to the final product- it is all excess labor stolen from the worker, to be restored in the idealized worker state/paradise. The capitalists are parasites:

"In communist society parasitism will likewise disappear. There will be no place for the parasites who do nothing and who live at others' cost."

Rentiers may be parasites, but managers are not. Theirs is the job to locate the resources, drum up the customers, to build the factories, to negotiate the wages, to run the work and fire the lazy. It is not an enviable or simple position to be in, rather is perhaps the most complex in the capitalist system, or any economic system. (And it is noteworthy that failures of management are endemic in government, of even the most enlightened kind, where crucial parts of this constricting set of incentives are often lacking.) It is the competitive forces pressuring on all sides- from customers, from workers, from government, from the financial markets, etc., that are integrated by the petty bourgeoisie / kulak class into a solvent enterprise, and are the soul of the capitalist system, for which they take a premium of profits off the top.

Bukharin and colleagues never pause to consider why capitalism is so dominant:

"Contemporary capitalism is world capitalism. All the countries are interconnected; they buy one from another. We cannot now find any country which is not under the heel of capitalism; we cannot find any country which produces for itself absolutely everything it needs."

Why is this? There was no shortage of experiments in the 1800's in socialistic styles of life, extending from the Shakers and the Owenites to the Tolstoyans. Few of them even survived very long, and none had a broader impact, let alone rising to the organic level of country-wide economic system. Religious monasteries are probably the only example of successful long-term socialistic organizations, though most are run on more or less totalitarian lines, with a whole separate set of emotional and personal committments. This starkly unsuccessful track record should have been a red flag- forgive the pun!- that while socialist utopianism is very popular, it is not practical.

This cavalier disregard of management and the elementary aspects of human economic demand (aka desire, aka greed) naturally came back to bite the communist Soviets, when, in the absence of a well-thought out way to run things in the wake of winning power on the back of their fantasy of a perfectly (and apparently easily, thanks to a mythical "statistical office") ordered and efficient economic system, they fell to the lowest device in the manager's toolbox- terror.

Bukharin on his way to execution, after having helped Stalin hound Trotsky to death.

Why the loose economics, fantastical pronouncements, and embarassing lack of realism? The reason becomes apparent as you read through "The ABC of Communism", which is that its main purpose is to inspire hate. It is a political tract that, as was current among communists then and since, seeks to frame an enemy, inspire hatred of that enemy, and support for the valiant vanguard that will vanquish that enemy. 

"What civil war can compare in its destructive effects with the brutal disorganization and devastation, with the loss of the accumulated wealth of mankind, that resulted from the imperialist war? MANIFESTLY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT HUMANITY SHALL MAKE AN END OF CAPITALISM ONCE AND FOR ALL. WITH THIS GOAL IN VIEW, WE CAN ENDURE THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WARS, AND CAN PAVE THE WAY FOR COMMUNISM, WHICH WILL HEAL ALL OUR WOUNDS, AND WILL QUICKLY LEAD TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF HUMAN SOCIETY."

... "We are thus confronted by two alternatives, and two only. There must either be complete disintegration, hell broth, further brutalization and disorder, absolute chaos, or else communism."

Millions of people all over the world were thoughtless enough to accept this poisoned chalice, and went down the road of economic brutalization, famine, mass terror, and the gulag. Communism turned out to be a power play, not an economic Oz. It was a bright and shiny political lie. We are in the US becoming familiar with the power of such lies- their use of the basest and most powerful instincts- hate, and hope. Their ability to cut straight through any rational and empathetic analysis, and their ability to make seemingly reasonable people believe the flimsiest absurdities.

• China is looking at some serious problems.
• Utopias should be strictly for thinking, not doing.
• Wait, I can't live in an exclusive neighborhood?
• Is it OK for lawyers to engage in insurrection?

Founders, Schmounders

Elie Mystal rakes constitutional originalism over the coals, in "A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution".

I was raised to revere the founders and the elegant, almost scriptural document they constructed to rule our society. But suppose I was a black person, knowing that these founders were the rich white guys of their time, owners and abusers of slaves? I might think that while their aspirations were rhetorically high, their constitution was rather more utilitarian in its denial of true democracy to most people living in the colonies, its indirect and unjust approach to the democracy it did allow, and its euphemistically stated, but absolute, denial of freedom to "other persons". I would have experienced the US legal and cultural system as one of systematic oppression, dedicated to the proposition that while white, rich, men might be equal in some way and enjoy a rules-based system, the larger point of the system was to maintain power in their hands, and deny it to all others.

At least that is the sense one gets from Mystal's book, which, along with a lot of colorful language and wry jokes, assembles a trenchant rebuke of the American constitution, of conservatives, of Republicans, and especially of the originalist ideology of jurisprudence. Every hot button topic gets its due, and every amendment its contrarian interpretation. The second amendment is easy- it is about a regulated militia, after all, not about some commandment handed down from Charlton Heston to the ammosexuals of the nation to stock up on AR-15s and have a mass shooting if they are feeling a little antsy. 

Police brutality, prejudice, impunity, and immunity from accountabiliy is another easy, if painful, target. Mystal describes how he has been profiled and roughed up, for no other reason than being black. The legal system seems to have driven a semi through the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches when it comes to vehicles owned by black people, for one thing. And the fifth amendment comes into play as well- why do we allow police to play cat and mouse with suspects, trying to trip them up and get them to confess, cutting corners and playing games with their Miranda rights? Mystal makes a strong case for doing away with this whole theater of intimidation, with its slippery slope to fraud and torture, by barring police from eliciting or transmitting confessions at all, period. He notes that anyone with even a glancing acquaintance with the legal profession has learned to say nothing to police without a lawyer by her side.

Mystal's approach to abortion, however, is where this book really shines. Was Roe "wrongly decided"? Hardly. In the first place, Mystal provides an interesting discussion of "substantive" due process, (fifth amendment, and fourteenth), meaning that the rights and protections of the constitution are not to be taken merely literally or trifled with by twisting their meanings. They must be afforded by realistic means and set in a legal / civil system that supports their spirit. And that means that the right to privacy is a thing. While its poetic origin may be in the "penumbras" of the constitution, it is integral to the very idea of much of it- the concept unreasonable searches, of rights against self-incrimination, of any sort of rights of the individual vs the state. This is not to mention the ninth amendment, which asserts that just because the constitution and bill of rights mentions some rights explicitly, that others by their ommission are not covered. Privacy would, in general terms, clearly fall in this category.

But where else could a right to abortion be found? Plenty of places. One is the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Mystal, and many others, note that this should be taken as applying to women, making the whole equal rights amendment (ERA) unnecessary, given a modicum of enlightened interpretation. It could also be taken to afford men and women equal protections regarding reproduction, meaning that the penalty for a roll in the hay should not be grossly unequal, as it is when abortion is banned. Mystal goes on to suggest that the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment could be invoked as well. If men were faced, as a penalty for sex, months of mental and physical torment, and then the excruciating labor of birth, one could be sure that no court would consider banning abortion for a nanosecond. And how much more cruel and vindictive is it be if that pregnancy arose from rape? There is also, after all, the thirteen amendment against involuntary servitude/labor.

Originalists brazenly throw their so-called principles out the window when it comes to abortion. Unenumerated rights? Never heard of them. Keeping the state out of the most sacred precincts of our private lives? No comment. Colonial attitudes towards abortion were very loose, nothing like the personhood-at-conception garbage we get today from the right/Catholic wing. It just goes to show that a little knowledge (here, of biology) can be a dangerous thing.

It is really originalism and conservatism, however, that is the overarching and corrosive topic Mystal takes on. The founders were people of their time, and that was a white supremacy kind of time. They wrote a constitution with hopeful ideals and judicious language which insulated it somewhat (though hardly enough!) from the prejudices of their day. To say that our current interpretation of their words should be confined to whatever psychoanalysis we can make of their meanings at the time would lock our whole political and legal system into those same prejudices that they were trying to overcome. To take the second amendment, Mystal argues (I am not sure how successfully) that its "militias" were most keenly understood to mean bands of Southern planters gathering together to prevent or put down slave revolts. Southerners did not want to be dependent on Federal sympathy and arms, and thus insisted that a right to raise their own militias for their own peculiar needs should be enshrined in the constitution. Well, if we were to restrict outselves to such an interpretation, that would have significant effects on our practice of the second amendment. Gun control would be allowed in the North, just not in the South, allowing guns to white males with certain property qualifications, perhaps, and certain mental proclivities.

Even the civil war amendments would be infected with originalism, since very few people at that time envisioned the full social equality of black citizens. It is remarkable to consider the flurry of anti-miscegenation laws passed during the Jim Crow era, after the Southern slave owners had spent a century or two conducting forced miscegenation. Whence the squeemishness? Anyhow, consistent originalism would never have struck down such laws, or abetted the civil rights movement for blacks, let alone gays. Mystal imagines the nettlesome questioning of a prospective conservative justice going like: "Do you believe that Loving v. Virgina was rightly decided?" This case was about the social system of the South, which Mystal tries to separate from the legal and political aspects, and clearly on originalist principles could not be decided as it was. And much more so on Obergefell, which draws on the fourteenth amendment's due process concept to free personal choices (of gay people) from government intrusion, again doubtless totally in contradiction to the social vision and intention of any of its authors.

Instead of fixating on the past so much, in constitutional interpretation, we might think about the future more.

So originalism, for all its rhetorical seductiveness, (after one has been properly indoctrinated in the divine virtues of the founding fathers), is an absurdity for a country with even the tiniest ambition towards social progress, or change of any kind. It amounts to extreme conservatism, pure and simple. Mystal is relentlessly dismissive of the conservative mindset, tied as it is (ever more explicitly in our polarized moment) to regressive, even violent, racial anti-minority politics. 

What is the deal with conservatives? I think there is another unenumerated right that undergirds all these tensions, which is the right to win, and win by inheriting what our forebears wrought- physically, monetarily, politically, socially. America is a highly competitive country- we compete in making money, in politics, in sports, in war. In any society there is an inherent tension between the cohesiveness required to build common structures, like a constitution, or a military, and the the competitiveness that, if channeled properly, can also build great things, but if let loose, can tear down everything. The right to succeed in business, and to bequeath those gains to one's children- that is a widely shared dream. Our founders saw that there had to be limits to this dream, however. The creaky aristocracies of Europe fed on centuries of priviledge and inheritance. America was fundamentally opposed to noble privileges, but in their slaveholding and other businesses, the founders were far from averse to hereditary privileges in general.

It was the whites who won all this- won the American continent from its native inhabitants, won the slaves from their native hearths, invented the technologies like the cotton gin, devised the capitalist system, etc., etc. Who has a right to inherit all these winnings? Conservatives subscribe to a fundamentally competitive system. That is why Trump won the hearts of a rabid base. Lying isn't a bug, it is a feature, an intrinsic part of winning in a duplicitous cultural competition- and winning is everything. To conservatives, social justice is a fundamental affront. Who said the world was fair? Not us! Constitutional originalism is way of expressing this denial of social progress and justice in concrete, and superficially palatable, terms. For as Mystal reiterates, the justices are not calling balls and strikes- constitutional interpretation runs rather freely, as we can see from second amendment jurisprudence. That is why capture of the supreme court has been such a existential project of the right for decades.

Counterpoised to the conservative conception of (lack of) justice in America is that of the left, perhaps best exemplified by the California Reparations task force. If one looks back and considers the losses of enslaved and oppressed Americans, one quickly reaches astronomical levels of reparations that would be required in a just world. How to make up for death and torture? How to make up for the bulldozing of entire communities? How to make up for centuries of economic, social, political, and legal disadvantage? There is simply no way to make up what has been lost, and to do so would open up many other claims, especially by Native Americans, all inhabitants of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not to mention countless other victims of historical processes going back centuries and ranging world-wide. Justice is a massive can of worms, if looking back in time. But how about something simple, like affirmative action, giving formerly oppressed people a small leg up in the current system? Conservatives can't stand that either, and cry anti-white racism. 

It frankly boggles the mind, how greedy some people can be. But I think the problem of inheritance remains a central touchstone. In each generation, does everyone share equally in the inheritances from the past, or does one race inherit more, do children of the rich inherit more, do the well-connected send their children into the halls of power? The only way to insure a fresh and fair start for each generation is to, not only demolish the idea of inherited nobility as our founders did, (and which we are edging back toward with extreme economic inequality), but go a little beyond that to end other forms of inheritance ... of money and power. The meritocratic systems of higher education did a great deal in the twentieth century to advance this ideal, allowing students from all backgrounds to aspire to, and achieve, all kinds of success. This made the US incredibly powerful and the envy of the world. Liberals should continue this tradition by attacking all forms of entrenched and inherited power, from private schools to the shameful lack of inheritance taxation. The better way to make reparations is to pay it forward, with more just future world.

• Entering blackness.
• "Private jets are on average 10 times more carbon intensive than commercial flights"
• The perils of ransomware.
• The incredible and thoughtless craven-ness of Republicans.
• Our problem with futile medicine.
• Wow- lots of papers (in bad science journals) are duplicated, plagiarized, or fake ... the paper mills.

The Eye is the Window to the Brain

Alpha oscillations of the brain prefigure the saccades by which our eyes move as we read.

Reading is a complicated activity. We scan symbols on a page, focusing on some in turn, while scanning along for the next one. Data goes to the brain not in full images, but in the complex coding of differences from moment to moment. Simultaneously, various levels of processing in the brain decode the dark and light spots, the letter forms, the word chunks, the phrases, and on up to the ideas being conveyed.

While our brain is not rigidly clocked like a computer, (where each step of computation happens in sync with the master clock), it does have dynamic oscillations at several different frequencies and ranging over variable regions and coalitions of neurons that organize its processing. And the eye is really a part of that same central nervous system- an outpost that conveys so much sensitive information, both in and out.

We take in visual scenes by jerks, or saccades, using our peripheral vision to orient generally and detect noteworthy portions, then bringing our high-acuity fovea to focus on them. The eye moves about four times per second, a span that is used to process the current scene and to plan where to shift next. Alpha oscillations (about 10 per second) in the brain, which are inhibitory, are known to (anti-) correlate with motor control of the saccade period. The processing of the visual sensory system resets its oscillations with each shift in scene, so is keyed to saccades in a receiving sense. Since vision only happens in the rest/focal periods between saccades, it is helpful, conceptually, to coordinate the two processes so that the visual processing system is maximally receptive (via its oscillatory phase) at the same time that the eye comes to rest after a saccade and sends it a new scene. Conversely, the visual sensory system would presumably tell the motor system when it was done processing the last unit, to gate a shift to the next scene.

A recent paper extended this work to ask how brain oscillations relate to the specific visual task of reading, including texts that are more or less difficult to comprehend. They used the non-invasive method of magnetic encephalography to visualize electrical activity within the brains of people reading. The duration of saccades were very uniform, (and short), while the times spent paused on each focal point (word) varied slightly with how difficult the word was to parse. It is worth noting that no evidence supports the lexical processing of words out of the peripheral vision- this only happens from foveal/focused images.

Subjects spent more time focused on rare/difficult words than on easy words, during a free reading exercise (C). On the other hand, the duration of saccades to such words was unchanged (D).

In the author's main finding, alpha oscillations were correlated as the person shifted from word to word, pausing to view each one. These oscillations tracked the pausing more closely when shifting towards more difficult words, rather than to simple words. And these peaks of phase locking happened anatomically in the Brodmann area 7, which is a motor area that mediates between the visual system and motor control of the eye. Presumably this results from communication from the visual processing area to the visual motor area, just next door. They also found that the phase locking was strongest for the start of saccades, not their end, when the scene comes back into focus. This may simply be a timing issue, since there are lags at all points in the visual processing system, and since the saccade duration is relatively fixed, this interval may be appropriate to keep the motor and sensory areas in effective synchronization.

Alpha oscillation locks to some degree with initiation of saccades, and does so more strongly when heading to difficult words, rather than to easy words. Figure B shows the difference in alpha power between the easy and difficult word target. How can this be? 

So while higher frequency (gamma) oscillations participate in sensory processing of vision, this lower alpha frequency is dominant in the area that controls eye movement, in keeping with muscle control mechanisms more generally. But it does raise the question of why they found a signal (phase locking for the initiation of a saccade) for the difficulty of the upcoming word, before it was actually lexically processed. The peripheral visual system is evidently making some rough guess, perhaps by size or some other property, of the difficulty of words, prior to fully decoding them, and it will be interesting to learn where this analysis is done.

• New uses for AI in medicare advantage.
• Some problems with environmental review.
• No-compete "agreements" are no such thing, and worthless anyhow.
• We wanna be free.

All Facts are Theories, But Not All Theories are Facts

Are theories and facts different in kind, or are they related and transform into each other?

During the interminable debates about "Intelligent Design" and evolution, there was much hand-wringing about fact vs theory. Evolution was, to some, "just" a theory, to others a well-attested theory, and to others, a fact, whether in the observation of life's change through time (vs the straight creationists), or in the causal mechanism of natural selection (vs the so-called intelligent design proponents). Are theories just speculations, or are they, once accepted by their relevant community, the rock-like edifice of science? And are facts even plain as such, or are they infected by theory? Our late descent into unhinged right-wingery poses related, though far more complex, questions about the nature of facts and who or what can warrant them. But here, I will stick to the classic question as posed in philosophy and science- what is the distinction and or relation between facts and theories? This follows, but disagrees with, a recent discussion in Free Inquiry.

The official scientific organs (NCSE) have generally taken the position that theories are different from facts, making a pedagogically bright line distinction where things like tectonic plate theory and evolution are theories, while rock compositions and biochemistry are facts. In this way, science is made up, at a high level, of theories, which constantly evolve and broaden in their scope, while the facts they are built on arrive on a conveyor belt of normal scientific progress, via lab experiments, field work, etc. Facts help to support or refute theories, which are such abstract, dynamic, and wide-ranging bags of concepts that they can not rightly be regarded as facts.

All very pat, but what are facts? It turns out that nothing we observe and call a fact escapes some amount of interpretation, or the need to be based on theories of how the world works. We grow up with certain axiomatic and built-in conditions, like gravity, vision, and physical cause and effect. Thus we think that anything we "observe" directly is a fact. But all such observations are built on a history of learning about how things work, which is in essence starting with a bunch of theories, some instinctively inborn, which are gradually satisfied by evidence as we grow up ... to the extent that we take many things for granted as fact, like being able to count on gravity as we are walking, that the sun comes up every day, etc. Facts are not automatic or self-attested, but rather are themselves essentially theories, however simple, that have been put to the test and found reliable.

And therein lies a clue to how we, and especially scientists, evaluate information and use the categories of fact and theory in a practical and dynamic way. Lawyers often talk of coming up with a theory of the case, which is to say, a story that is going to convince a jury, which has the job of finding the facts of the case. When the jury finds the theory convincing, and vote for the lawyer's side, the facts are found insofar and the law is concerned. Their determination may come far short of philosophic rigor, but the movement is typical- the movement from theory to fact. 

On the other hand, what is a theory? I think it can be described as a proposed fact. No one would propose a theory if they didn't think it was true and explanatory of reality. Whether broad or narrow, it is a set of interpretations that seek to make sense of the world in a way that we limited humans can categorize, into our store of knowledge. For instance, Freudian theories of repression, Oedipal complexes, castration fears, etc. would have been, if borne out, facts about our mental lives. Being rather vague, they may have needed a great deal of refinement before getting there, but all the same, they were proposed facts regarding what we feel and do, and the psychic mechanisms that lead to those feelings. 

In science, it is the experiment and its communication that is the key event in the alchemy of transforming theories into facts. Science is unusual in its explicit and purposeful interaction with theories that are unproven. Tectonic theory was once a mere theory, and a crackpot one at that. But as observations came in, which were proposed on the basis of that theory, or retroactively appreciated as support for it, such as the lengthy hunt for mid-ocean ridges where tectonic plates separate, and other faults where they converge, that theory gained "fact-ness". Now it is simply a fact, and the science of geology has gone other to other frontiers of theory, working to transform them into fact, or back off and try some others.

The mid-Atlantic ridge, straining to be understood by observers equipped with the theory of plate tectonics. Also, a video of the longer term.

Another example is the humble molecular biology experiment, such as cloning a gene responsible for some disease. The theory can be so simple as to be hardly enunciated- that disease X is in part genetic, and the responsible mutation must occur in some gene, and thus if we find it, we can establish a new fact about that disease as well as about that gene. Then the hunt goes on, the family lineages are traced, the genetic mapping happens, and the sequencing is done, and the gene is found. What was once a theory, if an unsurprising one, has now been transformed into a fact, one perhaps with practical, medical applications.

But the magic of experiments is usually only discernable to the few people who are sufficiently knowledgeable or interested to appreciate the transformation that just happened. The boundary between theory and fact depends on the expertise of the witnesses, and can be sociologically hazy. Does homeopathy cure disease? Well, hemeopathic practitioners regard that as fact, and have gone on to an elaborate practice and pharmacopeia of dilute solutions to effect various cures. Others disagree and regard the whole thing as not only a theory, but a stunningly wrong-headed one at that- as far as can be imagined from having gained fact-hood. Real science revolves around experiments done to what is essentially a standard of philosophical proof. Techniques are reported and consistently applied, controls are done to isolate variables of interest, materials are described and made publicly available, and the logic of the demonstration is clarified so that readers knowledgble in the arts of the field can be confident that the conclusions follow from the premises. And the practitioners themselves are culturally vetted through lengthy apprenticeships of training and critique. 

The practice of peer review is a natural part of this series of events, putting the experiment through a critique by the (hopefully) most knowledgeable practitioners in the field, who can stand in for the intended audience for whom the experiment is supposed to perform this alchemical transformation of theory. The scientific literature is full of the most varied and imaginative efforts to "factify" hypotheses, hunches, and theories. Very few of these will ever be appreciated by the lay public, but they lay the ever-advancing frontier of facts from which new hypotheses are made, new theories tested, and occasionally, some of their resulting facts are discovered to be useful, such as the advent of gene therapy via the Crisper/Cas9 gene editing system, liposomes, and associated technologies. 

Another aspect of the public nature of science and peer critique is that if a knowledgeable observer disagrees with the theory-fact transition purported by some experiment, they are duty-bound and encouraged to replicate those experiments themselves, or do other experiments to demonstrate their counter-vailing ideas. On a cheaper level, they are welcome and encouraged to ask uncomfortable questions during seminars and write tart letters to the editors of journals, since pointing out the errors of others is one of the most enjoyable activities humans pursue, and doubles as a core of the integrity that characterizes the culture of science. In this way, facts sometimes reverse course and travel back into the realm of theory, to sweat it out in the hands of some disgruntled grad student and her overbearing supervisor, destined to never again see the light of day.

Experiments crystallize most clearly the transition from theory to fact. They create, though careful construction, a situation that banishes incidental distractions, focuses attention on a particular phenomenon, and establishes a logic of causation that forms (hopefully) convincing evidence for a theory, transforming it into fact, for knowledgeable observers. They create controlled and monitored conditions where knowlegeable people can "see" the truth of a theory being put to a decisive test. Just as we can now see the truth of the heliocentric theory directly with the use of spaceships sent out across the solar system, the observation of a fact is a matter of the prepared mind meeting with a set of observations, either tailored specifically in the form of an experiment to test a theory, or else taken freely from nature to illuminate a theory's interpretation of reality. Nothing is intrisically obvious, but needs an educated observer to discern truth. Nothing is completely theory-free. Nevertheless, facts can be established.

• Lies are power.
• On social contagion.
• Code red.
• The electricity interconnect of the Eastern US slowly grapples with reality.
• How many has Covid killed?
• In Afghanistan, the US has spent decades building a political and military paper tiger.

The Autism of Politics

Our politics is an inarticulate communal search for expression of emotion.

I recently saw "A Brilliant Young Mind", a British take on growing up with autism. It is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, exploring themes of family, loss, and love with wrenching sensitivity. The challenge of expressing, even feeling, one's own emotions is at the heart, naturally enough, for people on the spectrum. There is a fight by family members to crack that shell, to establish communication that expresses the love they know is there, and which will build warmth and confidence.

One theme is the power of speech- the bullying in school, the words of love from a parent. We may have recited the saying about sticks and stones, but it isn't true. Humans feel and use speech as touch, like Chimpanzees use grooming, to soothe each other. Music functions similarly, to touch others with shared emotions, strengthening essential bonds of trust and empathy. We also use speech also to attack each other, and climb the social hierarchy on the bodies of those cut down by words. 

Well, politics is a natural extension. We feel strongly that there should be someone in charge of each political unit- one person who embodies and expresses our feelings about the whole. It is not just a job, or an executive position, but a strongly archetypal role, which includes the work of binding us together through speech, or not, as our collective mood dictates. We have just been through an administration dedicated to the destructive power of speech, firing off tweets to cut down friends and enemies, formulating cryptic messages supporting inequality, tribalism, and racism. 

But political speech is hobbled by the vast population it addresses. The movie above spoke to me, perhaps because I felt familiar with many of its themes and dilemmas, or happened to appreciate its artistic approach. But it may not speak to you. Politics is about finding the largest possible audience, using the vaguest possible formulations to which listeners can impute their feelings about the body politic. It is thus necessarily painfully awkward, smothered in platitudes, and minimally communicative. In short, a little autistic. 

A still from the movie, with the main character and his mother in a typical pose.

So we as citizens are all in the position of wanting the collective to satisfy a some very deep needs for connection, security, and self-realization and expression. But we are reading a cryptic body politic and leadership for clues of true intention, hidden beneath what may be a voluble exterior of near-meaningless speech, and at the same time confounded by a lack of transparency and radical lack of personal access to those people who are the leaders. Conversely, those leaders are sequestered in their security and network bubbles, wanting (ideally) to understand and share the feelings of their constituents, but unable, simply by the scale of the enterprise, to do so. And anyhow, seeking the average feeling or attitude in a democracy ends inevitably in a muddled middle. Thus leaders are confined to rhetoric that in recent inaugurations, state of the union addresses, and so forth has been bland and weak, as uninspired as it is uninspiring. 

Our political / psychological needs seem to differ along temperamental / party lines, with Democrats forever searching for the healing leader who can reach out across the divide to bring a larger coalition together to accomplish empathetic ends, for the downtrodden, for the environment, and for the future. On the other hand, Republicans seem, since at least the time of Goldwater, to be unhopeful about change, and the future in general, indeed motivated by fear. Their quest is for a leader who will advocate for the hard truths of the inherent and useful infairnesses of life to restore the social hierarchical order, keep out aliens, and keep down the restive and poorly paid masses. The last administration was unusually forthright about the whole program, thus speaking into an intense rapport with its "base", while foresaking the traditional mincing "compassionate conservative" or "city on a hill" gestures that have in the past served to sugar-coat that message.

But speaking to the base turned out to be a disastrous political strategy, losing the House, Senate, and Presidency in turn. However powerful in expressing, even generating, rare emotional responses in that base, it failed to follow the most basic principle of political math. So we are back now to the anodyne stylings of a new Democratic administration, back to a normal relationship, which is to say not much of a relationship, between the leader and the led. Which is a great relief on the national level, even if it would be maddening and unsatisfying on any personal level.

• Are you on the spectrum?
• That music in our heads.
• The true nature of conservative jurisprudence.
• Myths, magic, and gods- right or wrong?
• Hamsterkauf?
• Bill Mitchell on inflation and other historical matters.
• Some delightful piano.

Eugenics, the Catholic way

Woe betide any tampering with God's nature! However, destroying it with overpopulation is OK.

The current Supreme Court battle puts a spotlight on Catholicism in law and ethics. With the impending justice, six of the nine will be Catholic. The more rightward Catholic justices are coming from a culture that has some peculiar views on itself, on key ethical issues, and on the future of the world. First is its self-righteousness. Fundamentalist Catholics like Antonin Scalia and Attorney General Barr are confident that they come to government service steeped in the most exacting and time-honored moral code- that of the church which has been in existence going on two thousand years. It is a church that has weathered millennia of political turmoil and tectonic shifts of philosophy. But does all that history make it right? Does durability imply anything other than a canny grasp of human psychology, both in keeping its parishioners in the fold, and in keeping the wheels of its authoritarian structures turning? I don't think so. Far better moral systems have been imagined and enacted, and the Church has, time after time, grudgingly taken them up, typically a century after the rest of society. Today, a Catholic woman is nominated to the Supreme Court. Maybe in a hundred years, a female cardinal? 

But what is particularly galling is the prating about the sacredness of life. William Barr has restarted federal executions, to add to all his other lying and subversions of justice, giving one a curious impression of this "culture of life". What is obviously a simple policy of patriarchal power is dressed up in gilded rhetoric of concern for "life", which, maddeningly, is swallowed as gospel by the women who are its victims. For opposition to contraception and abortion are foremost attacks on the agency and full personhood of women, who are demoted to vessels for male procreation. But the Catholic church's policy is not just patriarchy of a demeaning and sexist kind, it also constitutes a eugenic policy. Ron Turcotte, one of the great horse jockeys, born in a family of twelve children in French Catholic New Brunswick, recalled in his autobiography that the priest would make the rounds of local families and berate every woman who did not have babies in diapers. The Catholic imperative is to fill up the world with Catholics, no matter the suffering of women, families, or communities. The entire biosphere groans under vast overpopulation. And what is the answer of the Catholic church? More Catholics, more oppression, more mental straightjackets. Care for creation apparently does not extend to continence on the part of men, basic personal rights or autonomy on the part of women, or to creation in general.

Just another day at the Supreme Court.

So when I hear "distinguished" lawyers, scholars and ethicists from Catholic institutions pontificate about the evils of genetic engineering, stem cell research, or use of embryos in research, (not to mention abortion or assisted suicide, among many other topics) I can not take them seriously as intellectuals- as anything other than mouthpieces of an antiquated system of oppressive, and now catastrophic, archetypes of political and social power. It is one thing to be a scholar of an artistic tradition full of glorious human expression and yearning quests for deeper connection with whatever power animates the world. But with the loss of humanism, then Protestantism, Catholicism retreated into an intellectual fortress of defense, nostalgia, and counter-reformation. The Federalist societies, the constitutional textualists, the Opus Dei fundamentalists... this ecosystem that has funded and nurtured a conservative assault on US legal institutions, apparently heavily Catholic, all are backward time machines fixated on dead controversies and traditional, frankly eugenic, policies of world domination. 

Nominee Barrett's textualism, following Scalia, seems to endanger the last century or two of constitutional interpretation. Whatever is not explicitly enumerated in the text is not, by this view, in the federal government's power. This could include women, (other than the 19th amendment; notably, the word "he" is used repetitively to refer to the president, representatives and other officers), federal regulatory authority in countless areas such as labor, antitrust, and finance, and the very meanings of concepts like cruel and unusual punishment, militias, privacy, due process, "needful rules", and "general welfare". The constitution and statutes are frequently vague, precisely so that society can construct its meanings according to the spirit of the document, not a cramped view of its letter, or a psychoanalytic plumbing of its mental conditions of origination.

Nor is Catholicism alone in this backwardness and revanchism. Islam shares its authoritarian, righteous, patriarchal, misogynistic, domineering mentality, even while lacking a pope. It goes the Catholics one better by approving of polygamy, another eugenic gambit. Consequently, Islam has even higher birth rates than Catholicism, immiserating its populations, stoking misplaced resentment, and imperiling the biosphere. However, Muslims in the US are not at this time constructing legal pipelines into US federal judgeships or dominating the Supreme Court, so their similarities in this regard are of global, but not federal, concern.

• Yes, religion is an issue here.
• Extended video of Barrett expressing her views, as also linked above.
• Abortion was perfectly fine in colonial America.
• Our feudal future, clarified by the GOP.
• Donald's hair is charged to the taxpayer. Also, Ivanka.
• Maybe the whole business deduction system should be scrapped.
• What happens if ACA dies?
• State of our politics- getting people to not vote.

Science Says ...

What are facts, and how can we respect them?

The recent and prevalent locution of "science says ..." is grating to everyone- scientists, civilians, red, and blue. We get the shorthand meaning, but it has unpleasant, domineering overtones. Yet, sadly, something needs to be said, if facts can not make themselves heard. The "science says ..." mantra means that not only is something a fact, but it is widely, perhaps unanimously, recognized as a fact by experts who know where such facts come from and what they mean. Lately this usage has been in flood due to the pandemic, a way for data-driven people to criticize their more negligent neighbors.

The problem is that facts are not always totally clear or secure. So we have to fall back on arguments from authority, to support what we believe are important actions, based on other values. Masks were originally denigrated - by scientists! - as not very useful for protection against viruses that were small enough to easily pass right through typical cloth. But as more data came in, it became clear - to scientists - that even partial filtering and simple dispersion of infectious aerosols was quite helpful, not only for others facing a possible asymptomatic carrier of SARS-COV2, but to mask wearers themselves, by reducing the infecting dose. This is especially true in a setting with decent ventillation. Evidence piled up from epidemiological studies as well as mechanistic studies of mask wearing, that even lax masking is better than none. Now a shorthand for all that is "science says...". 

But the evidence is hardly 100%. Small studies and suggestive trends in disease data from well and poorly-masked populations make for important public health recommendations, but not quite facts. More detail and mechanism will be helpful, including the relative amounts of virus capture and dispersion by masks, and the role of the infectious dose in the severity of disease- the race that is run between viral replication and immune defense. Few people are themselves directly conversant with all this work, which means that most have to appeal to the authority of those that are. But then any blogger can claim to be an authority, and declaim a different set of conclusions and thus facts. 

We seem to have mostly settled down about these facts, tentative as they are, when it comes to the coronavirus, even though actually respecting them and changing habits comes hard to some. But climate change has been a different matter, being so economically important and implicated in everyone's current way of life. One's conservatism is directly related to resistance to changing one's way of life, which necessarily implies denying and disbelieving the once-subtle, now overwhelming evidence that "science says" assigns blame for accelerating climate change to us and our production of heat-trapping gasses.

Facts? What facts?

This is where the "science says ..." mantra becomes politically fraught and adversarial. If reality is knocking on your door and telling you to repent, confess your sins, and change your ways, experience tells us that is has to knock extremely hard. Addicts tend to change only after they have hit rock bottom, and see death in the eye. Listening to a bunch of pointy-heads and libtards go on about the biosphere, arctic ice, and obscure species is just not compelling. Quite the opposite- it is often taken as offensive and completely out of touch with a fossil fuel addict's immediate struggles and attachment to basic habits and ways of being.

And who cares about facts anyhow? Not the modern Republican party, not our president. Whether "science says" those facts or their own eyes behold them, the social facts of political control in grossly unfair setting of US power structures, and continuing support from the morally unmoored rich and their corporations, are far more significant than any global risks that all will bear with increasing pain over the coming decades. The social facts of the right wing media's blizzard of propaganda are likewise shaping a totally different world, in both values and truths and facts, than what scientists are perceiving. The mantra of "science says" then comes to mean a set of values rather than just facts, that we should perhaps attend to non-human species and ecosystems instead of worrying about a war on Christmas; that expertise is more valuable than con-jobbery and lying propaganda; that worrying about the vastly excessive human population on Earth might be more important than saving every fertilized egg for the patriarchy. For science is a value system, both in its methods and its objects. It is largely and generously funded by society, but naturally has its own agenda, which seems far-sighted and logical enough to its practitioners, but is, in the end, a set of values, which themselves will be judged by society as worthy of propagation, or not.

• An example of how the science has to be parsed pretty carefully, by expert observers. Masks, planes, and time.
• Our degraded country.
• That tired Taliban, ready to take over all of Afghanistan.
• Medicare advantage, or disadvantage?
• Are we great again, or what?
• Climate action and inaction.. still highly insufficient.

Frederick Douglass

The autobiographies of Frederick Douglass are a milestone of US literary, political, and social history.  

To deepen my appreciation for our history and the ongoing crises, racial and otherwise, I have been enjoying the final autobiography of Frederick Douglass, of the three that he wrote. This is the longest and, for obvious reasons, most comprehensive, where he can provide details about his escape and controversial activities that had been too sensitive previously, and cover later parts of his career. It is a paragon of style, incisive analysis, and emotional impact. Not having a great deal to add myself, I give over this blog to a few selected quotes.

Douglass (then named Bailey, and in his late teens), was sent by his master to a Mr. Covey, who specialized in "breaking" unruly slaves, by supervising and working them relentlessly, and whipping them weekly. Finally, after an escape attempt, Douglass he has had enough and fights back, come what may. What comes is that Covey gives in completely, and is cowed for the rest of the year from laying a finger on Douglass.

This battle with Mr. Covey, undignified as it was and as I fear my narration of it is, was the turning point in my "life as a slave." It rekindled in my breast the smouldering embers of liberty. It brought up my Baltimore dreams and revived a sense of my own manhood. I was a changed being after that fight. I was nothing before; I was a man now. It recalled to life my crushed self-respect, and my self-confidence, and inspired me with a renewed determination to be a free man. A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity. Human nature is so constituted, that it cannot honor a helpless man, though it can pity him, and even this it cannot do long if signs of power do not arise. p. 591 in the American library edition of the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass.

Douglass took a long tour in Britain, where he marvels at the discrimination he is not experiencing. It remains a deep statement about the work that still now remains.

I seem to have undergone a transformation. I live a new life. The warm and generous cooperation extended to me by the friends of my despised race; the prompt and liberal manner in which the press has rendered me its aid; the glorious enthusiasm with which thousands have flocked to hear the cruel wrongs of my down-trodden and long-enslaved fellow-countrymen portrayed; the deep sympathy for the slave, and the strong abhorrence of the slaveholder, everywhere evinced; the cordiality with which members and ministers of various religious bodies, and of various shades of religious opinion, have embraced me and lent me their aid; the kind hospitality constantly proffered me by persons of the highest rank in society; the spirit of freedom that seems to animate all with whom I come in contact, and the entire absence of everything that looks to me like prejudice against me, on account of the color of my skin, contrast so strongly with my long and bitter experience in the United States, that I look with wonder and amazement at the transition. In the southern part of the United States, I was a slave - thought of and spoken of as property; in the language of the law, "held, taken, reputed, and adjudged to be a chattel in the and of my owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes, whatsoever". In the Northern States, a fugitive slave, liable to be hunted at any moment like a felon, and to be hurled into the terrible jaws of slavery- doomed, by an inveterate prejudice against color, to insult and outrage on every hand (Massachusetts out of the question)- denied the privileges and courtesies common to others in the use of the most humble means of conveyance- shut out from the cabins on steamboats, refused admission to respectable hotels,  caricatured, scorned, scoffed, mocked, and maltreated with impunity by any one, no matter how black his heart, so he has a white skin. But now behold the change! Eleven days and a half gone, and I have crossed three thousand miles of perilous deep. Instead of a democratic government, I am under a monarchial government. Instead of the bright blue sky of America, I am covered with the soft, gray fog of the Emerald Isle. I breathe, and lo! the chattel becomes a man. I gaze around in vain for one who will question my equal humanity, claim me as a slave, or offer me an insult. I employ a cab- I am seated beside white people- I reach the hotel- I enter the same door- I am shown the same parlor- I dine at the same table- and no one is offended. No delicate nose grows deformed in my presence. I find no difficulty here in obtaining admission into any place of worship, instruction, or amusement, on equal terms with people as white as any I ever saw in the United States. I meet nothing to remind me of my complexion. I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to church I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip, to tell me "We don't allow niggers in here." pp. 688-689, ibid.

 

Douglass looks at the pre-civil war politics of Southern resentment and entitlement, upon the growing spread and success of the abolition movement, which had been Douglass's work for the prior decade.

... Mr. Calhoun and other southern statesmen were more than ever alarmed at the rapid increase of anti-slavery feeling in the North, and devoted their energies more and more to the work of devising means to stay the torrents and tie up the storm. They were not ignorant of whereunto this sentiment would grow if unsubjected and unextinguished. Hence they became fierce and furious in debate, and more extravagant than ever in their demands for additional safeguards for their system of robbery and murder. Assuming that the Constitution guaranteed their rights of property in their fellow men, they held it to be in open violation of the Constitution for any American citiazen in any part of the United States to speak, write, or act against this right. But this shallow logic they plainly saw could do them no good unless they could obtain further safeguards for slavery. In order to effect this the idea of so changing the Constitution was suggested that there should be two instead of one President of the United States- one from the North and the other from the South- and that no measure should become a law without the assent of both. But this device was so utterly impracticable that it soon dropped out of sight, and it is mentioned here only to show the desperation of the slaveholders to prop up their system of barbarism against which the sentiment of the North was being directed with destructive skill and effect. They clamored for more slave States, more power in the Senate and House of Representatives, and insisted upon the suppression of free speech. At the end of two years, in 1850, when Clay and Calhoun, two of the ablest leaders the South ever had, were still in the Senate, we had an attempt at a settlement of the differences between the North and South which our legislators meant to be final. What those measures were I need not here enumerate, except to say that chief among them was the Fugitive Slave Bill, frames by James M. Mason of Virginia and supported by Daniel Webster of Massachusetts- a bill undoubtedly more designed to involve the North in complicity with slavery and deaden its moral sentiment than to procure the return of fugatives to their so-called owners. For a time this design did not altogether fail. Letters, speeches, and pamphlets literally rained down upon the people of the North, reminding them of their constitutional duty to hunt down and return to bondage any runaway slaves. In this the preachers were not much behind the press and the politicians, especially that class of preachers known as Doctors of Divinity. A long list of these came forward with their Bibles to show that neither Christ nor his holy apostles objected to returning fugatives to slavery. Now that that evil day is past, a sight of those sermons would, I doubt not, bring the red blush of shame to the cheeks of many. pp. 722-723, ibid.

In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, the North sought ways to avoid war ... does this attitude sound familiar?

While this humiliating reaction was going on at the North, various devices to bring about peace and reconciliation were suggested and pressed at Washington. Committees were appointed to listen to Southern grievances, and, if possible, devise means of redress for such as might be alleged. Some of these peace propositions would have been shocking to the last degree tot he moral sense of the North, had not fear for the safety of the Union overwhelmed all moral conviction. Such men as William H. Seward, Charles Francis Adams, Henry B. Anthony, Joshua R. Giddings, and others- men whose courage had been equal to all other emergencies- bent before this southern storm, and were ready to purchase peace at any price. ... Everything that could be demanded by insatiable pride and selfishness on the part of the slave-holding South, or could be surrendered by abject fear and servility on the part of the North, had able and eloquent advocates.

Happily for the cause of human freedom, and for the final unity of the American nation, the South was mad, and would listen to no concessions. It would neither accept the terms offered, nor offer others to be accepted. It had made up its mind that under a given contingency it would secede from the Union and thus dismember the Republic. pp.770-771, ibid.

 

Douglass's influence can be appreciated in small part by this piece in his honor by N. Clark Smith.

• Yes, collusion. Indeed, what on earth was Muller doing?
• The Taliban has not changed.
• We deserve even better.
• Bill Mitchell on work. Yes, somebody has to do it!
• All hail coal!
• All hail Facebook!
• Stutterers unite!
• Mourning for parts of California in flames, such as Big Basin state park.

Altruism Through Execution

Does our good behavior arise from artificial selection against norm-violators?

This is a companion piece to the prior "Altruism Through Genocide", which presented a group selection theory for our human moral nature. In that piece, group cohesiveness was the driving force that benefitted those cooperative people who could effectively conduct warfare to exterminate their enemies, who were, on balance, less effective in their in-group altruism/cooperation.

Now we are considering a new book, "The Goodness Paradox", by Richard Wrangham, which presents an alternative, only slightly less grisly, theory. The book generally argues that humans show many signs of selective domestication- a syndrome common in animals that we have domesticated- of arrest in many aspects of development, towards more juvenile characteristics, such as docility, lower aggression, floppy ears, white fur patches, and skeletal and especially facial juvenilization. That much is clear. Despite our love of warfare, we are on balance, and compared to our chimpanzee relatives and most other wild creatures, far less violent, less reactive, and far more effectively cooperative. This is not just a cognitive development, but an emotional change and a deep change to our moral natures. So who or what did the domestication?

Remember in Western movies how good it feels when the bad guy gets killled? It is an archetype of deep power, and we hardly think about its moral and genetic implications. Chimpanzees don't have this moral sense, as far as we know. Wrangham cites various experiments and natural observations to show that no matter how terrible some chimpanzees are, the others of their group will not or can not cooperate effectively to ostracize or disable them. It just isn't done. In the modern world, we have grown squeemish about capital punishment, but primitive cultures had no prisons, thus pervasively practiced ostracism or death as the only practical punishments for serious crimes and unredeemable people. It turns out to have been common for communities (typically the men of the group) to gang up on a member who got egregiously out of line and kill that person. Wrangham places this development at roughly the emergence of modern Homo sapiens, two to three hundred thousand years ago. Thus there is quite a bit of speculation about the relative backwardness of Neanderthals, who had much more limited cooperative capacities, though being roughly as intelligent as moderns, and having many advanced characteristics such as complex stone technology and control of fire.

For a Few Dollars More ... Clint Eastwood hunts down the bad men.

The development of advanced hunting and killing technologies made each person, and especially each man, in primitive human bands quite powerful. But even more important was language and great scope it offered to organize, to collude with and against others, This created enormous incentives to maintain a good reputation. Primitive societies are characterized by an almost pathological fear of rising above one's peers- there is a notable lack of ambition, for the very good reason that the group is all-powerful, and signs that one wants to rule others, abuse them, or collude against them, are all treated very harshly. The idea, then, is that the unique human ability and motivation to detect and eliminate threats inside the group led to a process of natural selection that quickly domesticated the species in superficial metrics of reactive aggression, while advancing our organizational, deceptive, and language capabilities, which have made us by far the most deadly species when it comes to organized hunting and warfare.

The explains rather easily the intense motivation that teens have to conform to their groups, to party, to bond and seek power, and to be forever uncertain about their status. It explains conventionality. But does it explain the nature of the morality that human groups generally express? The posses that hunt down criminals, and the modern state apparatus that does the same on a more legalistic basis, the value we put on altruism and kindness? Not quite. For example, the morality could have become one of extermination, where leaders would use all their guile to eliminate, one by one, each of the other males of the group, thus gaining all the females for themselves. This harem structure is common among other animals, and has occurred occasionally in humans in historical times. But it has obvious defects. If such an endpoint is common knowledge, then coalitions would be difficult to build, though perhaps not necessary since even crude technologies allow relatively easy killing, even one-on-one, given a small amount of planning. More importantly, however, such an endpoint would leave the group very weak relative to other groups.

So both overall hypotheses are relevant, I think, the group selection hypothesis and the execution hypothesis, to explain the complexity and explosiveness of our group relations, and the generally pro-social and cooperative instincts that form our group values most of the time. There is a complex calculation to be made, in light of the status of the whole group, with regard to the value of each person, each one of whom would on the face of it benefit the group in any outward encounter, but who might also be so disruptive and destructive of group cohesion as to instead be a net negative asset. Wrangham unfortunately finesses this problem, of the actual content of our moral group ethics, and suggests instead that pure relativism prevails- that our groupishness / conformity / docility is genetic, but our morals are not, and become whatever the leading (male) coalition says they should be. One can grant that human groups have adopted very unusual moral codes, like sacrificing their own children into volcanoes, or conducting constant ritual slaughter as the Aztecs did, or making a fetish of celibacy, as the Buddhist and Catholic theocracies do. Nevertheless, there is a core of cooperativity and deep-seated conceptions of right and wrong (including the rightness of killing when the target is damaging the group, or is an enemy outside the group) that demand a better evolutionary explanation, one that focuses on the value of the group as a unit.

Wrangham also finesses another issue- that of eugenics. His theory is essentially eugenic. We have been our own selective agents, however unintentionally. In an afterword, he gives a brief case against capital punishment. Though it has had such positive effects by his theory, capital punishment is now unnecessary, since we have prisons and other mechanisms of social control. Yet the deeper issue is whether genetic selection is still needed to bias reproduction towards the well-behaved and away from the aggressive, psychopathic, misogynistic, and congenitally sleazy. Not a word on this, since it is a far more explosive and difficult issue, not to mention politically tinged at the moment.

• Mind control in North Korea.
• Insurers are promoting, rather than fighting, ransomware. Make sure to keep backups!
• "This administration is ultimately driven by sociopathic disregard for our future"
• North Carolina finally puts a nail in gerrymandering.
• Figuring out common threads in the diverse genetics of autism.
• Notes by Veblen.
• Just because ....

Can Machines Read Yet?

Sort of, and not very well.

Reading- such a pleasure, but never time enough to read all that one would like, especially in technical fields. Scholars, even scientists, still write out their findings in prose- which is the richest form of communication, but only if someone else has the time and interest to read it. The medical literature is, at the flagship NCBI Pubmed resource, at about 30 million articles in abstract and lightly annotated form. Its partner, PMC, has 5.5 million articles in full text. This represents a vast trove of data which no one can read through, yet which tantalizes with its potential to generate novel insights, connections, and comprehensive and useful models, were we only able to harvest it in some computable form.

That is one of the motivations for natural language processing, or NLP, one of many subfields of artificial intelligence. What we learn with minimal effort as young children, machines have so far been unable to truly master, despite decades of effort and vast computational power. Recent advances in "deep learning" have made great progress in pattern parsing, and learning from large sets of known texts, resulting in the ability to translate one language to another. But does Google Translate understand what it is saying? Not at all. Understanding has taken strides in constricted areas, such as phone menu interactions, and Siri-like services. As long as the structure is simple, and has key words that tip off meaning, machines have started to get the hang of verbal communication.

But dealing with extremely complex texts is another matter entirely. NLP projects directed against the medical literature have been going on for decades, with relatively little to show, since the complexity of the corpus far outstrips the heuristics used to analyze it. These papers are, indeed, often very difficult for humans to read. They are frequently written by non-English speakers, or just bad writers. And the ideas being communicated are also complex, not just the language. The machines need to have a conceptual apparatus ready to accommodate, or better yet, learn within such a space. Recall how perception likewise needs an ever-expanding database / model of reality. Language processing is obviously a subfield of such perception. These issues raises a core question of AI- is general intelligence needed to fully achieve NLP?

I think the answer is yes- the ability to read human text with full understanding assumes a knowledge of human metaphors, general world conditions, and specific facts and relations from all areas of life which amounts to general intelligence. The whole point of NLP, as portrayed above, is not to spew audio books from written texts, (which is already accomplished, in a quite advanced way), but to understand what it is reading fully enough to elaborate conceptual models of the meaning of what those texts are about. And to do so in a way that can be communicated back to us humans in some form, perhaps diagrams, maps, and formulas, if not language.

The intensive study of NLP processing over the Pubmed corpus reached a fever pitch in the late 2000's, but has been quiescent for the last few years, generally for this reason. The techniques that were being used- language models, grammar, semantics, stemming, vocabulary databases, etc. had fully exploited the current technology, but still hit a roadblock. Precision could be pushed to ~ %80 levels for specific tasks, like picking out the interactions of known molecules, or linking diseases with genes mentioned in the texts. But general understanding was and remains well out of reach of these rather mechanical techniques. This is not to suggest any kind of vitalism in cognition, but only that we have another technical plateau to reach, characterized by the unification of learning, rich ontologies (world models), and language processing.

The new neural network methods (tensorflow, etc.) promise to provide the latter part of the equation, sensitive language parsing. But from what I can see, the kind of model we have of the world, with infinite learnability, depth, spontaneous classification capability, and related-ness, remains foreign to these methods, despite the several decades of work lavished on databases in all their fascinating iterations. That seems to be where more work is needed, to get to machine-based language understanding.

• What to do about media pollution?
• Maybe ideas will matter eventually in this campaign.
• Treason? Yes.
• Stalinist confessions weren't the only bad ones.
• Everything over-the-air ... the future of TV.