Category Archives: psychology

The power of men’s hats

6 Replies

Here’s a joke from 3rd grade: why do Indians wear feather headdresses? …… To keep their wig warm. One of the main reasons to wear a hat is to keep your head warm. Men generally wear hats outside only, and mainly to keep warm, or to keep the sun off your eyes. We thus show below a delivery boy in a knitted cap (called at torque in Canada), and a boss is a stylish fedora. The two hats keep the head warm, but the fedora protects the eyes too, and the different styles establish who you are in the social chain. It is a good thing when fashion works this way, and uncool, in my mind, when messages are reversed or unclear. It’s equally uncool to see a delivery boy in a fedora as an executive in a wool cap. Either one looks pretentious to me. One is dressing up, the other dressing down or confused. Women’s hats generally look confused to me, in part because there is no such thing as a real business-woman’s hat.

Photo by Andy Barnham.(previously spelled wrong)

Nowadays, many business men don’t wear hats, even outdoors in the sun and cold. This seems like a bad idea, but what would I know? Perhaps the problem is what to do with the hat when you come indoors. You can take it off, but then what. Emily post claims that leaving the hat on indoors is usually considered rude, though not always, and traces this back to medieval knights and to the flag code. Indoors, the delivery boy can stuff his knit hat into his pocket, or roll it into a smaller version on his head, a beanie. The fedora wearer must look for a hat rack, or accept looking rude.

Of course the lack of a hat presents problems too. Without one, you leave your hair to signal your social status and political cultural associations. For a man without a hat there are only three styles of hair: short, medium, or long. Short hair says you are a conventionalist drone, long hair, that you’re a hippy or artist, and with middle-length hair you’re …. uncertain? trans? androgynous? No matter how you slice it, it’s not a good look. Adding a mustache or beard makes it even more awkward, in my opinion, see below. I have previously written about the power of mustaches — that they send a message that you are warrior, and beards — that you are a man of fervor, — or of religious or aristocratic sympathies. But combine a mustache with middle-length hair and you begin to look like another Hitler or Stalin.

Wearing a hat allows for a great variety of social messaging, whether worn with or without facial hair. Some hats are expensive, others cheap; some signal religious affiliation, others are strongly secular, or hip. Some folks wear hats that are suitable only for work or sports, like a hard-hat, bicycle helmet, or a straw boater. They tell folks you’re busy with an activity right now. But most people who wear hats, choose one that’s multidimensional, suitable for sport and work. There is the classic Kangol cap that suggests a certain artsy vibe, or the peak cap or newsboy — that suggests (I imagine) a higher level of worker.

working man in cap

Perhaps the most popular flex-hats in the US are the baseball hat, and its relative the trucker’s hat (you adjust the size on a truckers hat using a band int he back). In the US, you can wear these on the job, or off. I think they work indoors too, but what do I know. The baseball and peaked cap suggests you are higher on the social ladder than the truckers cap, but all of them suggest you draw a paycheck. And they often say a lot more. If your trucker’s hat says, NRA, or John Deere, or Oakland As, there enough information given to start a conversation. Depending on what your cap says, you will be welcome in some societies, not welcome in others. Don’t wear your MAGA hat to a Biden rally.

There is power in hats too. A man in a policeman’s cap is a cop, even if he’s without the rest of his police gear. With no hat, the same man in uniform is a mall security guard. The postal person or UPS delivery person is on the job if wearing his USPS baseball cap or knit. An expensive visor cap, like the kangol suggest artistic status, and an expensive newsboy, or peaked cap. suggests a sort of work-life balance. It was worn by Prince Charles in the 1980s, and by me in 2020.

Although a fedora is a boss-man’s hat, I never wear one since I associate them with mobsters, hipsters, lounge singers, and Jimmy Hoffa. For more formal occasions, when not wearing a peaked cap, I wear a Homburg. Churchill wore a Homburg. In England, there is a level above this, the top-hat, and one slightly between the Homberg and fedora, the derby. In the US, none of these really caught on. The derby is sort of comic, sort of social climber. Chaplin wore one, as did Laurel and Hardy. Derby hats tend to get punched through in old-time comedies. It’s the same with most middle of the road approaches — they appeal to no one.

Robert Buxbaum, March 5, 2020.

Samuel Johnson: “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.”

Leave a reply

Some days, I spend hours at a time on facebook, and when I’m done, I often feel it was a complete waste of time. I do not make friends this way, and I have little evidence that I’ve convinced anyone. Still, for some reason, I can’t seem to stay off for long, so I figure I might as well look for the attraction.

One positive thing I do (did) with FB was to run for office. I lost, but I was able to speak to more people using FB in a day than I could have otherwise. Another thing I do is to spread articles — those I find interesting, and my own writing, blog posts, mostly. I write these posts for free, and while I imagine my blog posts do some good. I sometimes get nice comments suggesting people read the blogs and think about what I say. Still, it does not make money, and takes a fair amount of effort.

I can imagine I help mankind in some subtle, long range way, or perhaps gain some long-range fame. But who cares about long-range fame? And, as for helping people, it is also possible I will hurt them too. Computers sit analyzing my words, and everyone’s, tracking their views and using the data for what. I’m just feeding the computer, and that makes me think my writing may harm more than help. What I write on FB is owned by FB. It’s free content for the owners of FB to re-use to sell: my personality, capsulated, my friends likes and dislikes, for sale at a price. My posts turn me and my friends into commodities — and there isn’t even remuneration.

It is claimed that, in the 2016 election, Trump was able to win, at low cost, through a Russian-managed facebook campaign. The educated elites of politics were not able to come with the wiley Russians, for all their brain-power, and despite help from the FBI, or so the theory goes. If so, it’s a warning that all the information I provide to facebook is available to Trump and the Russians to use against me. The management of facebook was committed to Ms Clinton in 2016, and is completely committed to Trump’s removal as best I can tell. If they are not able to beat the Russians, maybe I should not try. Then again, maybe they’re not as elite as they think.

Sometimes I imagine that the alternative of not-posting is worse; it is to have no voice at all, and to have no information of the common discussion. The newspapers seem no less biassed than those on my FB. I write then in a bizarre chasm between hope for posterity, and a better world, and out of desperation that to be an unheard, quiet one, is to be dead. I suspect I’m not unique here.

Robert E. Buxbaum, January 27, 2020.

If the test of free will is that no one can tell what I will do….

Free will is generally considered a good thing — perhaps a unique gift from the creator to man-kind. Legal philosophers contend that it is free will that makes us liable to legal punishment for our crimes. while piranhas and machines are not. We would never think of jailing a gun or a piranha even it harmed a child.

It’s not totally clear that we have free will, though, nor is it totally clear what free will is. The common test is that no one can tell what I will do. If this is the only requirement, though, it seems a random number generator should be found to have free will. One might want to add some degree of artificial intelligence so that the random numbers are used to make decisions that are rational in some sense, say choosing between tea and coffee, for example, and not tea and covfefe, but this should not be difficult. With that modification, we should find that the random device would make free decisions as boldly or conservatively as any person.

The numbers should be truly random, but even if they are not quite, this should not be a barrier. We generally take statistical things to be random, the speed of the wind tomorrow at 3:00 PM for example even though there is a likely average, and 500 mph is exceedingly unlikely. And, if that isn’t quite random enough, one could use quantum mechanics. One could devise a system that measures the time between the next two radioactive decays to an accuracy many times greater than the likely time between. If the sample has a decay every 100 seconds or so, the second and third digit of this time after the decimal is random to an extent that most would accept, and that one can predict it at all — or so we understand it. (God might be an exception here, but since He is outside of time, prediction becomes an oxymoron). Using these quantum mechanic random numbers, one should be able to make decisions showing as much free will as any person shows, and likely more . Most folks are fairly predictable.

Since God is considered to be outside of time, any mention of his fore-knowledge or pre-determination is an oxymoron. There is no pre or fore if you’re outside of time, as I’d understand things

 I notice that few people would say that a radioactive atom has free will, though, and that many doubt that people have free will. Still no one seems interested in handing major issues to a computer, or holding the machine liable if things turn out poorly. And if one wants to argue that people have no free will, it seems to me that the argument for punishment would get rather weak. Without free will, shy would it be more wrong to kill a person than a piranha, or a plant.

Robert Buxbaum, January 19, 2020. Just some random thoughts on random number generators. I’ve also had thoughts about punishments, and about job choices.

Samuel Johnson and British elitism during the revolution.

1 Reply

A common opinion of Samuel Johnson was that “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money”. It’s recorded by Boswell on April 5, 1776 well into the revolution, and applied equally to the American revolutionaries and all other unpaid enthusiasts. Johnson wrote for money. He wrote sermons for priests, he wrote political speeches for Troys, he wrote serialized travel logs, and at one point a tearful apology for a priest about to be hanged for forgery. That he was paid was proof that he was good at writing, though not 100% convincing. The priest was forgiven and acquitted in the public eye, but he was hanged for the forgery none-the-less. 

Some Samuel Johnson Quotes about America

Johnson was unequivocal in his opinion of American independence. His pamphlet ,”Taxation no Tyranny” 1775 (read it here) makes a semi-convincing Tory argument that taxation without representation is in no way tyranny, and is appropriate for America. America, it’s argued, exists for the good of the many, and that’s mainly for the good of England. He notes that, for the most part, Americans came to the land willingly, and thus gave up their rights: “By his own choice he has left a country, where he had a vote and little property, for another, where he has great property, but no vote.” Others left other lands or were sent as criminals. They “deserved no more rights than The Cornish people,” according to Johnson. Non-landed people, in general had no vote, and he considered that appropriate. Apparently, if they had any mental value, they’d be able to afford an estate. His views of Irish Catholics were somewhat similar , “we conquered them.” By we, Johnson meant Cromwell over a century earlier, followed by William of Orange. Having beat the Irish Catholics at the battle of the Boyne meant that that the Protestants deserved to rule despite the Catholics retaining a substantial right to land. I am grateful that Johnson does not hide his claim to rulership in the will of God, or in some claim to benefit the Irish or Americans, by the way. It is rule of superior over inferior, pure and simple. Basically, ‘I’m better than you, so I get to rule.’

One must assume that Johnson realized that the US founders wrote well, as he admitted that some Whigs (Burke) wrote well. Though he was paid for writing “Taxation no Tyranny”, Johnson justifies the rejection of US founding fathers’ claims by noting they are motivated by private gain. He calls American leaders rascals, robbers, and pirates, but is certain that they can be beat into submission. The British army , he says, is strong enough that they can easily “burn and destroy them,” and advises they should so before America gets any stronger. He tells Boswell, “Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.” Even after a treaty was signed, he confides, “I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.”

I’ve come to love Johnson’s elitism, his justification for rule and exploitation based purely on his own superiority and that of his fellow British. It allows him to present his prejudices uncommonly clearly, mixing in enough flattery to be convincing to those who accept his elitist perspective. That makes his words eminently quotable. It doesn’t make them right, nor does it mean that his was a useful way to deal with people or problems. Adam Smith was willing to admit that the Americans had a gripe, and suggests the simple remedy of giving Americans a voice in Parliament. His solution might have kept the empire whole. Edward Gibbon, an expert on Rome who opposed rights for Americans, at least admitted that we might win the war. Realistic views like this are more productive, but far less marketable. If you are to sell your words, it helps to be a pig-headed bigot and a flatterer of those who agree with you. This advantage of offending your opponents was not lost on Johnson as the quote below shows.

Johnson writing about notoriety, a very American attitude.

I’m left to wonder about the source of Johnson’s hatred for Americans though — and for the Irish, Cornish, and Scots. In large part, I think it stems from a view of the world as a zero-sum game. Any gain for the English servant is a loss to the English gentleman. The Americans, like the Irish and Cornish, were subject peoples looking for private benefit. Anything like low taxes was a hurt to the income of him and his fellows. The zero sum is also the view of Scrooge in a Christmas Carol; it is a destructive view.

As for those acted in any way without expectation of pay, those who would write for posterity, or would fight the Quixotic fight, such people were blockheads in his view. He was willing to accept that there were things wrong in England, but could not see how an intelligent person would favor change that did not help him. This extended to his beliefs concerning education of children: “I would not have set their future friendship to hazard for the sake of thrusting into their heads knowledge of things for which they might not perhaps have either taste or necessity. You teach your daughters the diameters of the planets, and wonder when you have done that they do not delight in your company. No science can be communicated by mortal creatures without attention from the scholar; no attention can be obtained from children without the affliction of pain, and pain is never remembered without resentment.” This is more of Johnson’s self-interest: don’t teach anything that will bring resentment and no return benefit. Teach the sons of the greats that they are great and that they are to lead. Anything more is a waste or an active harm to the elite.

But what happens when America succeeds? Johnson was still alive and writing in 1783. If the Americans could build an army and maintain prosperous independence, they would have to be respected as an equal or near-equal. Then what of the rest of the empire? How do you admit that this one servant is your equal and not admit that your other servants may be too? This is the main source of his hatred, I think, and also of the hatred the Scrooge has for mankind. It’s the hatred of the small soul for the large, of the sell-out for the enthusiast. If the other fellow’s sacrifice produces a great outcome, that suggests a new order in the stars — it suggests that everything you’ve done was wrong, or soon will be. The phrase “novus ordo seclorum” on our dollars alludes to just that idea, ‘there is a new order in the heavens.’. He must have realized the possibility, and trembled. Could there be something to the rabble, something beyond cash, safety and rule by the elite? I suspect the very thought of it insulted and angered poor Samuel. At his death, he could be comforted that, at least the Irish, Indians, and Canadians remained subservient.

Robert Buxbaum, December 2, 2019. This essay started out as a discussion of paid writing. But I’ve spent many years of my life dealing with elitists who believed that being paid proved they were right. I too hope that my writing will convince people, and maybe I’ll be paid as an expert (Water commissioner?) To hope for personal success, while trying to keep humble is the essential glorious folly of man.

Statistics for psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists

Leave a reply

In terms of mathematical structure, psychologists, sociologists, and poly-sci folks all do the same experiment, over and over, and all use the same simple statistical calculation, the ANOVA, to determine its significance. I thought I’d explain that experiment and the calculation below, walking you through an actual paper (one I find interesting) in psychology / poly-sci. The results are true at the 95% level (that’s the same as saying p >0.05) — a significant achievement in poly-sci, but that doesn’t mean the experiment means what the researchers think. I’ll then suggest another statistic measure, r-squared, that deserves to be used along with ANOVA.

The standard psychological or poly-sci research experiments involves taking a group of people (often students) and giving them a questionnaire or test to measure their feelings about something — the war in Iraq, their fear of flying, their degree of racism, etc. This is scored on some scale to get an average. Another, near-identical group of subjects is now brought in and given a prompt: shown a movie, or a picture, or asked to visualize something, and then given the same questionnaire or test as the first group. The prompt is shown to have changed to average score, up or down, an ANOVA (analysis of variation) is used to show if this change is one the researcher can have confidence in. If the confidence exceeds 95% the researcher goes on to discuss the significance, and submits the study for publication. I’ll now walk you through the analysis the old fashioned way: the way it would have been done in the days of hand calculators and slide-rules so you understand it. Even when done this way, it only takes 20 minutes or so: far less time than the experiment.

I’ll call the “off the street score” for the ith subject, Xi°. It would be nice if papers would publish these, but usually they do not. Instead, researchers publish the survey and the average score, something I’ll call X°-bar, or X°. they also publish a standard deviation, calculated from the above, something I’ll call, SD°. In older papers, it’s called sigma, σ. Sigma and SD are the same thing. Now, moving to the group that’s been given the prompt, I’ll call the score for the ith subject, Xi*. Similar to the above, the average for this prompted group is X*, or X°-bar, and the standard deviation SD*.

I have assumed that there is only one prompt, identified by an asterix, *, one particular movie, picture, or challenge. For some studies there will be different concentrations of the prompt (show half the movie, for example), and some researchers throw in completely different prompts. The more prompts, the more likely you get false positives with an ANOVA, and the more likely you are to need to go to r-squared. Warning: very few researchers do this, intentionally (and crookedly) or by complete obliviousness to the math. Either way, if you have a study with ten prompt variations, and you are testing to 95% confidence your result is meaningless. Random variation will give you this result 50% of the time. A crooked researcher used ANOVA and 20 prompt variations “to prove to 95% confidence” that genetic modified food caused cancer; I’ll assume (trust) you won’t fall into that mistake, and that you won’t use the ANOVA knowledge I provide to get notoriety and easy publication of total, un-reproducible nonsense. If you have more than one or two prompts, you’ve got to add r-squared (and it’s probably a good idea with one or two). I’d discuss r-squared at the end.

I’ll now show how you calculate X°-bar the old-fashioned way, as would be done with a hand calculator. I do this, not because I think social-scientists can’t calculate an average, nor because I don’t trust the ANOVA function on your laptop or calculator, but because this is a good way to familiarize yourself with the notation:

X°-bar = X° = 1/n° ∑ Xi°.

Here, n° is the total number of subjects who take the test but who have not seen the prompt. Typically, for professional studies, there are 30 to 50 of these. ∑ means sum, and Xi° is the score of the ith subject, as I’d mentioned. Thus, ∑ Xi° indicates the sum of all the scores in this group, and 1/n° is the average, X°-bar. Convince yourself that this is, indeed the formula. The same formula is used for X*-bar. For a hand calculation, you’d write numbers 1 to n° on the left column of some paper, and each Xi° value next to its number, leaving room for more work to follow. This used to be done in a note-book, nowadays a spreadsheet will make that easier. Write the value of X°-bar on a separate line on the bottom.

T-table

T-table

In virtually all cases you’ll find that X°-bar is different from X*-bar, but there will be a lot of variation among the scores in both groups. The ANOVA (analysis of variation) is a simple way to determine whether the difference is significant enough to mean anything. Statistics books make this calculation seem far too complicated — they go into too much math-theory, or consider too many types of ANOVA tests, most of which make no sense in psychology or poly-sci but were developed for ball-bearings and cement. The only ANOVA approach used involves the T-table shown and the 95% confidence (column this is the same as two-tailed p<0.05 column). Though 99% is nice, it isn’t necessary. Other significances are on the chart, but they’re not really useful for publication. If you do this on a calculator, the table is buried in there someplace. The confidence level is written across the bottom line of the cart. 95% here is seen to be the same as a two-tailed P value of 0.05 = 5% seen on the third from the top line of the chart. For about 60 subjects (two groups of 30, say) and 95% certainty, T= 2.000. This is a very useful number to carry about in your head. It allows you to eyeball your results.

In order to use this T value, you will have to calculate the standard deviation, SD for both groups and the standard variation between them, SV. Typically, the SDs will be similar, but large, and the SV will be much smaller. First lets calculate SD° by hand. To do this, you first calculate its square, SD°2; once you have that, you’ll take the square-root. Take each of the X°i scores, each of the scores of the first group, and calculate the difference between each score and the average, X°-bar. Square each number and divide by (n°-1). These numbers go into their own column, each in line with its own Xi. The sum of this column will be SD°2. Put in mathematical terms, for the original group (the ones that didn’t see the movie),

SD°2 = 1/(n°-1) ∑ (Xi°- X°)2

SD° = √SD°2.

Similarly for the group that saw the movie, SD*2 = 1/(n*-1) ∑ (Xi*- X*)2

SD* = √SD*2.

As before, n° and n* are the number of subjects in each of the two groups. Usually you’ll aim for these to be the same, but often they’ll be different. Some students will end up only seeing half the move, some will see it twice, even if you don’t plan it that way; these students’ scares can not be used with the above, but be sure to write them down; save them. They might have tremendous value later on.

Write down the standard deviations, SD for each group calculated above, and check that the SDs are similar, differing by less than a factor of 2. If so, you can take a weighted average and call it SD-bar, and move on with your work. There are formulas for this average, and in some cases you’ll need an F-table to help choose the formula, but for my purposes, I’ll assume that the SDs are similar enough that any weighted average will do. If they are not, it’s likely a sign that something very significant is going on, and you may want to re-think your study.

Once you calculate SD-bar, the weighted average of the SD’s above, you can move on to calculate the standard variation, the SV between the two groups. This is the average difference that you’d expect to see if there were no real differences. That is, if there were no movie, no prompt, no nothing, just random chance of who showed up for the test. SV is calculated as:

SV = SD-bar √(1/n° + 1/n*).

Now, go to your T-table and look up the T value for two tailed tests at 95% certainty and N = n° + n*. You probably learned that you should be using degrees of freedom where, in this case, df = N-2, but for normal group sizes used, the T value will be nearly the same. As an example, I’ll assume that N is 80, two groups of 40 subjects the degrees of freedom is N-2, or 78. I you look at the T-table for 95% confidence, you’ll notice that the T value for 80 df is 1.99. You can use this. The value for  62 subjects would be 2.000, and the true value for 80 is 1.991; the least of your problems is the difference between 1.991 and 1.990; it’s unlikely your test is ideal, or your data is normally distributed. Such things cause far more problems for your results. If you want to see how to deal with these, go here.

Assuming random variation, and 80 subjects tested, we can say that, so long as X°-bar differs from X*-bar by at least 1.99 times the SV calculated above, you’ve demonstrated a difference with enough confidence that you can go for a publication. In math terms, you can publish if and only if: |X°-X*| ≥ 1.99 SV where the vertical lines represent absolute value. This is all the statistics you need. Do the above, and you’re good to publish. The reviewers will look at your average score values, and your value for SV. If the difference between the two averages is more than 2 times the SV, most people will accept that you’ve found something.

If you want any of this to sink in, you should now do a worked problem with actual numbers, in this case two groups, 11 and 10 students. It’s not difficult, but you should try at least with these real numbers. When you are done, go here. I will grind through to the answer. I’ll also introduce r-squared.

The worked problem: Assume you have two groups of people tested for racism, or political views, or some allergic reaction. One group was given nothing more than the test, the other group is given some prompt: an advertisement, a drug, a lecture… We want to know if we had a significant effect at 95% confidence. Here are the test scores for both groups assuming a scale from 0 to 3.

Control group: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3.  These are the Xi° s; there are 11 of them

Prompted group: 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3.  These are the Xi* s; there are 10 of them.

On a semi-humorous side: Here is the relationship between marriage and a PhD.

Robert Buxbaum, March 18, 2019. I also have an explanation of loaded dice and flipped coins; statistics for high school students.

Harvard Eunuchs

3 Replies

Success is measured in different ways in different cultures. Among US academics, the first mark of success is going to a great college. If you graduate from Eureka college, as Ronald Reagan did, you are pretty-well assumed to be an idiot; if you went to Harvard and Princeton, as John Kennedy did, you’re off on a good start to popular acclaim, even if your entry essay was poor, and you got thrown out of one because of cheating. Graduation from a top college does not guarantee being seen as a success forever, though. You have to continue in the Harvard way: use big words — something that puts-off the less-educated; you have to win awards, write books or articles; have the right politics; work at a high power job and money, meet the right people, exercise regularly, etc. It’s hard work being successful; disposable income is tight, and one rarely has time for kids.

Fertility rates, 1950 and now

Fertility rates compared, world-wide, 1970 vs 2014.

By contrast, in ancient societies, success included food, leisure, land, and general respect. A successful person is seated at the front of the church, and consulted as few academics are. And there is another great measure: children. In traditional societies, children are valued, They are seen as a joy in your youth, and a comfort in your old age. They are you and your wife reborn, with reborn wonder. They are your future, and the defenders of your legacy; ready to take on the world with an outlook of their own, but one that you had a unique chance to mold. In the Bible, children are a sign of blessing, and the opposite is explicitly stated as a punishment for violating God’s commands.

I have come to wonder why rich countries have so few children, and why successful people in rich countries have yet fewer than the average. These people and countries are no worse than others, yet they are common. Harvard produces a surprising number of “Legal Eunuchs” — people with a refined place in society, but no time or children; people who work tirelessly for the pleasure and success of others. Harvard couples marry late, or not at all. If they marry, they usually produce childless households, DINKs — Double Income No Kids.

The same pattern is seen in Europe, UK, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China, as the map above shows. Particularly among the élite, the great works are being created for the deplorables and their children. Could anything be more depressing?

The seven things include that Eunuchs can be trusted, that they love to serve, that they are compassionate, that they are passionate (for excellence) and that they have fewer distractions.

There’s and organization for everything these days. In this case, the seven things you didn’t know include that Eunuchs can be trusted, that they love to serve, that they are compassionate, that they are passionate for excellence, and that they have fewer distractions. This is the opposite of toxic masculinity, but it comes at a cost. 

I think one reason for the growing ranks of Harvard Eunuchs is a dislike of masculinity; masculinity is sort-of toxic,  associated with war, revolution, and selfishness. In the 1800s, only Republicans and Communists had beards; the more-refined gentleman did not. The eunuch qualities listed above, are considered noble, charitable, and selfless. Clearly it helps others if you are selfless, but why do it? I think the answer is self-doubt about ones worthiness to enjoy the fruits of your labor. To get to Harvard takes striving, and that relates to a degree of self-doubt and loathing about your worthiness today.

I graduated from Cooper Union, and went to Princeton for graduate school. It was a magical place, I became machines chairman, then chairman of the Graduate College House Committee. I dealt with a lot of very bright, accomplished people, and a pattern I saw often was self-doubt and loathing. And the most accomplished students were the ones with the most self-loathing. It made them strive to be better; it drove the innovative research and the grant writing. It motivated graduates to try to become professors (only a few would succeed) or judges, or financiers, or politicians. All that takes time, striving, and putting off your wants in the here-and-now, for a reward to the future you that is worthy. It’s a system that produces greatness, but at great personal cost.

So what’s to be done? How do you help yourself, or some other, the bright, educated fellow see that he or she is good enough. Unfortunately, for those in the system, good enough equals bad. I found it helped to say, in my own words, the words or Solomon:”Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself.” “It is not good to be over-wise… Why wear yourself out?” Not that these words changed them, but they did seem to give comfort. I’d suggest the write things that were honest; that people understand, and that they take time for themselves. “May your fountain be blessed, and enjoy the wife of your youth.” (Ps.127:3-4, Ecc.8:15, Pr.5:18…) It suffices to retell old truths and raise a new generation. Only make sure that what you have to say is honest and logical, and trust your own value. As for toxic masculinity, it can have its own charm.

Robert E. Buxbaum, January 29, 2019. I got the title for this article, and the idea, from the phrase, “Legal Eunuchs” in this wonderful book review (2005) by Alan Dershowitz.

A Pastor to Trump’s Soul

2 Replies

Trump’s religious connection is so different from the norm that most people think it must be fake, but the truth of his connection to Christianity, as best I can determine it, is even more bizarre than the assumption that there is none. From the time that he was six years old, Donald Trump attended a famous church in New York City, The Marble Collegiate Presbyterian Church. He attended along with his grandfather, his parents, his brother, and his sisters. He was married in this church as was his sister. Both his parents funerals were in the sanctuary, and unlike most children in a family church, he seems to have been generally moved by the sermons — moved to change his life.

Trump and NVP

Various scenes of Trump and his family with Dr. Norma Vincent Peale.

The pastor of the church and the author of these sermons was not a standard Christian, though. It was Norman Vincent Peele, author of “The Power of Positive Thinking.” According to President Trump, he loved the sermons almost from the beginning. They went on for an hour or so and as Trump remembers it, the Reverend Peele could have spoken for twice as long at least. Dr. Peale did not talk fo sin, but rather of success and other of the most positive things. Peale claimed that you could do anything you wanted with the help of God and proving you believed in your self and didn’t let anything anyone said interfere. He backed up this take on the bible by a cherry-picked selection from all the positive lines in the Bible — Lines that are really there, but that most pastors avoid because they can make a person arrogant (or seem arrogant). A source for all of president Trumps bizarre self-image ideas can be found in Peele’s “The power of positive thinking,”I  find.presidents-billy-right-960x640BG-Kennedy-960x640

Dwight Eishenhouer

Some other US presidents with Reverend Billy Graham.

Most other American pastors have emphasized self reflection and humility. They would pray for the power to avoid bragging or other forms of puffing one’s self up —  the very opposite approach of Dr. Peale’s. The most popular of the alternates approaches, one embraced by virtually every president from 1952 to today was Billy Graham’s fire humility.

Eisenhower golfed with Graham regularly, as did Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and G. H.W. Bush. Graham was a feature at prayer breakfasts with Johnson and Reagan, and Carter. In time of trouble it was Billy Graham who counseled Carter, Clinton, and Nixon, and it was Graham who got George W. Bush to give up drinking. After a time, one could imagine that Billy Graham’s quiet humility and fiery faith was the real American belief. Or at least that this was the form of American soul that one associated with success.bill graham reagan BG-JOHNSON

After decades of seeing Billy Graham at the White House, one began to believe that his was the image of the believing American. To believe meant to see oneself as a sinner who often made mistakes but was genuinely sorry for these failures. A believing American was genuinely penitent, but not too loudly. Was reborn, but didn’t make too much fuss of it. Thus it’s more than a little shock to find believer in God’s plan who claims to believes that God wants him to have success, money, and power, and who claims, as Trump does, that those who criticize him are “fake news”.

I’ve mentioned before that a strong belief in ones self has a positive side for leaders, but it strikes me that perhaps it’s also good for religion. These lines really do appear in the Bible, Humility is there too, of course, but we could all use a reminder that “God gives to all who believe in Him.”

Robert Buxbaum, September 3, 2018

Sex differences in addiction.

1 Reply

Men become addicted and so do women, but the view in popular movies and songs present some clear differences. Addicted men are presented as drunks or stoners. By contrast, the popular picture of an addicted woman is a middle-aged housewife who takes “mother’s little helper“: anti-depressant and pain pills, “mother’s little helper of the classic Rolling Stones song. Male addicts are presented to take their drugs in the company of friends while female addicts are pictured taking their pills in private. A question I have: is there any evidence to back these popular perceptions.

All addiction may not be bad. Though Churchill was addicted to drink, he imagined it as a virtue not a vice.

Not all who are addicted consider their addiction a liability. Though Churchill was addicted to drink, starting the day with a tumbler of whiskey, he imagined it as a virtue. One would be hard-pressed to prove otherwise.

As it happens, if you look at the statistics in a certain way, they do bear out the popular perceptions. About three times as many men as women are in treatment for alcohol or pot, voluntary or court-mandated. Meanwhile, as a percentage of the addicted, women are nearly twice as likely as men to claim pills as their primary addiction. Percentage data is plotted below. The problem with the percentage graph is that it ignores the fact that twice as many men as women are in treatment: 1,233,000 men vs 609,000 women, as of 2011. Multiply the total numbers by the percentages and you find that there are more men than women with primary addiction to pills, or to cocaine, heroin, or meth-amphetamines. For any drug you mention, the real sex-difference is that more men are addicts.

It could be argues that rehab attendance is a bad measure of addiction, but I would argue that this is the best measure, not only are the numbers are more accurate, rehab is an indication that the addict feels that his or her addiction is a problem. It is a mistake, I think, to include people who feel their addiction is not ruining their lives with people who do not, e.g. Churchill. Any person who believes he or she is benefiting, and who has managed to avoid running afoul of the police, it could be argued, does not have a serious problem. Friends and employers may disagree in terms of diagnosis, but in terms of statistics, other measures like self-reporting come to the same conclusion: if it’s a stupid addiction, more men do it than women. Men self-report that they smoke more, binge-drink more, and use drugs more. Men also commit suicide more and end up in jail more.

Main addiction of men and women. percent based on rehab records, 2011. From the TEDS Report 4/3/14. Twice as many men as women go to rehab.

Main addiction of men and women. percent based on rehab records, 2011. From the TEDS Report on substance abuse. 4/3/14. The most significant sex difference, as I see it: twice as many men as women go to rehab.

In terms of age of prescription drug use, the graph below shows a difference between men and women. There is a slight tendency for women to persist with prescription drugs, but that may reflect the tendency for men to move on to some other stupid behavior.

While more female than male addicts consider opioids their main addiction, since there are twice as many male addicts as female, it comes out that the number using opioids is about the same. Interestingly, a greater fraction of men seem capable of switching out from opioids -- likely to some other addiction.

While more female than male addicts consider opioids their main addiction, since there are twice as many male addicts as female, it comes out that the number using opioids is about the same. A greater fraction of men switch out from opioids, perhaps to another addiction. Source: ibid.

A few cheerful bits of news are in order. One is that smoking, the most deadly of the addictions, is on the decline. It seems like vaping is a contributor to this, and much safer. Similarly, with illicit drug addictions, while use is on the upswing, and while an amazingly large share of Americans have used such drugs — see graph below from Statista — only a small fraction remain users into middle age. Most seem to quit on their own — they even seem to quit heroin when it ceases to serve a purpose. At present, only 60,000/year total die of overdose out of some 120,000,000 who’ve used illicit drugs. Ringo Starr’s song, “I don’t smoke it no more“may be cited, especially when paired with his “Oh my my” song about quitting through dance. If you want to quit and dance doesn’t work for you, I’d suggest AA or NA. To quote Ringo: “You can do it if you try.”

Number of people in the US using different drugs as of 2016. The vast majority have not used in the last year.

Number of people in the US who have used different illegal drugs as of 2016. It’s about 1/3 of America. The vast majority from every category have quit, and are not using. 89% of heroin uses have quit. You can too. Statista.

As for why men more than women do drugs, all I can say is that they do all sorts of stupid things. They fight in wars more often, they go over Niagara Falls in barrels more often, and they start new businesses more often. Sometimes it works for them; usually not. Here is a more detailed article with the same semi-conclusion: men are stupid, risk takers. I suspect that’s their language of love.

Robert Buxbaum, June 11, 2018

School violence and the prepositional subjective

1 Reply

There is a new specialty in the law, both in prosecution and defense: dealing with possible school shooters and other possible purveyors of violence. Making threats of violence has always been a felony — it’s a form of assault. But we’ve recently extended this assault charge to those student who make statements to the effect that they might like to commit violence, a conditional subjunctive statement of assault. This finer net manages to catch, in Michigan alone, about 100 per month. That’s a large number. Mostly they are male high-school age students who shot off their mouth, kids caught for saying “I’ll kill you” often in an argument, or following one. They are arrested for protection of others, but the numbers are so high and the charge so major, 15 – 20 year felonies, it’s possible that the cure is worse than the disease.

Eight students of the 100 charged in the last month in crimes of potential violence.

Putting some faces to the crime. Eight of the 100 charged in Michigan in the last month for potential violence. All or most are boys. 

Several of the cases are described in this recent Free-Press article, along with the picture at right. According to the article, many of those charged, are sentenced to lower crimes than the 15 -20 maximum, things like reckless endangerment. Many, the majority, I hope — they are not mentioned in the article — are let go with a warning. But even there, one wonder if these are the richer, white ones. In any case, it’s clear that many are not let go and have their lives ruined because they might come to commit a crime.

Let’s consider one case in-depth, outcome unknown: A top high school student, skinny, but without many friends, who gets picked on regularly. One day, one of the more popular kids in school calls him out and says, “You look like you’re one of those school shooters.” The loner responds, “If I were a school shooter, you’d be the first I’d shoot.” And that’s enough to ruin the kid’s life. Straight to the principal, and then to the police. The ACLU has not seen to get involved as there are competing rights at play: the right of the loner to have a normal education, and the rights of the other students. One thing that bothers me is that this crime hangs on the conditional subjunctive:  “If I were…., then you would be…”

What makes the threat subjective is that “I’ll kill you” or “I’d shoot you first” is something you’d like to be true at some time in the indefinite future. There is no clear time line or weapon, just a vague desire that the person should be shot. It’s a desire that more-likely than not, is a fleeting hyperbole, and not an actual threat. What makes the threat conditional on the person has yet to decide to show up with a weapon or show any sign of doing violence: “If I were to become a school shooter.”

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence is this picture.

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence of a threat is this picture.

It did not used to be that either the conditional or the subjunctive were considered threats. A person was assumed to be blowing off steam if he (or she) said “I’d like to see you dead” or even “I’ll kill you.” And we certainly never bothered folks who prefaced it with, “If I were a …” In theory, we had to extend the law to protect the weak from a shooter, but we’ve also put a weapon in the hands of the schoolyard bully. The school bully can now ruin the life of his fellow by accusing him of being a potential school scooter. We’ve weaponized the conditional subjunctive, and I don’t like it. The boy who drew the picture at right was charged with a 15 year felony for drawing something that, in earlier generations, would be called a fantasy picture.

It bothers me is that the majority of those charged — perhaps all those charged — are boys. Generally these boys are doing things that normal boys have often done. The picture of a shooting is considered a written threat of violence, but to me it looks like a normal boy picture. Girls have not been caught, so far, perhaps because their words and pictures are more “girly” so their threats are not considered threats. Sometimes is seems that it is boy-behaviors themselves are being criminalized, or at minimum diagnosed as ADHD (crazy). There is so much we don’t like about boy-behaviors, and we’ve elevated the female to such an extent, that we may have lost the positive idea of what a male should be. We want boys to be “girly” or at least “trans,” and that’s not normal in the sense that it’s not normative. We’ve come to worry about boyness, creating a cure that may be worse than the harm we are trying to prevent.

Robert Buxbaum, May 7, 2018. I’ve also noted how bizarre US sex laws are, and have written about pirates and transgender grammar.

Gomez Addams, positive male role-model

3 Replies

The Addams Family did well on Broadway, in the movies, and on TV, but got predictably bad reviews in all three forms. Ordinary people like it; critics did not. Something I like about the series that critics didn’t appreciate is that Gomez is the only positive father character I can think of since the days of “Father knows best”.

Gomez is sexual, and sensual; a pursuer and lover, but not a predator.

Gomez is sexual, and sensual; a pursuer and lover, but not a predator.

In most family shows the father isn’t present at all, or if he appears, he’s violent or and idiot. He’s in prison, or in trouble with the law, regularly insulted by his wife and neighbors, in comedies, he’s sexually ambiguous, insulted by his children, and often insulted by talking pets too. In Star Wars, the only father figures are Vader, a distant menace, and Luke who’s just distant. In American shows, the parents are often shown as divorced; the children are reared by the mother with help of a nanny, a grandparent, or a butler. In Japanese works, I hardly see a parent. By contrast, Gomez is present, center stage. He’s not only involved, he’s the respected leader of his clan. If he’s odd, it’s the odd of a devoted father and husband who comfortable with himself and does not care to impress others. It’s the outsiders, the visitors, who we find have family problems, generally caused by a desire to look perfect.

Gomez is hot-blooded, sexual and sensual, but he’s not a predator, or violent. He’s loved by his wife, happy with his children, happy with his life, and happy with himself. As best we can tell, he’s on good-enough terms with the milk man, the newspaper boy, and the law. Though not a stick-in-the-mud, he’s on excellent terms with the rest of the Addams clan, and he’s good with the servants: Lurch, Thing, and for a while a gorilla who served as maid (none too well). One could do worse than to admire a person who maintains a balance like that between the personal, the family, the servants, and the community.

On a personal level, Gomez is honest, kind, generous, loving, and involved. He has hobbies, and his hobbies are manly: fencing, chess, dancing, stocks, music, and yoga. He reads the newspaper and smokes a cigar, but is not addicted to either. He plays with model trains too, an activity he shares with his son. Father and son enjoy blowing up the train — it’s something kids used to do in the era of firecrackers. Gomez is not ashamed to do it, and approves when his son does.

Gomez Addams, in the Addams Family Musical, gives advice and comfort to his daughter who is going through a rough stretch of relationship with a young man, and sings that he’s happy and sad.

Other TV and movie dads have less – attractive hobbies: football watching and beer-drinking, primarily. Han Solo is a smuggler, though he does not seem to need the money. TV dads take little interest in their kids, and their kids return the favor. To the extent that TV dads take an interest, it’s to disapprove, George Costanza’s dad, for example. Gomez is actively interested and is asked for advice regularly. In the video below, he provides touching comfort and advice to his daughter while acknowledging her pain, and telling her how proud he is of her. Kids need to hear that from a dad. No other TV dad gives approval like this; virtually no other male does. They are there as props, I think, for strong females and strong children.

The things that critics dislike, or don’t understand, as best I can tell, is the humor, based as it is on danger and dance. Critics hate humor in general (How many “best picture” Oscars go to comedies?)  Critics fear pointless danger, and disapproval, and law suits, and second-hand-smoke. They are the guardians of correct thinking — just the thinking that Gomez and the show ridicules. Gomez lives happily in the real world of today, but courts danger, death, law suits. He smokes and dances and does not worry what the neighbors think. He tries dangerous things and does not always succeed, but then lets his kids try the same. He dances with enthusiasm. I find his dancing and fearlessness healthier than the over-protective self-sacrifice that critics seem to favor in heroes. To the extent that they tolerate fictional violence, they require the hero to swooping, protecting others at danger to themselves only, while the others look on (or don’t). The normal people are presented as cautious, fearful, and passive. Cold, in a word, and we raise kids to be the same. Cold fear is a paralyzing thing in children and adults; it often brings about the very damage that one tries to avoid.

Gomez is hot: active, happy, and fearless. This heat.– this passion — is what makes Gomez a better male role model than Batman, say. Batman is just miserable, or the current versions are. Ms. Frizzle (magic school bus) is the only other TV character who is happy to let others take risks, but Ms Frizzle is female. Gomez’s thinks the best of those who come to visit, but we see they usually don’t deserve it. Sometimes they do, and this provides touching moments. Gomez is true to his wife and passionate, most others are not. Gomez kisses his wife, dances with her, and compliments her. Outsiders don’t dance, and snap at their wives; they are motivated by money, status, and acceptability. Gomez is motivated by life itself (and death). The outsiders fear anything dangerous or strange; they are cold inside and suffer as a result. Gomez is hot-blooded and alive: as a lover, a dancer, a fencer, a stock trader, an animal trainer, and a collector. He is the only father with a mustache, a sign of particular masculinity — virtually the only man with a mustache.

Gomez has a quiet, polite and decent side too, but it’s a gallant version, a masculine heterosexual version. He’s virtually the only decent man who enjoys life, or for that matter is shown to kiss his wife with more than a peck. In TV or movies, when you see a decent, sensitive, or polite man, he is asexual or homosexual. He is generally unmarried, sometimes divorced, and almost always sad — searching for himself. I’m not sure such people are positive role models for the a-sexual, but they don’t present a lifestyle most would want to follow. Gomez is decent, happy, and motivated; he loves his life and loves his wife, even to death, and kisses with abandon. My advice: be alive like Gomez, don’t be like the dead, cold, visitors and critics.

Robert Buxbaum, December 22, 2017.  Some years ago, I gave advice to my daughter as she turned 16. I’ve also written about Superman, Hamilton, and Burr; about Military heroes and Jack Kelly.