Talent

 

                                                           Buddha

 

This afternoon I was looking at the stuff stuck to the refrigerator by my wife, Sarah. We both like to post wise sayings. The frig is her domain. “Dust Bunnies Killed My Cleaning Fairy” is a favorite of mine, but the one that really started me thinking was, “He is able who thinks he is able,” by the Buddha. It has been up there as long as I can remember, and I never thought much about it. I suppose it’s authentic, or at least as authentic as a 2500 year old saying can be, but it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing Buddha would say. He sounds almost like a capitalist. I would imagine a more Buddha like saying would be, ‘Don’t worry about losing your cleaning fairy. Just go with the flow.’ It makes me think that a capitalist took Buddha’s words and altered them to go along with more ‘modern’ thinking. 

The idea that anyone can become successful, rich, or famous, that anyone can make a significant contribution to society, is baked into our culture. I remember believing that since childhood. It inspired me to study harder, to practice long hours on my violin. When I didn’t get an A or wasn’t the best at something, I just attributed it to lack of effort. 

This attitude worked pretty well through college. I didn’t get straight A’s but I was always in the top 15 or 20% of the class, and I managed to win first chair in the All-state Orchestra in high school, and in the University of Oklahoma orchestra too. On top of that, I read books by really smart authors like Asimov, even Camus, and I cultivated friendships with really smart people, thinking that if I could understand them and if they accepted me, that would put me on their level. The fact that I couldn’t understand integral calculus, or learn to speak German didn’t put me off. I just needed to find my niche. 

I think my first suspicion that I couldn’t be the best just by thinking I was, like Buddha supposedly said, or by working hard, came after my first year in medical school. I went there intending to be among the best in my class. I thought, ‘this is going to be my profession, my life’s work, so I’m going to work hard and be successful.' I studied the material for long hours. I even started smoking a pipe because someone told me it would help me to stay alert when I was tired, but I found that wasn’t enough. In med school everyone was smart. Everyone was working hard. I couldn’t be the best no matter how hard I tried. I was making C’s. I had never been a C student, never in my life. 

So I made a decision. I marched into the dean’s office and told him that I hadn’t learned the material well enough, and that I needed to repeat the first year. He didn’t seem upset. He didn’t kick me out of school like I half expected he would. He just reassured me. He said that nobody remembers all that stuff, that all you have to do is get familiar with the subject. If you need to refresh your mind about the details, you know where to look it up. He said that what it takes to be a good doctor is the humility to realize your limitations and the interest to keep learning.  So I  stayed in school, and tried to accept the fact that I wasn’t going to be at the top of my class. 

It was the same with my violin playing. I love to play and I’ve continued to play in my spare time all my life. Sometimes I have played in amateur orchestras and chamber groups, and occasionally for small groups as a soloist. But mainly, I just play for myself. It’s a time when I can relax and reflect. During my last years in medical practice I started playing at nursing homes, and I started transcribing and arranging popular pieces. The classical solo pieces for the violin were flashy but difficult to play and so I tried to play tunes that were easier and more familiar to the patients, popular tunes from the 30’s and 40’s. Gradually I’ve come to realize that I’m just a mediocre violinist. The reason I used to think I was exceptional was because there wasn’t much competition. I was only competing against people my age, mainly in just my home town, and when I won first chair in the state orchestra it was in Oklahoma, a small state. Recently I auditioned for a seat in our community orchestra, one of several in the city of Denver. I made the cut but when I started playing with them I was surprised to find that they were all as good or better than I. I still play, but it’s only because I enjoy it. I get better with practice, but no matter how hard I try I’ll never  be exceptional. 

I have had to fight this misconception all my life, that I’m just as smart or capable as anyone. The media reinforces this idea. They interview successful people and almost without exception the story they tell is one of hard work, determination, overcoming obstacles. The truth, in my opinion, is that they just have exceptional abilities. If you interview people who are average, I think you would get similar stories. Some people are just smarter or more talented than others. 

I think it is a dangerous delusion to accept the notion that we are all equal, that anyone can be successful with hard work and determination. It makes us take on tasks or responsibilities that are beyond us. It makes us discount the opinions of experts, and credit the opinions of those with little knowledge or background. It makes people disbelieve well established scientific facts, like human induced climate change, or evolution. It enables charlatans to create followings on the strength of their personalities without any facts to support them. 

So what’s a conscientious person to do? No matter how smart you are there are millions smarter, more educated, more talented than you. Should you just give up and let others make the decisions? That obviously doesn’t work. Smart people don’t all agree. They make decisions based on ambition, prejudice, status, expectations, and the smarter they are, the better they are at rationalizing their decisions. On a societal level decisions are made by the most vocal, usually a minority - think Nazis in Germany, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Communists in Russia and China. 

What would my wise cousin Steve say? (I’ll find out as soon as I publish this post) First he’d say, “earn your oxygen.” Do things that benefit your family, friends and society. Then he’d say, “be open minded.” Listen to people on both sides of every issue, and try to understand their point of view. Most of them are just as smart as you, and they have reasons for their viewpoints, no matter how foolish they may seem, and then share your opinions. 

Wisdom

 

                                         Rodin's The Thinker

Wisdom is not what it’s cracked up to be, especially in times of change. According to my hero, Eric Hoffer (see my post of Aug. 27, 2024), “In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”

It’s not that wisdom isn’t important. It is the way we understand the world around us, but you have to be careful whom to believe. There are a lot of smart, educated, ‘wise’ people in the world, and whatever your opinion, you can find some of them who agree with you, and can make your case much better than you. Groups of people with similar views banding together and getting their “news” from the same sources is especially common in this age of polarization.

 I’m just as guilty as the next person. I have my favorites: Rachel Maddow, Larry Summers, Josh Brown, and my wise cousin Steve.  It makes me feel smart when I can find a really smart person that agrees with me. Occasionally I accidentally hear or read something by a smart person that totally disagrees with me. My immediate response is to try and pick holes in his/her argument, or assume that he’s making stuff up, but that doesn’t always work. What’s an arrogant egotist to do?

I think too often we come to conclusions first and later think of reasons to justify them.  Finding a smart person who agrees with you is just icing on the cake. It should be the other way around. Gathering information should come first, and then the conclusion.

It starts early in life. We start out with a set of beliefs given to us by our parents, by our culture, and then, as we grow older we learn to rationalize those beliefs, and we find smart people who support them. This process explains most of our traditions. It explains why most Americans are Christian, and most Arabs are Muslim. It explains why most Americans are capitalists and most Europeans are socialists.

It seems to me that there is a lot of criticism of capitalism these days. We’re taught in school that capitalism rewards those who work hard, and it enables us to find the most efficient way to do things. It’s supposed to go together with democracy: life, liberty and “The pursuit of happiness,” but just during my lifetime, communist China – Russia, not so much – has gotten about as good at capitalism as we are, without granting the other two rights stated in our Declaration of Independence.

The trouble with capitalism is that it fosters competition and a “winner takes all” culture. What’s wrong with competition, you say? Well, it leads to resentment and hostility, preventing cooperation between the people who work together. It rewards greed and punishes altruism. When there’s competition, there has to be a winner, and in a corporation the winners rise to the top, make all the decisions and more money, whereas studies have shown that a team approach leads to more innovation and diversity.

On a society level you end up with a small group of people who control the country, and become immensely wealthy, while the needs of the rest are disregarded. That is why in America, medical science is arguably the most advanced in the world, while the level of health care overall is among the worst.

In America we glorify capitalism and attribute to it our success as a country. Why? Because that’s what we were taught. It’s part of our culture. We accept it without question.     

Back to wisdom.

This way of backward thinking, where we make conclusions and then rationalize them, works on a personal level too. A sad but true expression is “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” I have made some terrible decisions in my life which seemed to make sense at the time, but in looking back, I performed the same kind of backward logic of making a decision and then justifying it. Rationalization is a dangerous mistake.

The other problem with backward thinking is the future. As Yogi Berra once said: “making predictions is hard, especially about the future.” No one, no matter how smart, can predict the future, but we have to try. We have to make plans, decisions. Knowledge helps. As one of my professors said, “You can either learn from the mistakes of others or you can make them all yourselves,” but unexpected events, and new discoveries can change the course of events. Think of artificial intelligence. Changes need to be integrated into our view of the world, our expectations for the future.

I’ve been lucky in life to know some truly wise people who have questioned some of my poorly thought out conclusions. First was my dad. I talked with him a lot, and he always patiently listened to my ideas. Once I decided that all behavior was selfish. Whether you decide to help someone or steal something, you do it because you think it will make you feel better. Helping will give you satisfaction, and hocking stolen goods will make you richer. His response was, “If you’re playing basketball (he was an outstanding athlete in high school and college) and you steal the ball, then run down the court and pass the ball to one of your teammates to make the score, you can’t convince me that’s selfish.” From that I learned not to make conclusions by manipulating semantics. And he taught me much more.

Then there was my lifelong friend, Harlan. Once I got interested in Albert Schweitzer. He was a doctor, philosopher, musician and a missionary in Africa. He was also recognized as a biblical scholar, and a psychologist. I was telling Harlan how much I admired Schweitzer, when he reminded me that he had a patronizing attitude toward the Africans. Harlan knew a little bit about everything. He was gentle but ruthless in his logic. He taught me to look at things from a broader perspective.

Then there is my wise cousin Steve. We’ve been discussing things since childhood. Now we’re getting older, declining mentally and physically. We deal with it each in our own way. He organizes genealogy and photos for his kids and grandkids on Excel. He must be one of the world’s authorities on Excel. I manage our investments and play the violin. I’ve learned many things from Steve, whether it’s earning your oxygen (see blog post of 11/23/23),  or being ambivalent (see post of 11/8/23), or the scientific method (see post of 6/10/24), to which he attributes most advances in science. We can’t get together anymore, but we talk by phone for about two hours every other week. Last week I was telling him how disappointed I was that my wife Sarah and I couldn’t travel anymore. He seemed concerned that I was getting depressed, and started reeling off all the things that we can still do. He finished by telling me to remember Pollyanna, who always found something good in everything and everyone. Steve watches the movie “Pollyanna” over and over. What can be more useful than always looking on the bright side?

I’ve been truly blessed.   

 

 

 

 

Where Have All the Democrats Gone?

 

From "Trumpty Dumpty Wanted a Crown" by John Lithgow

Last week I watched an interview with Ruy Teixeira, one of the authors of the book, “Where Have all the Democrats Gone?” on the Daily Show, with Jon Stewart. His main point was that the Democratic Party has gone from a party of the working class under FDR, to a party of intellectuals championing liberal causes and minorities, a party that doesn’t get much done. In the meantime, the unions have lost power due to globalization and immigration, and it’s the Republicans who have become the populist party, favoring nationalism, isolation, law and order, and religious fundamentalism, at least they say they do. 

Jon Stewart made the point that the Democrats were thought of as weak, because of their adherence to the rules of the system, which is making it hard for them to get anything done. He made fun of Obama for not pushing through Merrick Garland’s nomination as a Supreme Court justice, and Joe Biden’s dropping of immigration reform from his economics’ bill because of a parliamentarian’s ruling, while the Trump Republicans don’t have any qualms about pushing through their justices, and blocking said immigration bill just so they could use it as a campaign issue. 

While president, Trump trashed the nuclear deal with Iran, and threatened to leave NATO. He intends to conduct unprecedented deportation, using the military against not only illegal immigrants, but also against demonstrators who oppose him. While president, Trump used the Department of Justice as his own personal legal defense team. He disregarded the advice of experts on climate change, and on the effects and management of the COVID pandemic. He plans to eliminate regulations on industry and even eliminate large departments within the government. He’s even threatened to take away licensing from news outlets that oppose him. 

The interview seemed to conclude that the Democrats’ failure is due to their adherence to laws and tradition. Trump and the Republicans, on the other hand, are intent on getting their policies through, regardless of law and even Constitutional barriers. They now control the Supreme Court, and Trump seems well on the way to controlling both houses of Congress. Many seem to favor Trump, in spite of his scandals and frankly illegal behavior, just because he gets things done, and doesn't let laws, regulations, or science get in his way.  

Jon and the author, Mr. Tiexiera, seemed to think that the Democrats should “fight fire with fire,” to be more like the Republicans, and to fight for their policies, but I think the problem goes far beyond leadership or strategy. People are actually losing faith in our system of government. The Democrats are following the rules and the Republicans aren’t, and that couldn’t happen if people believed in the system. 

I’ve always assumed that our Constitution, our complex system of laws and regulations, and the bureaucracy that’s been built to enforce them, are what keeps our country strong, and guarantees the survival of our form of government, but that’s not it at all. It’s our belief in the system that keeps it going. Without that, the whole edifice will crumble to the ground. 

This discussion is akin to something my wise cousin Steve and I have talked about. He believes in gradual change, allowing society time to adapt. I’ve not been so patient. I’d like to see changes happen quicker, so that those who are suffering, or exploited can live long enough to see their lives improve. 

Right now there are a lot of people clamoring for change, rapid radical change. I'm not sure whether we need a change in government or just a change in attitude, but here's what Alex Hoffer (see post of August 27) said about change: “-the people who clamor for change are, on the whole, usually hostile to authority, --- Actually, in all the outstanding instances of rapid, drastic change we know of – successful rapid changes, drastic changes – occurred in an authoritarian atmosphere.” This is what scares me. Now that we’re losing patience with our system of government , we are looking for a leader. maybe it will be Trump, maybe somebody else, who will trash our republic and replace it with something else, who knows what. 

We have a choice to make, if it’s not too late: radical vs. gradual change, possibly even autocracy vs democracy. I side with cousin Steve this time, and chose the latter.

 

 

Donald and Fidel

 

                     Castro and Putin, another Trump Supporter

Fidel Castro led a popular revolution which took over Cuba in 1959. I was in high school at the time. When it became clear that Castro was a communist, many of the more affluent Cubans migrated to America. One of these was a friend of my mother’s. When she got back to the States she told my mother about how Cuba had changed under Castro. 

What struck me was what she said about the people he put into leadership positions. She said that they were the least competent, the least qualified people he could have picked. 

As Donald Trump makes his cabinet and other appointments known, I think you could describe them in the same way. From Mike Huckabee, the new Ambassador to Israel, a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Bible gives Israel the right to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, to Tom Homan, new Director of Immigration Enforcement, and author of the cruel family separation policy of Trump’s first term. From Matt Gaetz, Trump’s new Attorney General, under investigation for sexual misconduct by the House of Representatives, to Pete Hegseth, a political commentator on Fox News, now appointed Secretary of Defense, to Dan Scavino, Trump’s former golf caddie, now deputy White House Chief of Staff.    

What do these misfits have in common? They are loyal to Trump and dependent on him for their prominent positions. I suspect Castro’s appointees had the same qualifications.

 

Arab Lives Matter

                                                                   Gaza City

I’m really getting tired of the Israelis killing Palestinians and Lebanese, and now it looks like they’re getting ready to kill some Iranians. After they blew up Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies, killing or injuring thousands, not only Hezbollah’s members but also whatever Lebanese civilians happened to be close by, my first response was that Israel is now the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Now they’re planning a ground invasion of Lebanon, and who knows what in Iran. 

This is after they’ve spent a year killing Palestinians, over 40,000 of them, both in Gaza and the West Bank, in what really amounts to genocide, after the Hamas staged an invasion of Israel, killing a little over a thousand Israelis, and taking 250 hostages.   

Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has sent two barrages of missiles toward Israel after Israel killed several Iranian and Hezbollah military leaders. It amounted to a protest, since most of the missiles were intercepted and few Israelis were injured.  Now Israel is planning a major attack on Iranian military and infrastructure. 

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, have a legitimate grievance against Israel. Israel’s very existence is illegal, since their land was originally Palestine. The Israelis have continued to encroach on the areas left to the Palestinians by building settlements there. The Palestinians have fought and lobbied for independence in the world court. They don’t have the military power to win independence, but they have won their legal battles. I can understand why the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism and why the other Arab states have supported them, because they can’t win a war. 

I have been sympathetic to Israel’s desire for a homeland, a refuge from the antisemitism around the world, but I can’t condone their continued slaughter of Arabs in the countries surrounding them. 

It’s as though they are playing a game: “If you kill one of ours, we’ll kill ten of yours.” So they continue to attack and kill Arabs, as if to say, “That’ll teach you.” Of course, they’ve proved over and over that responding to terror attacks just enrages Arab victims and inspires more to become terrorists. 

The result is more and more killing, weighted more toward Arab casualties, and in Gaza it really does seem like a war of genocide.

My response is that “Arab lives matter!” What I don’t understand is why casualties, deaths don’t seem to enter into Israeli, or Arab calculations. There have been a few programs to develop understanding and personal relationships between Arabs and Israelis, but, while successful on a small scale, these programs seem to be outweighed by the decisions of militant leaders. 

The punch line to this tragic conundrum is that the enabler of all this hostility and killing is us. We support Israel with money, weapons, and if necessary, military backup. They have pursued their genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, their attacks in Lebanon, and possibly a war with Iran knowing that we will support them, no matter what. They’re betting their very existence on our support. Biden can urge a cease fire, negotiations, and limited responses to Arab protests, but his words are meaningless as he continues to provide Israel with huge bombs and high tech defensive systems, and to surround the area with aircraft carriers for Israel’s “defense.” 

I’m not Arab or Israeli, and I don’t understand the complicated relations between the Arab nations, or Israeli politics. I just think everyone needs to consider the lives and suffering of the people involved.    

The Maga Movement

 

                                                                  Proud Boys

 

I do make an effort to be evenhanded and nonjudgemental.  That is why I try to see different perspectives.  Hooray for me.

But –

I have zero tolerance for Bullies and Liars.  I am judgmental on people who are judgmental.

Trump is perhaps the biggest bully in a position of power in this country, at least in our lifetimes.

Trump is the worst liar, at least the most prolific.  Santos was bad, but didn’t talk 24-7.

Trump portrays himself is vastly superior to everyone else.

Trump portrays himself as the most popular person on the planet.  Loved by all (that aren’t evil and stupid).

Most of the people that do love him fall into the judgmental category.

Cousin Steve

I’m still trying to figure out how Donald Trump has taken control of the Republican Party. He’s not charismatic – see blog of August 18, 2024. He’s rich, but he hasn’t been that successful in business. He’s actually gone bankrupt 5 or 6 times. I forget which. He hasn’t been a successful executive. His money is in real estate, and it seems like many of his business ventures are crooked. His “Trump  University” was a scam and he had to pay a fine for cheating his students. He used money from his “charity” for personal expenses and had to pay a fine for that. He has avoided paying income tax by underestimating the value of his properties and has gotten loans and insurance by overestimating those same properties. The only thing he has succeeded at has been his TV show, “The Apprentice.”

 

It seems Trump can get away with anything, winning a presidential election after bragging about fondling women. As president, he funneled money to himself by holding official events at his resorts, requiring that government personnel stay at his hotels, and even accepting money from foreign governments for favors, contracts and grants.

 

Now, after all Trump’s scandals, he is in control of the Republican party. His daughter in law is now chair of the party, and Republican candidates can’t get on the ballot without an endorsement from him.  He caused a bipartisan immigration bill to be killed in the House of Representatives just so it would remain an issue he could  run for reelection on. He is currently running neck and neck with  Kamila Harris in the race for president, polling just under 50% among registered voters. How can this be?

 

Trump’s followers seem to have blind faith in whatever he tells them. They believed he won the presidential election of 2019 without any evidence, and then mobbed the capital on January 6, 2020 in an effort to keep him in power. He has claimed that the current administration is targeting him with law suits and his followers have made death threats against politicians, attorneys, government officials who have opposed him. At the same time he has threatened to prosecute officials in power now if he regains power, and to try for treason military officers who stood up to him.

 

Trump seems to be trying to create a mass movement such as Eric Hoffer describes in his book, The True Believer. According to Hoffer, mass movements, whether religious, revolutionary, or nationalistic have many things in common. They attract followers by a frustration with the present, and unite them by a desire for change. They need a leader who kindles enthusiasm for a cause, whether it be untold riches, radical societal reform, a common fear, or the coming of a Heavenly Kingdom, and they need a source of power. Mass movements all attract the same type of individuals: the poor, the misfits, the outcasts, the sinners, those who view their lives as ruined, those who want to replace their meaningless lives with a holy cause. Mass movements, regardless of their purpose, all breed fanaticism, violence and chaos, and their early followers, even though they may be in the minority, shape the character of the movement.

 

In my opinion, Trump’s MAGA Republicans check all these boxes. They share a fear and hatred for immigrants and foreigners, and they  favor change: change in government institutions, the “deep state” as they like to call it, change in international relations, the traditional alliances, free trade, even our constitution and election system. Many of Trump’s followers, such as politicians, have gone along with him in order to stay in power, and many supporters, such as wealthy businessmen and foreign leaders support him because of promised favors or financial gain, but his base, those who cheer at his rallies and those who stormed the Capital on January 6, come from the lower classes of society, those with no respect for the current system such as the “Proud boys,” the “skinheads,” Neo-nazis and other fanatical groups supporting white supremacy, Misogyny, antisemitism, gun rights, etc. These groups have the potential to produce violence and  chaos.

 

Whether the MAGA movement gains the power to develop into a  full blown mass movement depends on whether the moderate majority summons the courage to fight to preserve our system.

Eric Hoffer

 

Eric Hoffer

I ‘ve always enjoyed living vicariously. It started when I was a child. I was surrounded by fascinating, almost magical people. Maybe all children see adults this way, but I felt a sense of excitement around my aunts and uncles. They were funny; they told exciting stories, and they -especially my aunts- had a way of making a little boy feel special. When they all got together I was spellbound listening to them reminisce and talk about who they had known and what they had done. One of my uncles was a lawyer and judge, another was a construction worker who had worked all over the world. And that was just my mother’s family. My dad didn’t talk much, but he actually told the best stories, about growing up on the farm, about his experiences as a tough kid, and as a high school and college athlete. After I retired I got to spend hours listening to my mother’s recollections about her life and her family, some of which I included in the book, Wenonah’s Story. 

I’ve always sought out and valued friends that I admired: my wise cousin I’ve mentioned before, my best friend from childhood, my partner in medical practice. 

I’ve always enjoyed reading, and am usually in the middle of one book or several. I enjoy fantasizing about fictional characters who are able to do amazing things, but also historical figures. I know now that real events and real people are more amazing than anything a fiction writer can imagine. 

Reading a book by an amazing person makes you feel on a level with them, as if reading about their adventures and understanding their thoughts somehow allows you to share their experiences and possess in a small way their ideas. 

I’ve recently been rereading a little book by one of my heroes, Eric Hoffer.  His ideas are pretty universal, but they seem especially relevant in today’s political climate. 

Hoffer spent much of his life as a tramp, riding on boxcars from one place to another doing odd jobs to make money to live. After being turned down for military service during WWII, he went to work as a longshoreman on the docks of San Francisco where he spent the next 20 years. Hoffer was self taught and was an avid reader and learner all his life. Every place he went, he got library cards and spent most of his time in libraries reading whatever interested him. He told the story that once he was working at a nursery repotting plants. He began to wonder why the roots grew down and the stems grew up, so he quit his job, hopped on a boxcar and headed for the nearest town with a library where he checked out a book on botany. 

At one point Hoffer decided to mine for gold. He took with him a book by the French philosopher, Michel de Montaigne, which he read and reread. Later, when he returned to his itinerant lifestyle, he would frequently quote Montaigne in discussions with other vagrants, so much that they would often ask him, “what does Montaigne have to say about that?” He said, “I always believed that there must be several hundred hobos up and down San Joaquin Valley still quoting Montaigne.” 

It was when he settled down near the docks in San Francisco that he began to write seriously. He would work on the docks for a few weeks and then write until he ran out of money. When he received a telegram from Harper’s accepting his first book, The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, he threw the little yellow paper away thinking it was an ad. He said, “I never had a telegram in my life.” 

The True Believer was published in 1951 and became a best seller in 1956 when President Eisenhower mentioned Hoffer as his favorite author. Hoffer wrote ten books as well as numerous articles and memoirs. He was consulted by several presidents on national affairs; he received several honorary doctorates, was made an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley, and in 1983 was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan. 

Eric Hoffer was obviously a genius, but I think he stands out even among geniuses. How many great men are totally self taught, refuse wealth, and become recognized as one of the great thinkers of their time? 

Like I said before, Eric Hoffer is one of my heroes, and I thought I should give a little background about him in case I want to refer to some of his ideas in future posts.

 

https://www.hoover.org/research/eric-hoffer-genius-and-enigma

What’s Trump’s secret? Is it Charisma?

 

Jesus Christ

The first I can remember witnessing the power of charisma was as a teenager. I was attending a summer camp for young musicians sponsored by the Musician’s Union. One evening I was sitting in the dining hall after our evening meal just listening to people talk. I noticed a handful of people, probably a half dozen, clustered around a man – he was older than most of us at the camp. I can’t remember what he was talking about, but what impressed me was the rapt attention he was getting from his audience. Something about his delivery, his manner, his status, something was having an almost hypnotic effect on them. 

Since then I’ve observed this power, call it charisma for lack of a better word, several times.  It’s usually been in teachers. One in particular comes to mind. It was our neuroanatomy teacher in medical school. A more boring subject you couldn’t imagine, but Dr. Daron – that was his name – was so logical, and his presentations flowed so easily from one subject to another, that he was fascinating. He made a difficult, complicated subject seem simple. He got the award for the best teacher several times if I remember right. 

An interesting thing about Dr. Daron’s lectures was that he made neuroanatomy seem so simple that I was tempted not to take notes. As a result, when I began to study the material he had covered, I found that I didn’t remember what he had said in his lecture. I was so fascinated by his presentation, his charisma, that I sometimes forgot what he actually said. 

I’ve always admired good speakers. I have trouble holding an audience’s attention myself, but I come from a family of lawyers and politicians, so even though I didn’t inherit the speaking gene, I have witnessed good speaking all my life. My mother was my first example. 

She used to give me a lecture every time I did something wrong, and her lecture would usually culminate in a ‘whuppin.’ I think that’s how she built up her resolve before she administered my punishment. 

These lectures put me in a state of panic since I knew what was coming, but even so, I used to admire how persuasive she was. She almost convinced me I needed a whipping. She had the family gene for speaking. I used to think to myself that if she had been a man she’d probably have been elected governor. 

I’ve discussed my admiration for good speakers with my wise cousin Steve, and he disagrees. He thinks that a clever, convincing speaker clouds an issue. It’s important to make judgements based on fact, and one should remain open minded, check facts, and always listen to opinions on both sides of an issue. It’s analogous to his views about businessmen. He says “don’t trust a ‘good businessman,” and likewise, “don’t trust a good speaker.” His mother had the speaking gene too, by the way. Maybe he just didn’t get as many whippins as I did. 

There are different uses of charisma. They vary from just giving a fascinating lecture, like my neuroanatomy professor or my mother,  to convincing people to change their lives, like the leader of a cult. Recently I have noticed that the Republican party has taken on some of the attributes of a cult. They follow their leader without question, even if he changes his policies, or even lies to them. They’re even willing to break the law – many have gone to jail – to support their leader. 

That led me to conclude that Donald Trump must be charismatic. It seems that all great political leaders have been charismatic:  Lincoln, FDR, John F Kennedy. But then I listened carefully to some of his speeches, and he’s not charismatic at all. His speeches have no continuity. They don’t focus his listener’s attention on certain phrases or ideas. They don’t build up to a climax. His speeches are rambling. He contradicts himself. He emphasizes trivial, petty issues like Obama’s birth or Harris’ race. He’s really not a good speaker.   

I compared Trump’s speeches with Harris’ and discovered that it’s her speeches that are charismatic. She commands your attention with a simple statement that most can identify with, like “we’re fighting for the middle class.” Then she systematically tics off the ways she will accomplish her goals, and contrasts that with Trump’s record. And she repeats catch phrases like “Trump only cares about himself,” or “we’re not going back.” Her speeches slow smoothly from one topic to the next, and she builds up to one climax after another, holding your attention. 

So if Trump is not charismatic, how is it that he has gotten control of the Republican party, and the support of half the country? 

To be continued.

Cotton Eyed Joe

Why Not an AI Fact Checker?

                                                       

                                        

                                                Beelzebub

As I was  listening to the recent presidential debate I thought of another use for AI. It could be used to expose lies. There could be a red light installed above each candidate which would come on if he/she told a lie. It could even be more specific, differentiating between inaccuracies, evasion, exaggeration, claims inconsistent with previous actions, statements or policies. If the candidate challenged the machine, it could provide documentation, or even recordings of previous remarks.  I can imagine a candidate being laughed off the stage. From what I understand about AI, this would be an easy task. 

I guess politicians have always lied, or at least exaggerated, either to discredit the opposing candidate or to boost their own reputation. My grandmother used to tell a story about my uncle’s first campaign for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. His opponent accused him of cattle rustling! Grandmother’s response was, “If he’s stealing cattle, I don’t know where he’s putting them.” He won anyway. 

I can remember my mother, who today would be considered a political junkie, complaining about the liars and crooks in politics. Back then Oklahoma was a one party state, which made it easier to get away with lying if the politician was in good standing with the party. She used to argue with another of her brothers, a judge, who believed it was important to support your party, so that party policies could be enacted. He was a expert debater, but I thought she held her own pretty well. 

It seems to me that things are different now. It used to be that a politician caught in a lie would be embarrassed. He/she would have to explain themselves, come up with an excuse, claim he forgot or was misunderstood. It seems that there are more lies now. Politicians don’t hesitate to change their positions, or flat out contradict previous statements, and there’s no backlash.   

How in the world could a person like George Santos ever get elected to anything? He lied about his education, his birth, his accomplishments. He claimed his grandparents were Holocaust survivors, that he was a volleyball champion, that he was a wealthy businessman and philanthropist, all lies, but still was elected to Congress. His lies were bad enough that he was expelled, but it’s a sign of the times.  Lying is more acceptable now. Even the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, now supports Donald Trump,  even though after the January 6^th insurrection he stated that Trump was responsible. 

Lying is not only accepted, it has become a strategy. Steve Bannon, an outspoken right wing spokesman said, that if you “flood the zone with shit” the public can’t deal with so many lies, so can’t make decisions. That strikes at the root of democracy. How can the electorate make decisions if they don’t know who they can trust? 

Another observation, just as alarming, was made by historian Anne Applebaum, quoted by Brian Stelter in a recent Time magazine article: "sometimes the point isn't to make people believe a lie—it's to make people fear the liar." It’s to assert power over reality. If you lived under the power of a ruthless leader, truth would become irrelevant. Ask a North Korean or Russian. 

That’s why I propose using AI for fact checking. You could load it with background information about politicians’ records and previous statements, about historical and current events. It could be fast enough to provide an immediate response during a speech. It could rate politicians on honesty and performance. Let’s do it! The future of our democracy might depend on it.

Targeted AI

 

I’ve been having good thoughts about AI, especially after writing my last post, which was about how easy life is going to be with AI to do all the work. After spending three days on the phone on the Bank of America website, and even going to the local BOA branch, and still having to call again this afternoon, wasting another good day just to pay my credit card bill, I thought to myself, won’t this be easier with AI? The automated agent won’t have to put me on hold to ask a supervisor because it will have all the possible questions along with all the possible answers loaded into its memory. You won’t have too wait on hold for an agent, or make sure you call during business hours because AI responds instantaneously and doesn’t sleep.

I’m not too excited about having a computer that will chat with me, write a term paper, or give me all the latest basketball scores, but creating an AI help desk sounds wonderful. I won’t have to try half a dozen phone numbers trying to connect with an agent who is an actual person, because AI is smarter than any person. 

Then I started thinking. What will corporations do with an AI enhanced help desk? First of all, since they are saving you so much time by their enhanced efficiency, they will be able to spend it selling you more stuff, or more expensive stuff.  Then, what if there’s a problem? What if the program misunderstands your question. What if someone hacks into the system and corrupts the algorithm? Who do you go to with complaints? The company has fired all the help agents. Then you have to worry about finding new jobs for the former help agents, or an alternate support system. 

Seriously, I think AI could work amazingly well in all sorts of situations that lend themselves to algorithmic solutions. There could be AI diagnostic and treatment  solutions for physicians, structural algorithms for engineers, Legal research programs for attorneys, and so on. You’d have to screen the training information for accuracy and make sure the information is current.  I envision targeted AI programs for different purposes; programs that are continually reviewed and updated by experts; programs that identify problems and notify the user so he/she doesn’t proceed using inaccurate information. 

As far as the problem of losing jobs, I think that needs to be addressed proactively. We shouldn’t wait until there are millions out of work. We need to gradually evolve a system that provides alternative occupations and support. We’re still benefitting from the make work programs created during the depression. 

Then I can spend my afternoons strewing beads of wisdom on my blog instead of struggling with the Bank of America help desk.

Everything is Chemistry

 

 

It’s an interesting fact that we often don’t appreciate something until we begin to lose it. I notice this phenomenon more as I get older. Last month, one of my eyes decided not to look to the right, so I saw two of everything on my right side. It caused me to remember that with only one eye you have no depth perception. If you reach for a door nob or try to catch something you reach too far or not far enough.  I found myself ignoring my right side, which caused me to run into things, and in the car I constantly had to remind myself to turn my head to the right to avoid driving into something. Fortunately it cleared up after a month or so, but it was scary. The doctor was reassuring. She said, “It was just a small stroke.”  

There are many other examples. I no longer can put off going to the bathroom. A sudden urge is an emergency, and standing up to go makes it even more urgent. I can no longer understand people when they talk to me, and, you may not have noticed, but the closed captioning on TV is often just jibberish. My wife gets tired of repeating herself, and she can’t understand why I can’t just “turn up your hearing aides.” I’m not as strong. I can’t balance without a cane. My joints hurt, and my neck and back. I can’t remember names or words to express myself. I can’t sleep well without a breathing machine which attaches to my face with a tight uncomfortable mask. I don’t get thirsty anymore, so I have to remember to drink. I choke when I swallow so my meals are punctuated by fits of coughing. My eye’s get dry and burn, so I have to carry a bottle of eye drops in my pocket. 

The latest experience that made me appreciate my body, at least the way it used to be, is constipation. I’ve never had constipation, or headaches, for that matter. Oh gosh. I hope that doesn’t jinx me. Anyway, I now have to balance Metamucil and Miralax, eat lots of fiber, and drink plenty of water, even if it means getting up four times during the night to empty my bladder instead of three. I have to pay attention to the consistency of my stool. Is it too hard to push out, too sticky to clean off? Fortunately I don’t worry about how it smells. I lost my sense of smell years ago. This is almost too disgusting to talk about, but I am coming to a point, slowly as it may seem. 

What this brought to mind was how remarkable it is that we’re able to digest all the stuff we eat: from tough meat and fish, to all sorts of vegetables and grain. We do though, and it’s all converted into a solid brown cylindrical mass, uniform, digested, with all the nutrients removed. If you think about it, it’s truly amazing. If I gave you an average meal and asked you to digest it, not just that but remove the nutrients for use, I’ll bet you couldn’t do it, even if you had a complete chemical lab to use, yet our body does it every day, while we’re going about our usual routine, unaware of the miracle we’re witnessing. 

How does our body accomplish this remarkable feat? We now understand, through centuries of scientific research, that the digestive system has acid, strong enough to burn your skin, enzymes, often specific for a certain chemicals. It is full of bacteria which would kill you if they were released into the blood stream, but somehow the intestine shields us somehow from these dangerous substances. Even people with damage to their digestive systems: bleeding ulcers, raw and scarred intestines, almost always manage to digest their food and extract the nutrients they need. 

And all this made me think – why are you not surprised? – of my wise cousin, Steve. He used to say: “everything is chemistry.” From astronomy to geology – Steve is a geochemist – to agriculture, to engineering, to physics, to human physiology -as in digestion- even to psychology. Everything is made of chemicals or produced by the interaction of chemicals. Just think about it. It’s true. But what difference does it make? It seems like an oversimplification. 

If you take what he said seriously though, and think about how every substance, every process, can be broken down into elemental particles or reactions, that is, chemistry- I’m almost there- it makes you humble. 

When I studied medicine, I was amazed at the complexity of the human body: the nerves and blood vessels, the bony structure and how it works to enable us to move in and manipulate our environment. I learned about the complex interaction of hormones, genes, enzymes, about the digestive system, as I mentioned above. And now, almost sixty years later, science has made huge advances. It boggles the mind. The more I think about it the more overwhelming it is. You really have to specialize in order to understand just a small area of medicine, and every area of science is the same: Physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science. 

And how do scientists identify and understand the chemicals that make up each little area of science. By the scientific method. First, a scientist, usually an expert in a small area of science that he or she has studied for years, has an idea. Then he, along with a group of his colleagues, fashions an experiment to test his idea or ‘hypothesis.’

The experiment requires time, money, special equipment, often government approval. If it involves humans, it may have to be performed first on animals, and then approved by an ethics committee before it’s actually performed on humans.  If the experiment gets over all these hurdles the results are submitted to the review board of a scientific journal and if approved, it is published. Then the report is often accompanied by a critical editorial written by a recognized authority in the field, analyzing its strengths, weaknesses, significance, and recommendations for further research. At this point the scientist is just getting started. Other scientists, experts in the same area, often from different countries, publish their own critiques of the study. Others try to repeat the same study to see if they achieve the same results. The process goes on for years and most often the whole idea is discarded. A scientist will consider him or herself fortunate if he makes one significant discovery during his lifetime. 

And that brings me to my point – I’m almost there. Science is so complex; scientific knowledge is so advanced, that the average person, even the exceptional person, can only understand a part of it, and that only if he or she spends years of study. That is why it irritates me when I hear someone discounting the value of immunization, say, or questioning the judgement of a doctor and scientist like Anthony Fauci, one of the most knowledgeable epidemiologists in the world. 

Like my cousin Steve says, everything is chemistry. Everything can be broken down into finer and finer elements and processes, using the scientific method. No one is smart enough to second guess this process. No one is smart enough to disregard the accumulated knowledge of the past. The universe is so complex that even the incredible knowledge we have accumulated over history is still tentative, still being reexamined, questioned by scientists around the world.

 

 

 

 

More about AI

 

 

I wrote about AI (Artificial Intelligence) in a previous article – Jan. 24, 2024, but I failed to mention one of the biggest fears about AI – that it will take our jobs. Assembly line, construction, transportation, and all sorts of service jobs are the most obvious, but jobs requiring organization and decision making could be eliminated too, or at least facilitated by AI enhanced computers. 

The advocates of AI downplay this fear by saying, ‘Don’t worry. AI may eliminate some jobs, but it will create others.' They said the same thing about the assembly line. And that’s true. A hundred years ago, most people had their own farm, made their own clothes, and from what I can gather from listening to my grandmother, who was born in 1877, they had more free time than we do now. We no longer have to grow our own food, but there are still plenty of jobs to go around. 

I’m not sure AI will create enough jobs to replace those it eliminates, but what if it does? What’s wrong with that? I wouldn’t mind working two days a week instead of six, or even having the option of not working at all. If all or most of our needs can be met by AI and automation, why insist on having a job for everyone? 

Back in the 60’s I read a book, Nine Chains to the Moon, by futurist and inventor, Buckminster Fuller. In his book, written in 1938, he viewed advances in technology positively. He contended that there were already enough resources to comfortably support the world’s population. He observed that there was already enough space in buildings to house the homeless, and enough food to feed the hungry. His goal was to apply science to solving the world’s problems, to “do more with less.” He supported improvements in housing and transportation. He advocated for recycling and the use of renewable energy sources. He said competition was no longer necessary, that our survival depended on cooperation, and government benefits needed to include everyone. It seems to me that Fuller’s ideas are just as relevant now as they were in 1938, and AI is just another tool that can be used to improve living standards and solve the world’s problems.  

So why are we worried about losing jobs instead of being grateful that in the future we won’t have to work as much? One of the problems is our culture. Our culture is built around work. Our status, our wealth, our options in life depend on our success in our jobs. Doctors and lawyers and business executives are wealthier and more respected. Even if we don’t have more prestigious jobs, we still earn more respect if we work hard. Work, success and wealth have become  ends in themselves. 

But what is the result of this culture? Most men spend most of their time away from their families, and most women are so burdened with child care and housework they have little time to pursue their interests. Children are influenced mainly by strangers and don’t develop strong family ties. According to my wise cousin, it’s hard to be a good business man and also a good person. I think Jesus said something like that too, something about a camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. 

But what about terrorists and dictators, you say? What about global warming and the population explosion? I think Buckminster Fuller had the answer eighty-six  years ago. We need cooperation between individuals, political parties, nations. We need to use science to solve problems, and we need to share any solutions with everyone, not just limit the benefits to the wealthy, or to those who happen to be born in a prosperous country. If we don’t make those changes, AI won’t make this a better world any more than the assembly line did. People will lose their jobs; the homeless population will continue to grow; poor countries will continue to produce terrorists, and dictators will use technology to make themselves more powerful.

 

 

The Man I Love

Gigi

What Are Little Girls Made Of?

                                            

 

                                        What are little boys made of?

                                        Frogs and snails,

                                        And puppy dog tails;

                                        That’s what little boys are made of.

 

                                        What are little girls made of?

                                        Sugar and spice,

                                        And all things nice;

                                        That’s what little girls are made of.

                                        Mother Goose

 

In spite of Mother Goose’s ancient wisdom about the difference between girls and boys, the role of women in most societies has been and continues to be suppressed. For a long time, I have felt that we would be better off if we defied custom and put women in charge instead of men. 

This is another opinion that I share with my cousin and friend, Steve, and I’m afraid recent geopolitical tensions are about to again prove us right. Just look at all the wars going on now, all started and perpetuated by men. Look at the societies with oppressive governments in Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, all run by men, and all of which suppress women’s rights. 

I think most of us in the US think of ourselves as open minded, with modern, progressive views, but the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Protection Amendment, passed after the Civil War in 1868, didn’t apply to women, or to Native Americans, by the way. Women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, after much demonstrating, imprisonment, and hunger strikes by advocates. The Equal Rights amendment, specifically giving equal rights to women, proposed in 1923, and again in 1971, was never ratified. 

Throughout the years, prevailing opinion (especially among men) has been that women’s place was in the home, caring for the children, keeping the house clean, and their husbands happy. It was not until the year 2000 that the woman’s pledge to obey her husband was taken out of the marriage vows in the Anglican prayer book.  

A common belief has been that women are not as smart as men, that they don’t think logically, and that their opinions are often driven by emotions. As recently as 2006, Laurence Summers was fired as president of Harvard University, for a comment that women were not as good in science and math as men. The latest president of Harvard was a woman. During the 19^th century, “scientific” theories were advanced claiming that women are not as smart as men because their brains are smaller. It was later shown that brain size in humans is just proportional to body size, and has nothing to do with intelligence. 

It's a well known fact that girls tend to do better in school than boys, at least through high school. 70% of high school valedictorians are female.  Then several things happen: hormones kick in, people start asking girls when they’re going to get married, and boys what they’re going to do when they grow up. This steers girls into having babies and getting married, not necessarily in that order. And it steers boys into choosing a career, or at least finding a way to make money. 

The social pressures directing girls and boys in different directions are strong, starting at birth, when parents get girls pretty dresses and dolls, and boys cowboy hats and baseball bats. But there’s more to it than that. Girls have to face the real responsibility of having babies and caring for them. This makes them out of necessity more responsible, regardless of their interests or talents. And boys, boys have testosterone, which makes them more aggressive, makes them want sex and adventure, and less responsibility. 

Male and female roles are not just the result of social customs, they have evolved over the millennia. They enable women to bear children and to care for them, so women are naturally more empathetic, and nurturing, which serves to hold the family together.  

Men on the other hand, like males of other species, have evolved to fight to protect the family from predators, and other males. As a result they had to be competitive, possessive, and impulsive.

In my opinion these evolved differences are no longer useful. There are no longer lions and wolves lurking in the forest to carry away your children. Men no longer have to eke out a living by clearing the forest and plowing fields by hand. Women no longer have to make their own clothing, churn butter and cook dinner over an open fire. 

Throughout the ages women have had to fight against social expectations and prejudices, and at the same time shoulder the real burdens of caring for children and family. When my aunt graduated from law school in the 30’s she had to take a job as a secretary because no one would hire her as an attorney. She and my uncle divorced, and she had to give up custody of their son to him, since he had remarried and had a wife to care for his family.  She later worked as a teacher, served time in the Army, and finally worked as a clerk for a judge. My uncle, on the other hand, became a successful trial attorney, and later a district judge.   

Times have changed though, just in my life time. When I was a child, women were expected to stay home with the children. Those who worked were looked on as taking jobs away from men who were responsible for supporting a family. My own mother quit her job when she married my dad for this reason. She learned to play solitaire to fight the boredom. 

Now women have birth control so they can choose when or whether to have children, and they constitute a large part of the work force. When I went to med school there were only three women in my class of 100 students. Now they make up 55%. The numbers in law school are similar. Since 1970 the proportion of women with college degrees has increased from 8 to 39% surpassing males, which have increased from 14 to 36% during the same period. More and more women occupy leadership positions in corporations, and many have even become heads of state. 

Okay, so why should they be in charge? 

First of all, women are risk averse. It’s a well known fact that women are better investors than men, because they are less likely to take chances by investing in a volatile stock. Also they tend to be less impulsive, looking at the big picture, pursuing long term goals. 

Next, women are less aggressive, less confrontational and controlling. 80% of violent crime is committed by men. Men more likely to commit murder, domestic violence, gang or drug related violence and robbery. A 2008 review published in the journal Violence and Victims found that although less serious situation violence or altercation was equal for both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear, while men's was motivated by control. 

Furthermore women are better problem solvers than men. They are more likely to see both sides of an issue, and to use negotiation and compromise to solve problems rather than competition and power. And they are better at multitasking, since they usually do the bulk of child-care, cleaning, cooking, scheduling, and transportation for the family. 

So who would you rather work for, someone who strives to understand your point of view and gives you a chance to try out your ideas, or a boss who tells you it’s his way or the highway? Who would you rather trust your savings to, a broker who wants to put your money into a company he believes to be the next Amazon, or one who prefers to spread your investments out among government bonds and stocks with long record of stability and safe dividends? 

And finally, who would you rather lead your country, someone who fights for dominance over his political rivals, who enters conflicts with other countries to show power, and who persists in wars to save face, or someone who settles differences with other leaders by negotiation and compromise, and whose goal in both domestic and foreign policy is to minimize hardship and suffering, and to reach solutions that are mutually beneficial to all parties.