Twa Corbies

Another great example of how to reply when folks are hyperventilating about how unsuitable the lyrics to rap or heavy metal songs are for teenagers these days. They han't heard na-thin' yit. Like most traditional songs, it comes from there or there, with roots all the way back to there, but it is Scots dialect, a Germanic language unrelated to Gaelic. It is close enough to English that you should be able to work it out.  If something seems opaque, say it aloud and see if that helps. 

 

As I was walkin’ all alane
I heard twa corbies makkin a mane;
Tha tain unto the other ane say-o,
“Where sall we gang and dine the day-o,
Where sall we gang and dine the day?”

“It’s in ahint yon auld fail dyke
I wot there lies a new-slain knight;
And naebody kens that he lies there-o
But his hawk and his hound and his lady fair-o,
Hawk and his hound and his lady fair.”

“His hawk is tae the huntin gane,
His hound tae bring the wildfowl hame;
His lady’s ta’en another mate-o
Sae we mun mak our dinner sweet-o,
Sae we mun mak our dinner sweet.”

“It’s ye’ll sit on his white hause-bane
And I’ll pike oot his bonny blue een;
Wi ae lock o his gowden hair-o
We’ll theek our nest when it grows bare-o,
Theek our nest when it grows bare.”

“There’s mony a ane for him maks mane
But nane sall ken where he is gane;
And o’er his bones when they lay bare-o
The wind sall blaw for evermair-o,
The wind sall blow for evermair.”

Ogden Nash

 Behold the duck, it does not cluck

A cluck it lacks

It quacks

It is specially fond of a puddle or pond 

When it dines or sups

It bottoms ups 

Anadromous

Thinking about gender stereotypes and behavior because of the previous post, I thought of the analogy of anadromous fish, who move from sea water to freshwater in order to breed, and wondered if that could apply to male-female mating behavior. As with the gamma bias, men exaggerate both some masculine qualities and some feminine ones in order to look acceptable to women, and women do the same in return.  This runs deeper than agreeing to go camping while also looking fetching versus men engaging in dangerous displays while also being available for discussions about "where our relationship is going." Anything to do with courtship tends to have layers within layers.

I think I'll put this analogy about fish to the female substackers I read, who would do a better job with it than I would. 

Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta Bias

 I had not heard of these until today, though the concepts of the first ones are familiar to me.

Alpha bias - exaggerating differences between males and females based on stereotypes rather than data

Beta bias - minimising differences between males and females based on stereotyples

Androcentrism is usually discussed with these as a package. This is using males as the test subjects and assuming that the results apply equally to females without checking whether that is, in fact, true.

The concepts seem solid and understandable enough, but I find it amusing that the example taken for alpha bias is Freud's psychoanalytic framework, which is wrong on entirely other grounds, and the example for beta bias is Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development which is also wrong for reasons unrelated to gender.  The male-female misunderstandings of both do highlight the other problems and cause them to jump off the page, though.

Gamma bias  is a newer idea and suggests that both alpha and beta biases can both be operative at once: societies and even individuals can overemphasise gender stereotypes in some domains and downplay them in others.  This seems likely, and a step up from the usual internet oversimpolifications.  I thought of CS Lewis praising Joy Davidman for her masculine qualities and she retorting immediately whether he would be pleased to have her praise him for his feminine ones. He was man enough to report this to his audience.

Delta bias is also from 2020 and is a further refinement of gamma, of celebrating gender atypical behavior. The discussion at the link is interesting, and a more subtle way of looking at things

Delta bias can be illustrated in terms of the three male archetypes as defined by (M. Seager et al., 2014). Each of these archetypes can be shown in contemporary public media and political discourse to be simultaneously celebrated if exhibited by females but denigrated if exhibited by men.

That is, when females display stereotypical male behavior it is lauded, but when males display it, it is condemned. It is thus not the behavior which we approve of or disapprove of, but which sex is displaying it.  Once one has grasped it, the tendency is to say "Well of course," but a second reflection reveals that we don't acknowledge that often.  It is obvious enough to notice, but not dramatic enough to shout from the rooftops.

Punk and Hippy Cosplay

Quick observation on Punks and Hippies. 

An oversimplification, but worth considering.  Relatedly, look at how many Heavy Metal artists turned out to be golden retrievers at heart while the folkies were Dobermans. As I have written in other contexts, why would wolves hide in wolves' clothing?

Bee Gees Madrigal

 

Mail Order Annie

 Story song

 

Thinking Outside The Box

Thinking outside the box is overrated, I have claimed. I would refine that to saying that many people who claim to be outside the box and have others claim that, are just in a less-common box, usually smaller. They are just disruptive jerks, sarcastic and condescending. 

Real thinking outside the box is more valuable.  I should not have dismissed the concept on the basis of the people who claim to have the quality. The entertainment industry includes both.  The posers have some value in that domain, because they take other people's innovations that are really out there and start making them more cliched with their imitative nature. But someplace early in that cultural journey from incomprehensible to trite, there is a sweet spot that is both refreshingly new and understandable. 

Not What We Teach Them

Students don't learn what we teach them.  I have repeated this many times to conservatives who complain what kids these days are being taught in school.  It's not the curriculum, it's the culture. 

I have a friend who mentions every other time we get together that if people were given more and better science education they wouldn't believe so much crap. It sounds inviting, but there is ample contradictory evidence. This APA study shows that students still believe psychology myths immediately after completing introductory psych courses, even when those beliefs were actively corrected by the professors.  To be fair, anti-myth advocacy did seem to help a little, at least in the short term. What students learn in class does not seem to be the primary driver of their opinions. Opinions come from social networks.

I think the arrow of causality goes in the other direction. People who believe that experiments, logic,m and evidence can bring us closer to the truth will enter fields that adhere to that. Not foolproof by any means, but a tendency.

BTW I did not download the whole study so I am not sure what myth is being referenced some entries above.  Most of them I can tell, but some are ambiguous - many psychology professors believe in priming and implicit bias, for example, and those are myths - while others on the list don't give enough information.  It is interesting that females are more likely to believe the myths and keep believing them.  I choose to think this supports my theory of opinions having large social components.

Recent Links

 The Myth of Assimilation at Aporia.  We assert many things in America which are not true.

To begin with, the story rests on a quiet omission: a very large share of European immigrants didn’t assimilate at all. They went home.

Between roughly 1850 and 1920, return migration was a defining feature of transatlantic mobility. The return rate of European immigrants during this period was 25–40%. In some decades it reached 60–75% (Bandiera et al., 2013). Italians are the canonical case: between 1890 and 1920, more than half returned to Italy (Klein, 1983). This return migration was negatively selected — the poorer and less successful immigrants were the most likely to leave (Abramitzky et al., 2019). What we now remember as “successful assimilation” is partly explained by survivorship bias. America did not lift entire populations into the middle class. It retained those who were already capable of doing well and quietly shed the rest. 

Maternal Mortality by Lyman Stone.  No other country measures this the same way we do.  Also...

 Here, you can see that mortality rates are extremely similar across groups, with perhaps two notable exceptions: women under 21, and women over 40. This tells us that most of the effect we saw above of lower mortality for pregnant women was a product of the age difference between pregnant and nonpregnant women— but not all of it!

Free Will is Undefeated A lot has been written.  Rob Henderson adds to it with some things I had not considered before. 

 Stuart Doyle offers a useful analogy that challenges this claim. Suppose we ask whether an apple is red. The determinist looks closer. He realizes the apple is nothing but atoms. Because no individual atom is red, he concludes the apple can’t really be red. The error is obvious. Color exists at the scale of the apple, not at the scale of an atom.

We have evolved to consciously hold multiple choices in our minds and pick one. Why would this happen if choice were not real? 

The Hidden Crimes of Parolees. Advocacy groups will tell you that they are re-incarcerated for "merely technical" violations like missing an appointment.  City Journal shows how this is not so.  The numbers are being jiggered.

How Protests Are Organised

 Data Republican describes the specific organisations and tactics of the interrelated protest groups.

And...quelle surprise, Open Society Foundation provided $5M of the $20M funding foundation across the network. Delaney Hall was suddenly called off - an informative story in itself - when Scott Bessent declared that funding foundations would be held liable if their grant recipients were violent.

Hero

 

Multicity Flights

We are going to Orkney in the fall, which is serviced only by Loganair. We are stopping in Reyjavik for a few days on the way home. There are just too many moving parts on these flights. A lot of the problem comes from airlines wanting the other legs of the flights and punishing you for going away.  Timing of flights is also ugly.

I am tempted to book each leg separately.  I expect to pay somewhat more, but is it insanely more? 

Bass Harbor Lighthouse

When we went to Acadia, we went down to Bass Harbor to see the frequently-photographed, frequently-painted lighthouse. I am quite sure I have seen one in impressionist style painted by a friend, or posted by a friend. Perhaps it was on Facebook.  I have feeling I have not seen it in the last year or two. The painting was less bright, likely at sunrise or sunset.

It is this angle and less than this much of the surrounding area as in this photo. This group goes to many of the internet places I go and includes some of my friends.  Does this look like any painting you are familiar with?  It's driving me nuts.

 

Things We Make

 One of my book groups is doing The Things We Make: The unknown history of invention. We are unexcited, but it has some value.  It has too many extraneous anecdotes, but they are at least entertaining, and I believe accurate. I think I can save you the trouble of learning its lessons though.  His main points are that processes and process improvements are as valuable as objects, and that the era of the solo inventor is over: Everything is interactive and cooperative now.

The latter is only half true.  David Foster remembered reading a similar claim sixty years ago - just before Apple and Microsoft took over the world. So don't sell the bicycle shop just yet, Orville.  With so much available online and via AI, we may instead be on the precipice of an era of solo inventors again.

Or not. As Yogi Berra supposedly said "Prediction is hard, especially about the future." 

The Baal Shem Tov and Purpose in Life

 Reposted from 2015

The story is told that the Baal Shem was granted the privilege of meeting in this life the person he would live next to in heaven.  He was directed to go into a tavern in a small village not all that far from his home, and saw an enormous glutton there, with copious food and drink before him. The Master of the Good Name watched from the next table, marveling at the amount of food the man swallowed, wondering what this meant. Perhaps it is a lesson from G-d that I should not disdain the pleasures of this world.  This man is clearly extreme in his earthly joy, but if he goes to heaven, G-d must approve. He sat beside him.

"You must be a wealthy man," he observed, "to afford to eat so well."

"I cannot afford what you see here," the glutton contradicted. "I will die in debt to the butcher, the tavern-keeper, and the greengrocer, and my family will be embarrassed by me."

"Your wife does not approve, then?" asked the Baal Shem.

"I have no wife," the fat man growled, barely pausing in his dinner. "I have not the time."

"Then you must greatly enjoy the pleasures of the table." the Besht concluded.

"I hate food," the man replied "and I hate drink as well. Every moment of my life is a weariness to me, always eating rich food and drinking good wine."

Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer sat silently for many minutes, observing, thinking. Finally, he gave it up and asked the man "Then I do not understand.  You hate food, yet you eat more than any three men I have known.  You hate drink, yet your glass is immediately empty and you call for more. What is the meaning of all this?"

The man shifted in his chair for a moment, as if to draw breath for another assault on the plates before him.  "There was a pogrom, and my father was brought before the great men of the district and set on fire as a torch to light their banquet. I was there and watched from the shadows."

The Baal Shem bowed his head slightly in sadness and softly said "And so a banquet of your own somehow erases this?"

"Not at all," said the impossibly fat man angrily. "He was a poor, skinny man, a sick chicken, who gave off almost no light, even in death. It was prophesied in a dream that I too would die in the same manner. When they burn me I will give off a light that will go on for days, glorious to behold."

Perceptions and Career Choice

From Slate Star Codex over a decade ago, concerning ability versus perception in career choices.

Okay. Imagine a study with the following methodology. You survey a bunch of people to get their perceptions of who is a smoker (“97% of his close friends agree Bob smokes”). Then you correlate those numbers with who gets lung cancer. Your statistics program lights up like a Christmas tree with a bunch of super-strong correlations. You conclude “Perception of being a smoker causes lung cancer”, and make up a theory about how negative stereotypes of smokers cause stress which depresses the immune system. The media reports that as “Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer, Stereotypes Do”. 

Relatedly, a recent discussion of Tradwives and career choices. N3 is on a roll lately.  I hope it continues.

Hidden in the Replication Crisis

 Nonreplicable Findings are cited more than replicable ones. My cynical self whispered that these are things that people want to be true, evidence be damned, because it would be so cool if it were.  I was therefore pleased to read in the next paragraph that Stewart-Williams calls it Steve's Law, that Boring findings and non-PC findings are more replicable than interesting or PC ones.* The paper's own abstract says something similar

Abstract:  We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.

*Also at the link are odd studies showing that birds are more afraid of women than men - currently unexplained. 

Links from 2015

 Capgras Delusion. Definition here. Very nice guy, BTW. I found he was from near my neighborhood and we had childhood friends in common. Complete remission of symptoms on a little medication, and kept asking us how he could have ever developed such a crazy idea as that his identical twin brother had been replaced by an imposter.

Myths About Scandinavia 

 Unexpected Reunion

Learning While Speaking  I teach myself things all the time

Prayer Breakfast  President Obama reminded those gathered that Christians have violence in their history.  Governor Jindal answers that we need no longer worry about the dangers of Medieval Christians but have serious danger from Muslims now.

I Got You Babe

Kyle's newish girlfriend was over yesterday for dinner with we other nine local family members, and we facetimed with both Norway and Alaska. I noticed immediately that she was dressed like Cher - 1960s era, and mentioned it. She also has the long dark hair, though not the long bangs, and not the trademark shaking hair away. It's a fun look.

 

It is immediately clear that she was the better singer and performer even then, but she was always quick to praise him and defend him, even after their divorce.  He was the better manager and businessman; he had made them famous. Looking into it, that is likely true. He had them quickly throw together an album after this song hit #1, producing it, writing some of the songs, choosing and securing permission for the others. He pushed for them to get the TV show.

Political Breakups

Via Steve Stewart-Williams, Political Breakups: Interpersonal consequences of polarisation. By Mertcan Gungor and Peter H Ditto.  In current America, political polarisation is great enough that people will break off relationships. This is most commonly a split with friends, followed by family, coworkers, and romantic relationships. Democrats are more likely to have been involved in a split than Republicans - 50% more over four studies with Independents in between. They are more likely the initiators. One study showed a lifetime total of 45% of Democrats parting from others, usually a friend.

I can imagine a couple of people I know immediately saying that this is because Democrats care more about moral issues and/or that Republicans get more obnoxious about their politics so people will obviously want to get away from them. I regard both as untrue and excuses, but you know, they do logically hold together.  Either of those could be a reason, at least for some individuals. Nothing logically excludes that, and it is tough to measure motives from the outside, especially as we are not always aware of our own motives.

The Guilt That Isn't

David Foster and I have both posted on "The Dangers of National Repentance" before. Written by CS Lewis in early 1940, it created a surprising amount of fallout for a nation in a war that was almost universally thought necessary.  Brenton Dickieson covers a good deal of the background and discussion over at A Pilgrim in Narnia, including the full text as it appeared in the newspaper. 

David has updated his thoughts over at his new Substack in The Guilt That Isn't, including a reference to Gad Saad's discussion of Suicidal Empathy. 

 Many “progressives”–and not just the religious ones–have uncritically and without reflection adopted the ideas and values of “their own age and class”–and, while doing so, they have congratulated themselves on their courage and independence of thought. Thus, they can enjoy a great feeling of righteousness without running the risk of condemnation by those whose opinions really matter to them.  

But really, you can skip all our words and go straight to Lewis's. 

Changes in Religious and Scientific Belief

I have conquered my addiction to reading and posting on Quora, but commenter Earl Wajenberg (Wind off the Hilltop) still has his.  Occasionally the fit takes him, as it does the Tooks from time to time, and he answers a question that deserves a solid answer, mostly because it should never have been asked. I thought the analogies had good teaching properties.

How do scientific theories evolve over time, and why do scientists accept those changes more easily than religious belief changes?

Science is a method of investigation, so its findings will keep changing as investigation continues.

Religion is not a method of investigation. It is a way of reacting to the awesome and the ultimately important. Therefore, it is all about the thing it is reacting to. Change the understanding of the religious object and you change the religion.

Change the understanding of the object of scientific investigation and it’s just time for another round of peer review (usually, unless you have a real paradigm-breaker).

If you’re researching a historical figure and you start by assuming she was born in England and named Mary Johniston, née Smithers, then learn that she was actually born in Austria as Elizabet Maria von Uberwalden, married at age 16 to Karl von Schadenfreude, ran away to England at age 18, took the name Mary Smithers, managed to drop her accent entirely, but never quite got around to finishing the divorce proceedings before (oops) marrying Johniston and having three kids—well, all that is very interesting, but not nearly as upsetting as if you are Johniston and discover all this about your not-quite-lawfully-wedded wife when she has a little too much wine on your tenth wedding anniversary.

The historian is like the scientist. The husband is like the worshiper.

I’m not saying that all religion is or should be a matter of having “a personal relationship with Jesus” or whoever the deity is, but a religion is about your soul or destiny or purpose, or the souls or survival of your people, so it takes a lot less kindly to tinkering than almost any change to a piece of science. Changes to science will change how you understand something, and maybe change how you understand almost everything you’re interested in, but it has to reach a rare fever pitch in a few deeply dedicated individuals before scientific changes keep them awake all night biting the pillow.

Concrete example: There is a movement in modern conservative Christianity saying, “For centuries, people have been concentrating on the issue of ‘How do I get to Heaven’ when really the issue should be ‘How do I advance the Kingdom of God.’” There is also a long-standing effort in theoretical physics to extend the standard model of particle physics so as to explain a number of loose ends and puzzles. People are going to have a lot more emotion and argument about Heaven and the Kingdom of God than about super-symmetry and loop quantum gravity, though no doubt the latter will be intensely important to some specialists and of considerable interest to a number of their colleagues. 

Recent Links

 The second malaria vaccine. Podcast with trnscript of what vaccine development looks like from the inside. "The reality of this problem is the hardness of it is set by nature, and nature is a vicious test setter." That is more than a cute throwaway line.  Vaccine objectors will talk about preferring natural solutions, but one problem is that these are natural diseases, and nature is not kind. Only people in prosperous places protected from nature think nature is kind. People who live with it know that it is powerful, sometimes beautiful, but dangerous. From Works in Progress

Also from Works in Progress: Review:Recession by Tyler Goodspeed 

 At first glance, Goodspeed’s target is the popular understanding of a boom-and-bust cycle. Consider his vivid account of the crisis of 1873. Both popular and scholarly histories have attributed this recession to railway mania and the collapse of the Northern Pacific Railroad. Goodspeed instead points out the devastating role of a surprise that had nothing to do with economics or economic policy: the great grasshopper plagues of 1873-1876, during which a single locust swarm covered an area larger than California and devastated the very regions the railroad was supposed to open to European settlers...This is why recessions remain essentially unpredictable. Any perceived regularity is likely to be a statistical illusion.

 Why Did the Murders Stop In Baltimore? The information has been out there a long time, including Grim's discussion here, that homicide is is a problem in very few neighborhoods and even a very few people. 

Baltimore follows this pattern. In Baltimore’s Western District, 72 percent of murders between 2015 and 2021 were attributable to a small number of men, mostly organized into gangs. The same analysis estimated that the area’s gang members accounted for just 2 percent of the district’s population but as much as 75 percent of its shootings and homicides. 

The Cost of Longevity  Cremieux Recueil.  I don't know if this level of advancement is true, but pretend it is.  More than anything, I wonder it will mean for church life and family life.

 If we have a revolution in everything related to what I’ve listed so far, we conquer the travails of living. We become effectively immune to our environments: an end to infections, an end to degradation from plaque accumulation and the stress of glycemic spikes, a practical end to withering. It also means an end to wellness culture—no regimented dieting required, no extra benefits from structured exercise programs and retreats. You’ll be able to drink and party and you’ll be no worse off for having done it.