Reflections on The Austin Bombings

Several people in town have been killed by exploding packages. The victims seem random with a likely tinge of racism.

I think this put the whole city on edge a bit. A few delivery drivers at work had guns pulled on them. Grumblings about racial tension. Town hall meetings. I had a dream the other night of being in the blast radius of an exploding building. Friends and family seemed concerned and uneasy.

Is this what terrorism feels like?

The perpetrator killed himself last night with a bomb while fleeing from police in a car. A miserable, cowardly death. We get facts and details but no closure. Why do these things happen at all?

More disturbingly, given that these awful things do happen why don’t they happen more often?

If I’m to pay any attention to my dream the other night my subconscious mulls this over in the background. Pondering these things put me in a glum mood but having a place to write a few poorly articulated thoughts on the subject has been a cathartic exercise in its own small way.

 



Update 3/31

Austin_Bomber_update

As we look around for answers.

Whenever there’s a news story about someone killing lots of strangers, I cannot stop thinking about the book I read a couple years ago about the Columbine massacare called ‘Columbine’ by Dave Cullen. I will quote the passages that still stick with me below:

“None of the earlier school shootings had been televised; few American tragedies had. Or at least it appeared that way: the cameras offered the illusion we were witnessing the event. But the cameras had arrived too late. Eric and Dylan had retreated inside after five minutes. The cameras missed the outside murders and could not follow Eric and Dylan outside. The fundamental experience fore most of America was almost witnessing mass murder. It was the panic and frustration of not knowing, the mounting terror of horror withheld, just out of view.”

 

“Mass murderers tended to work alone, but when they did pair up, they rarely chose their mirror image. [FBI hostage negotiator] Fuselier knew he was much more likely to find a pair of opposites holed up in that building. It was entirely possible that there was no single whyand much more likely that he would unravel one motive for Eric, another for Dylan.”

 

National polls taken shortly after the attack would identify all sorts of culprits contributing to the tragedy: violent movies, video games, Goth culture, lax gun laws, bullies, and Satan. Eric did not make the list. Dylan didn’t either. They were just kids. Something or someone must have led them astray.

 

“For investigators, the big bombs changed everything: the scale, the method, and the motive of attack. Above all, it had been indiscriminate. Everyone was supposed to die. Columbine was fundamentally different from the other school shootings. It had not really been intended as a shooting at all. Primarily, it had been a bombing that failed.”

 

“The final act of the killers was among their cruelest: they deprived the survivors of a living perpetrator. They deprived the families of a focus for their anger, and their blame. There would be no cathartic trail for the victims. There was no killer to rebuke in a courtroom, no judge to implore to impose the maximum penalty. South Jeffco was seething with anger, and it would be deprived of a reasonable target. Displaced anger would riddle the community for years.”

 

‘Remarks at the Peace Banquet’ William James


I found this tattered old hardcover at Goodwill that celebrates one hundred years of The Atlantic from the distant remove of 1957. Near the back of this treasure of prose, fiction and poetry is a brief speech by William James that caught my eye. Its simple title is ‘Remarks at the Peace Banquet‘ and it contains many profound and refreshingly honest insights into human nature and warfare.

Speaking on October 7, 1904 at the World Peace Conference, James humorously introduced himself by saying, “I am a philosopher, and there is only one thing that a philosopher can be relied on to do. You know that the function of statistics has been ingeniously described as being the refutation of other statistics. Well, a philosopher can always contradict other philosophers.” Ideas will forever clash and try to cancel each other out.

He quickly turns his focus to mankind and the folly that the noble philosopher’s cherished Reason too often proves to be,

“When looked at candidly, reason is one of the very feeblest of Nature’s forces, if you take it at any one spot and moment. It is only in the very long run that its effects become perceptible. Reason assumes to settle things by weighing them against one another without prejudice, partiality, or excitement; but what affairs in the concrete are settled by is and always will be prejudices, partialities, cupidities, and excitement. Appealing to reason as we do, we are in a sort of forlorn hope situation, like a small sandbank in the midst of a hungry sea ready to wash it out of existence.”

He expresses hope that reason will grow over time because reason presses in one direction “while man’s prejudices vary, their passions ebb and flow, and their excitements are intermittent.”

James is optimistic about humanity in the long-run, pessimistic in the short-run. And his misgivings are grave:

“Our permanent enemy is the noted bellicosity of human nature. Man, biologically considered, and whatever else he may be in the bargain, is simply the most formidable of all beasts of prey and, indeed, the only one that preys systematically on its own species. We are once for all adapted to the military status. A millennium of peace would not breed the fighting disposition out of our bone and marrow, and a function so ingrained and vital will never consent to die without resistance, and will always find impassioned apologists and idealizers.”

Furthermore, human nature is at war with boredom, of all things, “Man lives by habits, indeed, but what he lives for is thrills and excitements. The only relief from habit’s tediousness is periodic excitement.” And what could be more exciting than war? For in wartime, “the dams of routine burst, and boundless prospects open.”

With hindsight, we can say that the 1904 World Peace Conference was an abysmal failure. But still, speaking a decade before the outbreak of the First World War, William James words still ring hauntingly true more than 113 years later. Human nature hasn’t changed, but sure enough, reason and science has brought us a widespread increase in health, education, and living standards in that intervening time, even if we haven’t yet transcended what William James called “the mystical blood payment.”

Why Do We Still Talk About Karl Marx?

Ten years ago I picked my best friend up from the airport and he mentioned that he sat next to someone on the airplane who was reading Karl Marx’s gigantic Das Kapital. He was beside himself as to why someone would subjugate themselves to that. At the time, I didn’t have an answer but the question stuck in my mind for some reason because here I am still, thinking about that question all these years later.

Today, the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari gave me a reasonable answer to that question.

In the west, we’re used to associating Karl Marx with Marxism, and from there we think of communism, mass starvation and misery. But in his time he was a more significant intellectual because he was the first to think about how industrial institutions affect humanity:

“Before Marx, people defined and divided themselves according to their views about God, not about production methods. Since Marx, questions of technology and economic structure became far more important and divisive than debates about the soul and the afterlife. In the second half of the twentieth century humankind almost obliterated itself in an argument about production methods.”  

Marx’s ideas caused untold human suffering in the decades after his death but in many ways he was the first sociologist, perhaps what Charles Darwin is to biology.


UPDATE 9/3/2018:

I felt like this video from The Economist explored this subject better than I did:

“Although there is a lot to learn from Marx his solution is far worse than the disease”

Random Reading

Today was a bit of an intellectual holiday. I spent a few hours sitting in the LBJ School of Foreign Affairs on the UT Campus and half-listened to students hold mock debates about hypothetical foreign policy calamities while I read the books in the building’s library.

Among other miscellany, I had the pleasure of reading an essay by John Maynard Keynes about the enigmatic Isaac Newton. The essay was titled ‘Newton, The Man’ and was originally written as a speech.

Newton, in Keynes eyes, was a tragic figure as much as he was a solitary genius, who was seduced by the apple of infinite knowledge: “This strange spirit, who was tempted by the Devil to believe, at the time when within these walls he was solving so much, that he could reach all the secrets of God and Nature by the pure power of mind—Copernicus and Faustus in one.”

I greatly enjoyed Keynes rousing summation of Sir Isaac Newton’s life.

Quotes

Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago. Isaac Newton, a posthumous child born with no father on Christmas Day, 1642, was the last wonder-child to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage.”

I believe that the clue to his mind is to be found in his unusual powers of concentrated introspection. A case can be made out, as it also can with Descartes, for regarding him as an accomplished experimentalist.”

“His peculiar gift was the power of holding continuously in his mind a purely mental problem until he had seen straight through it. I fancy his preeminence is due to his muscles of intuition being the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted. Anyone who has ever attempted pure scientific or philosophical thought knows how one can hold a problem momentarily in one’s mind and apply all one’s powers of concentration to piercing through it, and how it will dissolve and escape and you find that you are surveying a blank. I believe that Newton could hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret. Then being a supreme mathematical technician he could dress it up, how you will for purposes of exposition, but it was his intuition which was pre-eminently extraordinary.”

“His experiments were always, I suspect, a means, not of discovery, but always of verifying what he knew already.”

Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

The Boring Robot Apocalypse

Firefox_Screenshot_2018-01-14T12-19-08.776Z

Which world are you living in?

Numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 64,070 people died from drug overdoses in 2016. This has been accompanied by a 24 percent increase in the annual suicide rate between 1999 and 2014. Something dark is afoot in America, and as the public policy professor at Harvard named Robert D. Putnam says in the linked New York Times article, “This is part of the larger emerging pattern of evidence of the links between poverty, hopelessness and health.”

Perhaps the sci-fi visions a future in which a sentient A.I. enslaves and then wipes out humankind isn’t what we should be worried about in the literal sense. As it is, a man whose body is his primary economic asset can no longer expect a living wage. 

What if the existential threat a digital super-intelligence poses to humanity is much more mundane, and already here? Instead of a fight to the death with a superhuman robot, man is quietly being faced by a devaluation of his physical world and forced to contemplate the worth of his own existence.

The answer to that question won’t come up lacking for everyone. At the same time, we can expect:

Firefox_Screenshot_2018-01-14T17-21-52.414Z

But mostly for the rich.


While I get excited by technical progress I am also concerned by what we lose on the inexorable march toward Godliness. Perhaps that’s the modern Faustian bargain: greater material abundance at the expense of a deeper spiritual meaning.

 

 

Headlines Versus Reality

Headlines

Or, ‘Primary Sources Versus Editorial Projection’

Among the most perverse problems with our media landscape today is the way stories are filtered down.One network gets a scoop and everyone else rushes in to put their own spin on it when all along you’re best served by sticking to the original source.

Barack Obama’s first long-form interview as a public citizen came out today via the BBC. From the 40 minute audio―which is publicly available―every news network is left to give their own analysis and frame the conversation with their own headline. When, all along, it’d be best for any interested citizen to listen to the exchange for to decide what about the conversation is most relevant to their life.

So please, if you’re interested, take the time to give the interview a listen in-full.


Edit 12/29:

The same can be said about Trump’s recent interview with the New York Times. A scoop that launches a thousand editorials.

Reflections on O.J.: Made In America

I felt like I had some profound thoughts while watching this movie but it must’ve just been the wine. Everything I wanted to say has already been said elsewhere on the internet.

First of all, it was interesting to see O.J. Simpson’s heroic rise in the sports world because being a child of the 90s I only ever knew him a disgraced public figure. First of all, this movie shows that his story is inseparable from Los Angeles in the second half of the 20th century.

The footage from the 60s through the 90s feels dated, as if everything has changed even though our society still wrestles with the same intractable problems. Race relations, police misconduct, wealth inequality, you name it.:

“What I want people to think about is that there’s more to think about,” [director] Edelman said during an interview in New York this week. “This isn’t a story that started in June 1994 and ended in the fall of 1995. It started in the 1960s and even before that. And it continues today.”

The Los Angeles Times

In the courtroom for the ‘trial of the century’, the disturbing rationale his defense team seemed to take is ‘given the climate and history of race relations between African Americans and the LAPD, does it matter if he killed his wife?’:

“Yet it is the subject of race, and how Simpson both experienced and refracted it, that is the documentary’s central narrative. Not the question of innocence — Edelman presents the evidence in a way that makes pretty clear he’s concluded Simpson committed the murders — but the significance of exoneration. “Made in America” offers the provocative implication that although the bulk of evidence points to Simpson’s guilt, the tide of black history and injustice may argue for his acquittal.”

But my sympathy lies with this amateur reviewer, who summarized the overall arc the narrative takes in the most pessimistic terms imaginable:

“The tragedy was not O.J’s, or even Nicole & Ron’s – it was the tragedy of a society slowly disintegrating – fault-lines growing between Blacks and Whites, Haves and Have-Nots, Celebrity Gods & Lawyer-Monsters and the rest of America – most of us just powerless onlookers while the Gods & Monsters play their power games with our lives. After an exhausting 8 hours, all I could feel was a deep sadness for what America has become.”

NYT Reviewer, Mari

As awful as it sounds it does kind of feel like that.

 

Can Big Data Highlight Our Unconscious Values?

41p2b6zsrd2bl

 

Reflections on Chapters 4 and 5 of Christian Rudder’s Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity–What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves (‘You Gotta Be The Glue’ and ‘There’s No Success Like Failure’)

4.) A lot of big data analysis seems to me to be justifying the obvious. Teasing apart a massive set of information to capture and visualize the things we already know to be true. This might be the first step towards quantifying folk wisdom and making social science more scientific.

Of course, there are counter-intuitive surprises to be found in the process of discovery but this chapter doesn’t deal with any.

In this chapter, the author explores the point that couples who have more mutual friends are more likely to stay together. He shows how robust his relationship with his wife is by showing all the Facebook friends as a group of dot-and-line visualizations. All of their friends who are friends with each other are connected to each other by lines and so their unique friend groups are easily identifiable.

“Research using a variety of sources (e-mail, IM, telephone) has shown that the more mutual friends two people share, the stronger their relationship. More connections imply more time together, more common interests, and more stability.” He also examines what a couple whose social life isn’t so ’embedded’ would look like. Couples who aren’t each other’s most embedded node on their social network are 50% more likely to break up.

For me, the most interesting part of this chapter is the brief primer on the origins of network analysis. In 1735, the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler simplified the seven bridges of Königsberg down to a visual abstraction of lines and dots to prove that you couldn’t possibly cross all seven by walking across each one only one time. Since then, “Euler’s concept of nodes and edges, which at first unraveled nothing more than a day’s walk, has since helped us understand disease and its vectors, trucks and their routes, genes and their bindings, and of course, people and their relationships. And in just the last few decades, network theory’s application to these last have exploded–because the networks themselves have exploded.”Firefox_Screenshot_2017-12-08T00-06-11.352Z

 

5.) We are often led to believe something is more important that it is. Oftentimes, the choices available to us influence our decisions without our even being aware. This chapter explores that bias and what data shows is truly important to us as consumers, citizens, and in our relationships.

The examples begin in web design and end up in dating, with an examination of a well-worn quote from Steve Jobs: “But by far the biggest cause of frustration is that people don’t understand what they actually need. As Steve Jobs said, ‘People don’t know what they want until you show them.’ What he didn’t say is that showing them, especially in tech, means playing a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey with several million people shouting advice.” OKCupid has tried hundreds of iterations of presenting information to its users, each version highlighting both different

Most closely referenced here are two different datasets from OKCupid that suggest physical attractiveness isn’t very important when out on a first date with a stranger. The thing is, looks are heavily selected for because that’s about all the users have to go off of online. Other things people tend to say are very important don’t match user behavior. For example, caring about politics seems to actually be more predictive for a two strangers getting along than matching party affiliations.

As one of the architects of OKCupid’s choice architecture, this makes the author pause to reflect that, “Dating sites are designed to give people the tools and the information to get whatever they want out of being single–casual sex, a few fun dates, a partner, a marriage…anything. Stuff like height, political views, photos, essays, all of it is right there, easily sortable, easily searchable. It’s there to help people make judgments and fulfill their desires, and as fascinating as those judgments and desires may be to pic apart, there’s a side of it that I think does love a disservice. People make choices from the information we provide because we can, not because they necessarily should.”

Why Are Religion And Science Forever At Odds?

41egzmlah3l-_sx331_bo1204203200_

 

Reflections on Chapter 5 of Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus: ‘The Odd Couple’

This chapter explores the complex relationship between science and religion. The author offers his own definition of religion and distinguishes it from spiritual pursuits: “Religion is any all-encompassing story that confers superhuman legitimacy on human laws, norms and values. It legitimizes human social structures by arguing that they reflect superhuman laws.” It differs from ‘spirituality’ because religions are strict and clear-cut. They proscribe goals and rules for groups to adhere to. Spiritual endeavors, on the other hand, are individualistic quests that seek answers to the questions that feel most pertinent to an individual: “Who am I? What is the meaning of life? What is good?”

Science is unable to answer these open-ended questions. It’s an institution designed to weigh-in on matters-of-fact. “Scientists study how the world functions, but there is no scientific method for determining how humans ought to behave. Science tells us that humans cannot survive without oxygen. However, is it okay to execute criminals by asphyxiation? Science doesn’t know how to answer such a question. Only religions provide us with the necessary guidance.”

Conflict is inevitable when either of these domains step into the other’s sphere of influence. Religions are prone to make ethical decisions based on factual claims that aren’t scientifically valid. At the same time, overzealous scientists tend to make moral assertions that sound insane when juxtaposed against religious doctrine. “Science has no ability to refute or corroborate the ethical judgments religions make. But scientists do have a lot to say about religious factual statements.” This is the heart of their conflict.

So what benefit do these two conflicting institutions provide to society? “Religion is interested above all in order. It aims to create and maintain the social structure. Science is interested above all in power. Through research, it aims to acquire the power to cure diseases, fight wars and produce food. As individuals, scientists and priests may give immense importance to the truth; but as collective institutions, science and religion prefer order and power over truth.”

I’ve heard people talk in apocalyptic terms about the ‘post-truth era‘ and perhaps that’s not what we’re living through so much as a period of profound moral confusion. Our technological abilities dazzle and leave our ethical reasoning behind:

“Every practical project scientists undertake also relies on religious insights. Take, for instance, the construction of the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. When the Chinese government decided in 1992 to build the dam, physicists could calculate what pressures the dam would have to withstand, economists could forecast how much money it would probably cost, while electrical engineers could predict how much electricity it would produce. However the government needed to take additional factors into account. Building the dam flooded more than 200 square miles containing many villages and towns, thousands of archaeological sites, and unique landscapes and habitats. More than 1 million people were displaced and hundreds of species were endangered. It seems that the dam directly caused the extinction of the Chinese river dolphin. No matter what you personally think about the Three Gorges Dam, it is clear that its construction was an ethical rather than a purely scientific issue. No physics experiment, no economic model and no mathematical equation can determine whether generating thousands of megawatts and making billions of yuan is more valuable than saving an ancient pagoda or the Chinese river dolphin. Consequently China cannot function on the basis of scientific theories alone. It requires some religion or ideology, too.”

The intractable question of our time may very well be how can a mass of individuals make the tough decisions in a way that people can feel okay about. What should drive the undertakings our society undertakes? Greed? Christianity? The scientific method? Do we swing wildly between all extremes in a desperate attempt to please everyone?

Everyone has their own answer to that question and therein lies the conflict.

Continue reading