Slavery Everywhere?

 Americans, some of us, know that slavery was part of our history from 1619 to the Civil War.  We're less knowledgable about the slavery in the Caribbean and South America.  I'd have to use Google to find out the extent of slavery in Canada or Chile, Bolivia or Mexico.  

I know, of course, that "slave" derived from "Slav" because Slavs were often enslaved sometime back in history. The TV series "Vikings" touched on slavery there. 

The Bible includes codes for treatment of slaves. 

My recent reading has included discussions of slavery among Native American tribes and enslavement and slave trading in Africa.

Knowledge problem

 See Farrell at Crooked Timber has a discussion of the "Knowledge Problem". If I understand, it's the argument that market prices encapsulate a lot of information and provide a key basis for a decision.  

Based on that understanding I can agree to support market capitalism, at least partially. The argument depends on the framework that someone is deciding what to buy and when to buy, and the price conveys information.

But as a failed historian I'm struck by the idea that humans make decisions based on history as well.  Some of our history-based decisions are also economic decisions; we know what prices were yesterday and have an expectation of what they'll be tomorrow.  Or we know how good or bad our last car has been and how good the service from the dealer has been, which has a big impact on which new car we buy and who we buy it from.

But we also have history-based noneconomic decisions with little or no price involvement.  We know, or think we know how good or bad a politician or political party has been; the knowledge guides our future.

Slippery Slope/Tit for Tat

 One of the arguments of "Hive" is that research shows that in a prisoner's dilemna game which extends over multiple sessions, the best strategy is "tit for tat" but not always.  Straight "tit for tat" can lock the players into a vicious cycle of retaliation, often familiar from Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, etc., while the occasional deviation can transform the game into one of cooperation, which is win-win for both parties.  The book arguments that people with higher IQ's take a longer perspective, so are thus more likely to initiate cooperation, leading to group evolution.

It strikes me that "slippery slope" arguments are related to "tit for tat".  Consider SCOTUS nominations--the Republicans start with Bork, the Democrats with Thomas but either way we've evolved away from the Senate confirmations of the Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ era (though from an old Democrat's viewpoint the real starting point was Gerald Ford's crusade against Abe Fortas.  😉

"Aging Software"?--Tufekci Is Wrong?

NYTimes columnist Tufekci had a piece  discussing Southwest Airlines problems in managing their airplanes and personnel.  I just looked it up online on Thursday evening, finding to my surprise the Times has a featire in their comment system called NYTimes replies where she responded to some of the comment.

She puts the blame on "aging software" used to schedule pilots and crew.  I'm not sure why I immediately objected to the term, but here's my thoughts:

"Aging", which I am, means to me a deterioration of abilities, your body goes, your mind goes, you go. But software, once written (and debugged) remains the same, essentially forever. It's a set of ideas, of data, of information, which may be lost or destroyed, but will always do what it was capable of doing at its origin. 

Tufekci also uses the metaphor of building a structure, but using shortcuts, skimping on the foundation, etc.  Saving money now but setting the stage for problems later.  That's also wrong.   She mentions "technical debt", which is an interesting concept, but seems to me to conflate problems. 

I'd suggest the Southwest problem is a problem of "aging", but not in the sense I outlined above--deterioriation.  Consider the mature individual, the completed building, the proven software--each fits its environment, fulfills its function. There's a match of thing and context. Obviously the match isn't perfect; it may be flawed, corners were cut on the building or the software, the individual ends in the wrong occupation, with the wrong spouse, etc.)  As time passes, the building and the individual will deteriorate, they'll require maintenance to stay functional. But not the software, except as bugs appear. 

So the term "aging" has two sides: change for the worse in the entity discussed and change in the environment in which the entity operates, impairing the match between entity and environment.

For Southwest I suspect their software dates to the airline's early days, when it was doing point-to-point flights, basically within California.  It's expanded vastly over the years, getting lots of plaudits from customers.  The consensus seems to be they failed to spend enough on upgrading their software.  News media doesn't die into details, so we don't know whether the software ran into capacity limits, whether the system was never changed to use new technology (like generating text messages to personnel), whether the fundamental data model was flawed in light of the new environment and the impact of very bad weather, or whether all of the these factors were at work.

At the end there's a mismatch of capacity and environment. For humans the capacity declines and the environment changes. For software the capacity stays the same while the environment changes. 

What Robots Learn From Us

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution wrote something, a mere sentence, which impressed me, impressed me so much I misremembered it as "what will robots learn from us?"  (Cowen wrote "A.I.s" but "robots" is the term I like, which I think can include all forms of artificial intelligence.)

It's a good question--mostly robots and other forms of artificial intelligence learn what humans have already learned, at least the humans living in the world of robots, etc.That means, by definition, that they will be biased. 

I wrote "mostly" because for example robots which learn to walk, learn what it means in terms of their motors, gears, and levers--their bodies--not what it means for humans to walk  So robots do experience the world somewhat differently than humans. Possibly robots won't learn some things from us; it's hard to say.

What Are Humans?

Two possible pictures of humans:

• humans are like plants, developing from seeds and easily manipulated and suppressed.  Think of Japanese bonsai, or how seedlings will fail under adverse conditions.
• humans are talented and adaptable, coping with and exploiting every sort of environment.  Think of Nazi concentration camps and their survivors.

Okay, now think back a century or two and consider women--which picture comes closer to describing their situation?  Patriarchal suppression or exploiting separate spheres? 

Fearing Climate Change--Don't Underestimate Resilience

 Virginia Postrel has an old article  on several things, but the hook is the difference between East and West Coasts, specifically Silicon Valley and Boston.  It leads up to this:

In his 1988 book, SEARCHING FOR SAFETY, the late UC-Berkeley political scientist Aaron Wildavsky laid out two alternatives for dealing with risk: anticipation, the static planning that aspires to perfect foresight, and resilience, the dynamic response that relies on having many margins of adjustment:

Anticipation is a mode of control by a central mind; efforts are made to predict and prevent potential dangers before damage is done. Forbidding the sale of certain medical drugs is an anticipatory measure. Resilience is the capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back. An innovative biomedical industry that creates new drugs for new diseases is a resilient device. . . . Anticipation seeks to preserve stability: the less fluctuation, the better. Resilience accommodates variability; one may not do so well in good times but learn to persist in the bad.

 I want to apply the distinction to our approach to climate change. Most of the things we're doing are anticipatory, central, top-down.  That's good, but my general optimism is based on human resilience.  There are many things going on which will enable us to survive with a reasonable standard of living.  For example, in today's papers there was a brief mention of scientists working on wheat varieties which are more heat tolerant. 

First Toilet Paper, Now Infant Formula?

 Saw a tweet suggesting that people who are scared by the shortages in formula are stocking up whenever they can.  That repeats an old pattern we saw in the 70's during the oil embargos where you'd try to fill your tank when it got down to half full; also the pattern during the early days of the pandemic where people stocked up on toilet paper. Such behavior in panics is selfish, and all too human.  I challenge anyone to do differently. 

Motivated Reasoning and Farming

The TV weather this morning showed rain moving into southern California.  One of the blogs I follow is Foothill Agrarian, written by parttime sheep rancher and extension service employee.  His most recent post was on fall, his favorite season, and the complicated planning he and his partner needed to do to plan for the upcoming year.  The main complication was/is the prospect of rain or continued drought which impacts the forage available which impacts the health of ewes which impacts the lamb crop...etc. etc.  So the prospect of rain, though I'm not certain exactly where in California he's located, likely cheered him.

Meanwhile, a few weeks ago another farmer I follow on twitter was concerned over the inability to harvest and store rain, given the rains which were dominating the weather in NY.  I remember the years on the farm when we faced that problem, meaning we had to buy hay during the winter and/or buy molasses to put on the hay which we got in the barn only after it had been rained on (cows didn't like to eat such hay without the addition of molasses).

Back in the days when ASCS operated a disaster payment program IIRC the yields we used would be determined by averaging past years' yields, but dropping the bad years.  That to me reflected farmer optimism--the normal yield was always better than the straight historic average of yields. Now I see it as a reflection of what humans do: use motivated reasoning to support their desired outcome.

The Prevalence of Scams

 A rule of thumb: whenever there's money on the table, or "new frontiers" of opportunity, there's people who will exploit the opportunity.

Recent examples:

Apparently R. Kelly had a big entourage.  Other big shots, stars in various endeavors, have their own entourages, including the former guy.

People have been selling fake covid-19 vaccination certificates.

Several reports of people scamming the various pandemic-related stimulus programs. 

Our Imagined Communities--Justice O'Connor

 LInda Greenhouse writes about Sandra Day O'Connor--two bits struck me: "Imagined communities" are the groups we think we belong to,

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” Here O'Connor is writing an opinion, and her "we" refers to "Americans".

“I guess you know Senator McCain pretty well,” I ventured. Her response was instantaneous and almost fierce. “I do not,” she declared. “I’ve met him, but I don’t know him. He’s a newcomer to Arizona.” (Unlike Barry Goldwater, born in the Arizona Territory before statehood, John McCain had moved to Arizona after his discharge from the Navy in 1981.) Here Greenhouse is trying indirectly to find who O'Connor voted for in 2008 (and takes Greenhouse's reaction as indicating she voted for Obama.) Here I think O'Connor is identifying herself as a "true Arizonan", in contrast to the newcomer McClain.

I liked the way there were two examples of how the psychology of imagined communities works in the one article.  Note in the McClain example she's excluding, establishing a boundary, while in the religious example she's more appealing for people to include themselves. 

Almost 3000 Americans Died on 9/11?

 Nope.  As my cousin reminded me today, there were a lot of people in the World Trade Towers who came from other countries. Wikipedia says 372 of them, or over 10 percent of the total. I'm sure a lot of people have fallen into the error of talking about "almost 3000 Americans".  Here's one, which seems to be a DOD site for vets and families. 

I think that sort wrong generalization is something humans do. 

True Facts-I

 Some things are true, among them:

1. In American, and perhaps in all modern societies of reasonable complexity (i.e., possibly above tribes), there will be conmen who will find ways to exploit opportunities.  Their cons can range from affiliating with social movements to fraud (recently collecting unemployment) to crime (WSJ claims people are stealing from big box stores and reselling on the internet) to the Nigerian scam artists and the Rev. Jimmy Jones of Jonestown. A good bureaucrat must anticipate this; a good liberal must design government policies accordingly.

"Produced" Versus "Result of"

 I've dipped my toe into reading about the current controversy on critical race theory, but haven't gotten into it in any depth.  

One thing which did strike was a statement to the effect that "policy produced the 'hood'". To me that's a sequence like "Person A decided on policy B, policy B created C" with the implication that C was the intent of the person, the decider.  

Compare that to a statement that "policy resulted in the 'hood'". To me that's a sequence like "Person A decided on policy B, a result of policy B was C" with the implication that  C may or may not have been the intent of the decider.

As someone who likes Murphy's law the second version is more to my liking. I think there are a lot of cases where the decider focuses on the immediate situation and adopts a policy which she thinks will solve the problem, not realizing there are ramifications and unknown unknows also at play which will create unintended results.

The difference between intent and result.

Maintenance Is Not Sexy

 I may have blogged this before, particularly in connection with maintenance of computer software, but it applies broadly, as witness the collapse of the Florida condominium.  It's a lot easier to get humans, particularly American humans, excited about doing something new, creating something, than in keeping things operating. 

When Humans Are Elephants

 The NYTimes Magaine has a short piece on the herd of elephants in China who've gone walkabout. Apparently they just took off in search of better, perhaps because of disturbances in their environment and have now traveled 300 miles. The article suggests the excursion is a model of how nature adapts to change.

To me it suggests what humans have done over the millennia--how we have traveled from Africa across the world reaching every continent and significant island by 1300 CE (except Antarctica.)

I've read one book (Wrangham?) suggesting that periodic shifts in Africa from moist to dry had the effect of pumping humans out of Africa.  So we are elephants too.

Memory Creep--

Mr. Bell at his 1776 blog coins a phrase: memory creep.  It's a history version of the communication problems in the "telephone game". As he does sometimes, he traces a great story, often recounted by a descendant, back to its original source, finding there's either no solid source or just a tidbit which over time through repeated telling has evolved into a much better story.

I think we see the same phenomenon in current discourse, political partisans on both sides repeat stories, exaggerating and simplifying, until the end result is simple, provoking, and wrong.

The Lessons of Northern Ireland

 Half my ancestry is from Northern Ireland, my cousin has written on the history of Ulster, and I remember the start of the Troubles there, when the Catholic/Sinn Fein movement seemed in tune with the student movements in France and Germany, not to mention our civil rights movement.

Bottom line--I've tracked developments there with more interest than elsewhere in Europe or the world for that matter.  To me it's an object lesson in human nature, a lesson to put alongside the lesson from Israel/Palestine and the various racial and ethnic conflicts here and abroad.  People are able to discern differences in fine distinctions and often use them as the basis for enmity. Such patterns tend to endure through time, and often lead to vicious cycles of eye for an eye. 

(Watch the TV series Fauda for another example of the same.)

Here's the Times on the current status. It also seems that there's a cycle at work--the young get riled up, get violent, get exhausted, and there's less violence for a while until a new generation comes along. 

The Scourge of "Usism"

 Some writers use "racism", some use "tribalism", some use "colorism", some use "ageism", some use "ableism"...  Here's the first result when I googled "what 'isms' are there?" 

The bottom line is, I think, we love to define "us" versus "them", or "others".   It's natural to do so, because that's how we think--defining what something is by what it is not. When we do it to people, it's a problem. 

The Reality as Humans Perceive It Is Fractal

 What I'm trying to get at is a phenomena I think I see.  Scientific theories, or at least stories, prevail for a time, then get trashed.  But years or centuries later the new theory circles back to the old, at least in some respects. Two examples:

• Lamarckian theory of evolution said changes due to the environment can be passed down to the offspring.  A giraffe would extend its neck reaching for foliage, and the slightly longer neck could be passed on.  With Darwin this was thrown out. But recent genetics seems to have found cases where the first sentence is true.
• An article, I believe in Wired, I read today but didn't get the url.  It was a long piece on aerosol transmission of covid, a story of scientists researching and upsetting a long-established belief that droplets bigger than 5 microns were the key.  The scientists believe that much smaller aerosols are key in many viruses.  They have echoes of the long disdained "miasma" theory of the 19th century--the idea that cholera, yellow fever, etc. were transmitted by "bad air". 

The moral for today might be: take care in totally dismissing established theories--an element of truth may be hiding below the surface.