Fading Families

 Don't remember what I've written here about genealogical research.  My sister did a lot during a year when she was no longer teaching school.  That was back in 1978, long before the internet and the extensive digitization of sources.

A digression: genealogical research appeals to the sort of mind who reads detective stories.  Back in the day there was great satisfaction in figuring out connections, assessing what the probabilities were when faced with incomplete evidence, etc. Unless you participated in a group devoted to genealogy, you didn't know whether you were the first to find your great great grandmother, or had some cousins preceded you.  All that is, I think, rapidly vanishing.  With ancestry.com and family search, once a connection is made it's visible to anyone in the world who wants to look. And with digitized sources, rapidly expanding to all the printed matter which still exists, and searching, no longer do you have to hit the libraries and local historical societies as did my sister; just click the mouse and pay the subscription fees.

Back tot he title.  One set of clues to ancestry was generational naming patterns. These days the Social Security administration releases statistics on naming patterns, tracing the popularity of names.  (I suspect there's been a recent drop in babies named Karen.) In the old days when family was more important, babies were often named according to a pattern.  For example, my great grandfather named his first son Andrew after his father, and his daughter Sarah after his mother.  In Scots Irish families the next set of children would likely be named after their mother's parents, and so on. The pattern was strong enough  you could use it to deduce genealogy, at least in the 19th century   (By the end of the century it was fading; while my father was named after his mother's father, and my uncle had his paternal grandmother's maiden name for his middle name, my uncle's first name and my aunt's name have no identifiable history in the family

We don't have such large families these days, and the pattern of naming has gone. Does that mean that family feeling is less, or just that a custom has faded away?  

Ask Not

Much discussion on social media about declining mental health, particularly among the young. I'd venture to suggest that the distance our society has traveled is measured by JFK"s words: "Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country"

Two points about the sentence:

1. the emphasis on "doing'
2. seeing the individual as being involved with/part of a greater entity--the country.

I don't have a quote to point to for today's society, but I think:

1. the emphasis has shifted more to "being" (authentic) 
2. the individual is now more separated from larger entities, whether country, occupation, or religion.

I'd guess the evolution is inevitable, caused by changes in the economy, in technology, in beliefs, but it will take society a good while to adjust to the changes.

Inverted Social Norms

Back the day rural areas were viewed positively, with high morality, great character, all the virtues (at least so my mother thought). Meanwhile urban areas were viewed negatively, with dubious morality, poor character, divorce, gambling, drugs,  many dangers. By the 1970's it was clear where the balance of goodness was.

These days it seems that rural areas are the ones with problems, higher death rates, drugs, broken marriages, etc.   Meanwhile the gentrified urban areas and suburbs are seeing a new social conservatism--less sex outside of partnerships or marriage, indeed less divorce, less smoking, etc. 

Loss of Authority

 Was thinking about the question of authority--who has it, what does it mean, etc.

Seems to me "authority" has drained away from the people and organizations which had it in my youth. It's perhaps particularly so in the family--as the patriarchy has decline, so has the authority of the father (maybe it's the same thing).

Surveys of the public on their respect for various institutions, police, schools, churches, etc. show a decline over the past decades.  As further confirmation, here's an ngram of American sources (the graph is a smoother decline if you leave the setting at "English").

On Pot

 I suspect I've written on the subject before, but the president just pardoned everyone convicted of marijuana possession under federal law, and recommended that governors do the same with regards to state law. I noticed in the media today a poll in which a majority of Americans, a sizeable majority, favored the legalization of marijuana.

I'm ambivalent. I think the argument from alcohol and prohibition is strong. I've no experience with marijuana, though I'm open to using edibles if my arthritis gets worse. But a question: if you legalize marijuana, what else: heroin, crack, etc.?  I'm not sure where society could draw the line.

My major concern is change.  It will take some time for society to implement legalization. So far it appears that different states have taken different approaches with perhaps different results. Ideally in the eyes of this bureaucrat when the first couple states started legalizing the feds would have set up a cross-agency group (i.e DOJ, HHS, FDA, etc.) to track how the states were approaching it.  It would share experiences and study results.

We've learned to live with alcohol, not perfectly, but we accept the costs, the addictions, the accidents. But we've been coping with alcohol for decades; we may need a similar time for pot. 

The Big Sort

[Note: I drafted this several days ago but didn't publish.  Then I wrote yesterdays post. Although I never added the links, I ]

I've played with the idea that our big sort  resulted from the proliferation of housing developments after WWII. 

Today from pieces in my two newpapers I'm more persuaded by another factor:

• The Post had a graphic showing how population had shifted--people had moved from the smaller states to the bigger states, presumably the big metropolitan areas within the states (i.e., Massachusetts, New York, DC, Texas, Florida, California.
• The Times had a graphic showing the party splits in presidential elections from 1988 to 2020.  You see some states moving to the Democrats (Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey) and some states moving to the Republicans, and other states become more of what they were before (especially Dakotas)

So my new idea is the younger Democrats are moving to economic opportunity. The nation has emphasized the value of higher education since the 1940's.  The jobs for college graduates tend to be in the bigger metropolitan areas, not in the more rural ones. 

Take a look at the rankings of states by education level.  Eyeballing the HS graduation, it looks as if the non-Southern Republican stats do very well. The South and NY (40th) are low  and CA ( is at the bottom. When you change to bachelors degrees the picture changes drastically.  NY has jumped from 40th to  10th, CA  to 14th, and the top is dominated by Democratic states.  When you go to advanced degrees the spread at the top widens a lot.

Where are the divisions? 

They identify four areas of gradually deepening division: economic inequality, political partisanship, and questions of identity relating to race, as well as gender and sexuality.

From wikipedia:

 Additionally, since the 1970s, income disparities have disproportionately increased in metropolitan areas due to the concentration of high-skilled jobs in urban zones.[10][11] For example, even though New York is the state with the highest inequality levels in the country, the upstate part of the state has a much lower rate of income inequality than the downstate, as the economy of New York City (Gini index 0.5469)[12] is highly reliant on high-salary earners.[11] States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states, with the former actually seeing more equality up to a certain level of development, beyond which the inequality rises non-linearly

The Big Sort and Rural Migration

 Can't find sources for my guesses.  This is the closest, showing the ratio of women to men in rural areas went from 99.8 in 1990 to 99.0 in 2000. My guesses are:

• in the old days, women were more conservative in rural areas, men could migrate to urban areas for jobs, both manufacturing and others.
• smart rural women could find jobs as teachers.
• smart rural men went to college and ended up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• the sex ratio was heavier female (despite the "norwegian bachelor farmers")
• in the modern world more women go to college and end up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• women are now more into social issues and tending to be liberal.

The forgoing focuses on out-migration, but there's also in-migration, from suburban/rural areas to rural. I think when it happens it's generally older people, who also tend to be more conservative.

The combination of all these trends means rural areas have become less Democratic and more conservative; urban areas the opposite.

Hasidic School in New York

 NYTimes recently ran an article, seeming to show that because of their political clout, Hasidic schools spend most of their time on religious subjects, slighting the basics, which mean their students, particularly boys, do not pass state exams. The article has led to a lot of discussion.

When you have a diverse society, we have a problem in drawing lines. Over my life the society has often backed off an original decision: no facial hair for military, no afros, no turbans for Sikhs, etc. The Amish do schooling up through 8th grade only, and don't participate in Social Security.  There's no problem with the hijab and the burka, the sari and the whatever, though low-slung jeans that show underwear are, or were, controversial.

There's always been controversies over books in school, not to mention the behavior of teachers.  No pregnant teachers in the past, no beards, etc. We once wanted books which embodied the Protestant version of Christianity.  I don't remember whether, when we said the Lord's Prayer every morning in my school, whether we said "debts" or "trespasses". 

There's always tension between the authority/teachings of the professional teacher and the authority/teachings of the parents (and these days, between parents who are separated or divorced).

I wonder how nations who are more diverse than the US, such as India or Indonesia, handle the lines.  I doubt we'll ever get consensus on the lines.  

Future Job Losses--Data Entry, Secretaries

 Ran into a projection of occupantions predicted to lose jobs over the next 10 years. Don't have the link. As I recall, data entry types, secretaries, and (personal/executive) assistants were big losers.

My guess is that's continuing a trend as the impact of computing and the internet affects office work.  As we develop systems online more of the data entry is outsourced to the user, the customers.  Even IRS may be moving in that direction. And the secretary/assistant category likely reflects moving work from "auxiliaries" to their "principals", both a move from formal communications (letters with multiple copies) to informal (email and texts with electronic copies) and the increased capabilities of software.  Bottom line: people believe it's faster and more efficient to do their own email than to have an auxiliary do it; easier to arrange their own travel; easier to be available for texts and calls on cellphones with software tools for screening than to rely on human screeners.  

There might also be a decline in the value of "servants" (which after all is what secretaries and assistants are) in signalling status.  We don't notice it, but I think there may be a decline in the number of chauffeurs, butlers, chefs the rich have these days, at least compared to the very rich.   There may be an exception for entertainers, like athletes and movie stars.  The premium on the physical, both fitness and appearance, means it's worth paying for personal trainers, hairdressers, etc.  

Unbelievable--So Much for White Superiority

The other day the Times had an article discussing the composition of the cabinet selected by PM Truss, which notably had no white males in the top four positions. Rather buried in the depths of the article was this fact: 

In part, the gains in government by people of color reflect social change and advances through education. On average, ethnic minority pupils have outperformed white Britons at school in recent years. In every year from 2007 to 2021, white pupils had the lowest entry rate into higher education.

I'm used to looking at the various breakdowns of statistics about our society and seeing what I might call the "usual suspects"--that is, Euro-Americans or Asian-Americans at the top, if the statistic relates to something good (wealth, income, etc.) and Afro-Americans and Hispanic-Americans at the bottom. The positions reversed if the statistic relates to crime, helath, life expectancy, etc.

We see that so often we, at least I,  start thinking it's the expected order, which is just a step away from being "natural". 

But this statistic from the UK upsets those expectations. And it raises the key question: what the hell is going on; why the difference in societies? 

Civil War? Stuff and Nonsense

 Stephens and Collins have a weekly conversation at the NYTimes.

When he noted a fairly widespread fear of civil war, she had a response with which I agree--a sentence:

It’s very possible things look worse than they are because we’re experiencing a revolution in communication more dramatic than anything since the invention of a national postal service.

Big changes in technology usually require a period of adjustment by society.  You can see that in the novels of Dickens, in the writings of Thoreau and his fellow Romantices, in the literature of the 1920's, etc.

The advent of the internet, particularly the cellphone/internet connection, is such a change.   Father Time will dissolve some of the partisanship we're experiencing now.  As we grow more used to the technology and develop norms to deal with the problems it brings we'll settle down into patterns which will become familiar and comfortable to us.

Things Get Better?

As someone who lived through the 1960's, I sometimes get impatient with today's discussions of race  and its problems.  I remember how it used to be, at least as best a young white NY liberal could who viewed from afar, did not jump into the struggle.

I was struck by the data in the twitter thread below, covering the life expectancies by race and sex between 1960 and 2017.  While there's still a gap in expected life span, the gap has indeed narrowed since 1960, narrowed signficantly and particularly in recent years. 

here's how it looks to me: pic.twitter.com/bd6NHH0cP7

— blighter (@blightersort) July 21, 2022

Roles and Metaphors?

 Found myself changing from my usual jeans and work shirt into khakis and button down shirt the other day.  Why? 

Wife and I going to see the dentist to discuss future treatments.  Somehow I felt my mode of dress would affect how the dentist would respond to my opinions. 

The way we dress conveys messages about who we are or want to be, whether we're conforming to a given role or not.

Back in the day when my wife and I started going to the Kennedy Center for symphony concerts we always dressed up.  That was usual then.  That expectation has changed over 44 years; we're now in the minority, likely even among our age group. 

Tattoos

NY Times says 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo. That's a big change in the culture from my youth, when tattoos were limited to a few sailors and other veterans. A tattoo signified (not a word much used in the 1950's) the man (never a woman, except maybe a stripper) was a rebel and/or on the fringes of society.

Structural Versus Individualized Causes

 This post at Statistical Modeling suggests structural causes for an increase in traffic deaths, as opposed to the individualized "pandemic malaise" causes.  That is, congestion in traffic reduces speed and rewards safe driving within the design of the streets and roadways. 

I think it's similar to something I saw a bit ago--suggesting that a rise in crime was due to a changing mix of people on the street --i.e., the conservative, risk-averse people stayed away.  

My therapist was deeply impressed by nuclear energy; he called it the self-destruct engine where the chain reaction got out of hand and applied it to individual psychology. 

I'd apply the metaphor of nuclear reactors to now--society consists of older and younger, risk-seeking and risk-averse, conformists, and rebels.  In any situation, whether driving or just interacting in public, patterns of behavior take into account all the variations.  From 30,000 feet it seems the old/conformist/risk-averse component tends to act to moderate interactions, whether it's speed of driving or interpersonal conflict.  When the composition changes by changing the relative proportions of the population, you get a change in society. 

Changing Rural Population

 Interesting post on Rural Blog about the changing demographics of rural areas.  Briefly, for the first time ever total US population in all rural areas fell but the proportion of Hispanics/people of color increased from 17% to 20.8%.  The county where I grew up, Broome County, NY, saw its white population fall by 7 percent while the nonwhite/Hispanic increased by 60 percent (resulting in a 1 percent net increase).

Looking at the maps, it looks as if the Delta and the black belt saw drops in population, as did WV and KY and counties on the Great Plains. Looking at Fresno, CA, Sherman, KS, and Leflore, MS, counties I visited 30+ years ago, all saw a decrease in white population, Fresno a big increase in Hispanic, Sherman a smaller increase in Hispanic, and Leflore a small decrease.

Moving to Subscriptions: Two Class Society

 There seems to be a lot of things moving to subscriptions--free broadcast service is losing out to them. That's true in the blogging universe as well as the entertainment world.

Seems to me that's going to have the effect of widening the gap between classes--those of us who can afford to will subscribe, those who can't will lose out. 

Trust

 Nice line from a New Yorker article on AI fighters: 

“There’s a saying in the military,” Peter Hancock, a psychology professor at the University of Central Florida who studies the effect of trust on technology adoption, told me. “Trust is gained in teaspoons and lost in buckets.” 

The fighter pilot has to trust the AI software flying the plane.

I think the dynamic might apply in other areas.  Perhaps in society and government--lots of evidence that trust in various institutions and organizations has declined over the years. Or trust in President Biden has declined in the first year--one big reason is the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  

Though perhaps it's more a question of what we pay attention to: bad events get more attention than good. 

A Civil War? No

 A rash of stories about the decline of our democracy and the possibility of a civil war.  See this in the New Yorker.

I'm not worried.  We've seen more risky circumstances in the past.  We forget the level of violence associated with labor unionization and the racism of the last century. We should be able to remember the divisions and violence of the late 60's and 70's, but we don't.

Our current polarization is different than in the past, but I don't think it's that likely to lead to wide-spread violence.  

If I'm to make a prediction, I'd say the level of racial/political motivated violence over the next 10 years won't rise above the level of past violence--i.e., homicides won't reach record levels. 

Does College Broaden One?

I read this the other day:

A university is a place where minds should be opened, not closed; where perspectives should be broadened, not narrowed; where biases should be challenged, not confirmed. It would appear that many of our universities are failing at this critically important role.

It started me thinking.  When I went to college that was true.  But then I was coming from a mostly rural area and background, living in a time when my knowledge of the world was mostly limited to reading magazines and the Binghamton Press newspaper, short news broadcasts on NBC, and the books available at home and in the school library..  So encountering the variety of people and courses at college was definitely broadening, particularly socially, since I was already leaning liberal and agnostic.  College opened a world of choices to me, or at least made more real the choices I had vague glimpses of when in high school.

Would that be true today? I don't think so, at least for me.  If I were growing up today, I'd have had access through the internet to more information than all of my professors had in 1959, not to mention movies, videos, social media, porn, from across the  world.  If I wished, which I think I would have, I could have explored a multitude of careers and livestyles in great detail.

The "university" by its name has always been a place to encounter the universe of knowledge, but it no longer has a monopoly; it has to share its special position with the web. I think the change must affect the role of college as a rite of passage, marking a big change in one's life, and therefore collegiate culture. How can college be a liberating, a broadening experience when the incoming student has already experienced the variety of social media?  It can't, and students, at least enough students to make a fuss, want something different.

When I went to college activists were still protesting against "in loco parentis" rules, curfews, etc.,  We thought we were adults, and wanted recognition accordingly, using that as fuel for our rebellion against our elders. We wanted college to be a place of freedom.  These days the activists, both liberal and conservative, want school to be a refuge, a safe place for their identities.