Why not subscribe?

Monday, October 24, 2016

Is Trump cleverly setting us up for fraud?

Trump's gotten a lot of heat for saying that the election is rigged and he won't necessarily accept the outcome.

But, just to engage in a bit of conspiracy speculation -- what if he's really setting us up?

The media has responded to Trump by arguing that there's practically no voter fraud. But they are talking there about voter fraud due to dead people voting, people voting twice, illegal aliens voting, etc.

But in the history of American elections, it's hard to argue there's not reason to be careful.

  1. There's 2000 Bush-Gore. That's not really fraud so much as bad ballot design, ambiguous situations (ballots from troops arriving too late, but not due to the fault of the troops), and conflict of interest (Katherine Harris).
  2. There's 1960, with Daley holding back Chicago ballots until very, very late -- with some speculation this was to be sure JFK carried Illinois over Nixon.
  3. There's the election of Lyndon Johnson to the Senate in 1948, pretty clearly due to ballot box stuffing.

So, despite the media's current insistence that there's no way the 2016 election could be rigged, it's hard to feel like it's impossible. Particularly since We've had Russian hacking of the DNC, and this week's large DNS attack on a variety of websites.

So, what if Trump is actually setting us up?  What if the Russians (or some other nefarious group) have figured out a way to change the counts in key precincts in enough swing states to get a narrow Trump victory? It's hard to prove fraud; easy to suspect it. And if it is cyber-rigging, we probably won't know exactly who did it -- just like we are pretty sure the Russians hacked the DNC, but don't seem to have a good idea exactly which Russians.

But, if fraud is suspected, we'll have to have all those media "experts" eat their words and do a 180 degree turn.  Suspicion will be both rampant and understandable.

Is this Trump's game? Does he know the Russians / Chinese / etc. will be hacking the election, so he's setting up all these "election is rigged" statements so that he can get nearly everyone else in the U.S. telling us (incorrectly!) that this is impossible?

And, if it is Putin, he doesn't actually have to get Trump in office to succeed. He succeeds if U.S. political institutions are thrown into disarray, which they surely would be if we have something bizarre.

So, what might be a "bizarre" conclusion?  Fraud is highly suspect, but can't be proven. Electors desert Trump, and some sort of compromise is worked out (?Paul Ryan as president?). Trump supporters cry foul.

I don't think that's the case. I think Trump's ego just doesn't allow him to think he could lose unless the other side is unfair.  But, still, it's been a very strange election cycle so far, so it's hard for me to 100% rule this out.

Monday, October 10, 2016

On women and the 2016 election

A few points after listening to the 2nd presidential debate, October 9, 2016.

1. These are mostly thought about the harassment of women. I'm going to use the term harassment here, but clearly some of this behavior is beyond harassment. Let me state at the outset that I am not a woman. I have 7 aunts (1 uncle), 4 sisters (no brothers), 1 wife, 2 daughters (no sons) -- but this is NOT the same as being a woman.

2. Donald Trump's relationships with women clearly show a lack of respect. The affairs, the locker room talk (which seems to be more than just "talk"), the need to have a trophy, arm-candy wife, all indicate objectification.   Is this the type of person we want as president? No.

3. What kept the debate from being entirely X-rated was likely the presence of four women in the audience who've accused Bill Clinton of various improprieties. There's an awful lot of smoke there, and at least some fire with the settlement with Paula Jones and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

4. I'm not going to defend Bill Clinton on this. I voted for a 3rd party candidate in 1996 because I didn't think Bill Clinton was trustworthy, and that was before Monica. I can't, and I won't try.

5. Bill's not running for president; Hillary is. But the allegations that Hillary was in the lead group of trashing the female accusers seem credible.  Was she doing the noble thing of standing by your man or making a cold political calculation for the two of them? And in that cold political calculation, was she selling out her sisters for their political future?

But now I'm getting to the part I really wanted to get to.

6. Do we have a syndrome here? Trump has responded that he's had a fair number of female executives. On Frontline (I think; somewhere on PBS) they interviewed a woman who Trump put in charge of managing the contractors on Trump Tower in New York City, an unusual job to be give to a woman, particularly at that time.  Bill Clinton appointed more women to cabinet posts and judgeships than his predecessors. And I am reminded of Senator Robert Packwood, who had a strong reputation for years for being a supporter of women's issues in the U.S. Senate, before his career collapsed in a harassment scandal.

For years, Packwood, the embodiment of a quirky Oregon species, the socially progressive Republican, has been a strong supporter of women's causes. A leader of the abortion-rights brigades, he introduced the first Senate bill to legalize abortion in 1970; a decade later, after Bill Bradley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan demurred, he led a lonely filibuster against his own party's bill to make abortion the equivalent of murder. He has also regularly hired women to run his campaigns and to serve as his top aides.
But after the first wave of news accounts, many more women came forward with accusations of sexual misconduct, raising the total to at least 24.
 7. So what's the nature of this syndrome? What do these cases have in common?

  • Man with charm, good looks, money/power.
  • Man either thinks because he's supporting women in some areas (women's issues) he can harass them in others? 
  • Or maybe, man is trying to balance out the sexual harassment by promoting some women to responsible positions?
  • We might call these men with charm, good looks, and money/power alpha males.  Which means, culturally, that in order get sex they wouldn't need to resort to bad behavior. So why do it?  Is it perhaps a desire for conquest? And is that conquest more satisfying if it's over a member of a class of people (women) that you've ceded some power to? (sort of like beating another pickup team in basketball after you've given them a good player to make the game more competitive?) 
  • That line of reasoning seems to work a bit, but he have to recognize that many of the victims (e.g. all those women accusing Bill Clinton) were not powerful women at all. So I'm left with that either/or argument in italics above.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Is 99.8% accuracy good enough?

There's an article in the Wall Street Journal about the complications of the government declaring you dead, when you aren't. http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-the-government-thinks-youre-dead-thats-really-hard-to-fix-1474474793?mod=e2fb  I couldn't read the article because it was behind a paywall, but did read a couple of other articles about how terrible this can be.



From the fusion.net story:

During his testimony, SSA’s inspector general, Patrick O’Carroll said there is still room for improvement in addressing DMF errors, noting that in a 2008 report they’d found more than 20,000 individuals over a three year period who had been incorrectly declared dead.
“Erroneous death entries can lead to benefit termination—and government underpayments—and cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected individuals,” he said.
The WSJ story evidently includes this quote: " "The VA said its accuracy is around 99.8%...“It might not seem like a big problem statistically but it’s happening more often—and it’s a huge problem if you are not really dead"." 

Is 99.8% good enough?

99.8% doesn't seem very impressive to me. After all, it's not an ambiguous situation. You're either dea or not. It's not like trying to figure out whether you are still a practicing member of a religion, for example.

My friend responded: "One keystroke and the person is deceased. Not unlike a drone pilot except the former is reversible."

Both my friend and I have spent years in marketing. 99.8% would be impressive in marketing (and, in fact, is far above the typical accuracy in, say, target marketing).  But drones? Is that a good comparison?

Drones operate in hostile territory during war. Let's take O'Hare airport, instead. In one month (July 2016) there were over 76 thousand takeoffs and landings. At an error rate of 2 per thousand, that would be about 150 crashes at O'Hare per month. 7.4 million passengers -- that would be almost 15,000 casualties per month. [actually, thinking about numbers like this makes me say a prayer of thanks for the entire airline industry.]

So, clearly some systems both involve the government and are substantially more than 99.8% accurate.  If being declared dead involves a single random keystroke, shouldn't we change that to require a bit more? After all, usually when you want to collect an estate's assets you must provide a death certificate.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Review of "Our Mother" in AVClub

Nice review of Luke Howard's book, Our Mother, in AVClub today:


The conceit is similar to that of Pixar’s Inside Out, but Howard’s metaphor lacks the cloying and reductive simplicity of the film and features the incompleteness and pervasive unknowability that makes a rendering of mental illness sensible without being insulting. 

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Long term care insurance: post #6. More people agreeing with me.

I previously had a series of posts on long term care insurance.


To summarize these posts: I'm skeptical that this insurance generally makes any sense, and skeptical of government agencies' attempts to push it.

Today, I find further support from an article in Decision Analysis. Here's the abstract:

The purchase of long-term care (LTC) insurance is a difficult lifetime choice made in the face of highly uncertain risks, including mortality, morbidity, timing and length of LTC, and portfolio investment risk. Many individuals do not know how to think about this decision properly and, in the face of too much anecdotal and too little objective information, will not proactively decide.

We used Monte Carlo simulation modeling with detailed, experience-based distributions for LTC uncertainties and their correlations to project investment growth to death given alternative levels of LTC insurance. Using constant risk aversion, we calculate certainty equivalents for the resulting distributions of final holdings at death. Decisions were separated for male and female individuals and group and individual market insurance opportunities. Sensitivity analysis was conducted varying age, cost of coverage, starting investment amount, risk tolerance, return on portfolio investment, inflation, and length of LTC coverage.

Optimality results suggest low levels of coverage or no insurance, [emphasis added] with higher use of insurance only for individuals who are young, have low risk tolerance, low starting portfolio amounts, or combinations of these characteristics. While the contribution of this work is to assist individual decision making, it will also be informative to policy makers and insurance companies.

Long-Term Care Insurance Decisions


Permalink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2016.0332 

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Another nice review of Luke Howard's book, in Slate

Son-in-law Luke Howard's first book just got a nice review in Slate:

Howard wrote and drew Talk Dirty to Me, and it feels refreshing on several levels. It’s sexy without being vulgar, curious without being exploitative. It gives its heroine agency over her choices while still recognizing the precarious hold she has on her own twentysomething self. And Howard’s cartooning is endlessly inventive—the traditional six-panel page bends, slows down, speeds up, stops on a dime, and then rockets into a new surprising place. Howard has a remarkable knack for bringing abstractions to visceral life on the page, and he makes desire both comic and erotic with a quavering line and a vivid pink-and-blue palette.

More on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1935233378/?tag=slatmaga-20

Ant Farm companies

I used to work for a company that got bought very cheaply by an entepreneur, who proceeded to make a lot of changes in the company.

  • He owned an oursourcing company in India, so much of our operations and programming went over to the Indian company.  This gave the Indian company more scale, and the lower costs meant the company went from money-losing to money-making.
  • During our money-losing phase, layoffs were continuous.  But with all the oursourcing they continued.  We went from about 4400 employees to less than 1500 in five years (approximate numbers based on repeatedly dumping the company phone directory). From four buildings and part of a fifth in Chicago, we are moved down to one after he sold the company.
He already had a fortune, and was in his sixties. We wondered why he kept working so obviously hard. He wasn't at all a hands-off investor, but clearly knew a lot of details down in the organization.

I used to explain it by saying that the company was his ant farm.
How was the company like an ant farm?

He watched us for a bit, but then
  • couldn't resist taking a magnifying glass to some of the ants and burning them (layoffs).
  • when he got bored, it would be like taking a stick and stirring up the ant farm (reorganizing, with again more layoff casualties).
  • eventually got tired of us and got rid of us (sold us off).
So, we're a bit like a toy. Running companies was far more interesting than, say, playing golf. As to why he was so driven to make more money, we might look at this Barney and Clyde cartoon about a man who owns a drug company:

Now, the entepreneur saved the company, which was losing so much money we would probably have disappeared. And despite feeling that every year would be the year I would finally get laid off, my career actually did quite well during his ownership.

It's a fair question to ask what "saved the company" means. Saved for whom? Almost all the employees are different. We're in mostly different physical locations. Our customers could have bought our services for others.  A corporation is really not a person, and has no feelings.

As for the entepreneur, he made enough money to make it back on the Forbes 400 list by selling the outsourcing firm (now with larger scale) and selling us.  

The new owners are bloodless guys from the east coast. Unlike the entepreneur who got involved in as many aspects of the business as he could, they seem to have little interest in what we actually do. I met the entepreneur a number of times in meetings, sometimes one on one. I've only seen the news guys from the back of the auditorium on rare occasions (and that usually by audio or videoconference). 

It's hard for me to believe I feel nostalgic for the crazy, disruptive years of the entepreneur's reign, when he said that in five years the jobs of everyone who wasn't having direct contact with clients would  have their job outsourced.  (I didn't have direct contact.)  But I miss the raw energy, the joy of creation that he embodied.

Basket of deplorables is a deplorable comment


That's the way to follow up that positive convention with a positive campaign!
HRC usually speaks from a script -- did nobody read it and think "basket of deplorables" is going to make a deplorable sound bite? 

Basket of deplorables is a deplorable comment


That's the way to follow up that positive convention with a positive campaign!
HRC usually speaks from a script -- did nobody read it and think "basket of deplorables" is going to make a deplorable sound bite? 

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Nice review of Luke Howard's new book

Nice review of son-in-law Luke Howard;s newest book (Our Mother, reviewed at the end of this short video).

More information about this book, which has been getting good notices, is here:

Not Quite Used to Fame

But Luke and Abby don't have this authorship thing quite down yet. Abby posted this:

So after the con [Comics Convention in Burlington VT, where Luke did a book signing for his previous book, Talk Dirty to Me], Luke and I went to Phoenix books in Burlington to check it out, and we got excited to see his book in the window. When we went inside we looked for his book but it wasn't in the graphic novel section. Luke (rightly) pointed out they must have all the copies at the con, but I thought it might be somewhere else tucked away due to some of the more explicit content. 

While Luke was in the stacks, I decided to ask if they had it, which they said they didn't, they were all at the con, and they seemed embarrassed. I couldn't clarify that it's okay, I'm the author's wife, because Luke was mortified I was even asking the staff.Cut to this morning and Luke is texting one of the staff of Phoenix books who is at the con. 

Luke (to me): "apparently some people stopped by the store last night looking for me to sign a book"
Me: "woah! That's awesome"
Luke: "..."
Luke: "That's us. We did that."
Me: "oh crap. Tell her that was us."
Luke (after typing): "she says 'great, thanks for throwing my staff into a tizzy last night.' Abby... Why... Why did you ask..."
Me: "hah. Hah. ....mistake...."

Doesn't seem like a major sin. As I wrote:
 I don't understand why you fessed up. You actually think those reviews on Yelp and Amazon are all written by satisfied customers, without any of them being from the owner or staff? Even big writers like Stephen King do this. Now, a big writer like Stephen King can't go personally into a bookstore to see if they carry "The Shining", but he has enough money to hire minions. 

There's also this article by Brent Underwood, "Behind the Scam: What Does It Take to Be a ‘Best-Selling Author’? $3 and 5 Minutes." detailing how to game Amazon's system (or, maybe showing how ridiculous the notion of a best-seller on Amazon is).
One of Luke's fellow authors at the Center for Cartoon Studies (a man who's farther along in his career) wrote: "Oh, God, LET THEM THINK IT WAS A CUSTOMER! NEVER ADMIT TO THIS KIND OF THING!"

Monday, August 22, 2016

Protected Bike Lanes: North American Evidence?

This posting is just a place to make my critique publicly available to those locally who've requested it. It probably won't be of general interest.

The start


If you have a chance could you take a look at these two reports and let me know if the statistical methodology looks right. I don’t need a full review or anything like that. I just don’t have any way of knowing if they really know what they are talking about. I believe that it is all the same data that both reports are working from.

When I inquired of ActiveTrans [Chicago-based Active Transportation Alliance, a bicycling / mass transit / pedestrian advocacy group] if there were peer reviewed studies supporting the safety of protected bike lanes, they sent me a link to the People for Bikes web page: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics

When I looked at what they had on the safety of protected bike lanes I found lots of stuff about people “feeling” safer, and puff pieces and memos by advocates, but this single Canadian study seemed to be the only thing that approached rigor, I think.

Full citations for this study:

Harris, M. A., Reynolds, C. C. O., Winters, M., Cripton, P. A., Shen, H., Chipman, M. L., … Teschke, K. (2013). Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case–crossover design. Injury Prevention, 19(5), 303–310. http://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040561

Teschke, K., Harris, M. A., Reynolds, C. C. O., Winters, M., Babul, S., Chipman, M., … Cripton, P. A. (2012). Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study. American Journal of Public Health, 102(12), 2336–2343. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762

My Comments

Here are some comments. Note that while I am a statistician, I work in marketing research, not transportation analysis.

This is really one study, with different parts of the analysis published in AJPH (2012) or BMJ (2013).
Case crossover is a very reasonable study design, although the relative risk factors in this case are less stable than they seem. A logistic regression model (equation 1) seems reasonable.

This is an exploratory study; note in table 4 of AJPH they report 14 significance tests, two ways (unadjusted, and adjusted) at the 5% level.  Five of the 14 confidence intervals show significance (unadjusted).  The results about the same for the adjusted (which is good), and to simplify the discussion I’m just going to consider the unadjusted.

The finding that jumps out at you is that .12  odds ratio (OR) for cycle tracks, and 88% reduction. That seems huge, but we need to look a bit more carefully at this.

1.       First of all, it’s NOT an 88% reduction. It’s an 88% reduction in the OR relative to the reference condition (major street, parked cars, no bike infrastructure).  But that particular condition is a relatively dangerous condition. It’s appropriate to run the study that way (you usually pick the largest condition as the reference condition), but it’s easy to say “88% reduction” while forgetting it’s NOT an 88% reduction overall, just to pretty much the most dangerous condition in their data.
For example, I might be only 10% more polite than the average person, but I’m 88% more polite than Donald Trump.

2.       The confidence intervals for all of infrastructure options overlap. There’s no statistical difference between any of these:
a.       Local street, no bike infrastructure
b.      Local street, designated bike route
c.       Local street, designated bike route with traffic calming
d.      Off street, sidewalk
e.      Off street, multiuse path paved
f.        Off street, multiuse path unpaved
g.       Bike path
h.      Cycle track (i.e. protected bike lane)

This is because the confidence intervals overlap. The tests show that some of these are different than the reference condition (major street, parked cars, no bike infrastructure), and some are not.  It is true that this overlapping intervals method I’m using is only approximate, but the overlap is pretty large.  Interpreting these non-differences as differences is a common statistical reasoning error. See, for example,
Gelman, A., and Stern, H. (2006), “The Difference Between ‘Significant’ and‘Not Significant’ is Not Itself Statistically Significant,” The American Statistician,60, 328–331.

3.       The cycle track difference is pretty frail.  From table 4, there are 2 accidents on cycle tracks, 10 non-accidents on cycle tracks (the control observations). While they fit a logistic model using the overall data, we can best see why this is a frail result by considering this as a binomial, like a coin flip.  Because of the way the case crossover design works, we could expect the same number of accidents and non-accidents on cycle tracks, e.g. a 50-50 split.
a.       With 12 observations and a 50% expectation, we would expect 6 and 6, but just like a coin flip we would probably see a result that varied.  A 2-10 split is (as reported) statistically reliable, but just barely so. 3-9 would not be (one more accident). 2-9 would not be (one fewer control in a cycle track).  So, if we change ONE OBSERVATION in either direction, we have NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT AT ALL for cycle tracks. 
b.      Since the control segment reflects a random choice by the investigators, it’s just luck that they picked 10, rather than 9, control segments on cycle tracks.  (In fact, doing a rough calculation there’s about a 45% chance of picking 9 or fewer controls and getting no significant effect at all.)
c.       In short, there’s a good chance this 88% reduction has some type M error in it (actual magnitude, if we were to do a bunch of similar studies, would be far less than 88%).  Again, I want to emphasize that this does NOT mean the investigators did anything wrong in their reporting or analysis.

4.       There are a couple of other quirks in this study. The accident risk was NOT higher at  intersections (OR = .96, nonsignficantly lower), which I don’t think is a normal finding. I’m used to thinking intersections are much, much more dangerous than non-intersections; I’m  pretty sure that was John Forester’s analysis. But I no longer have a copy of Effective Cycling.
 Note in the BMJ article they analyze intersections and non-intersections separately.

The BMJ article uses the same data, but different controls – in fact, for some cases they use multiple controls for the same case; it’s not clear to me how  they adjusted for this non-independence, and it’s clearly harder for me to do the approximate binomial calculations. (not saying they did anything odd, just that it’s not clear how they handled the cross-case dependence).  In the BMJ article, cycle track is statistically significant for non-intersections, but not for intersections. But there aren’t any cycle track accidents at intersections here, so we’re out of data. 

Overall: it’s a pretty good study, and seems to have paid careful attention to definitions, etc.  But it’s only one study, and the cycle track result seems to depend on the choice of a single, random control case.  Not much of a platform to spend millions of infrastructure money on, if that’s all we’ve got.

And, given the small data size, they obviously couldn’t distinguish the type of barrier used on the cycle track (curb, bollards, or parked cars).

SLIGHT ADDENDUM:  Instead of looking at the binomial as 2-10 versus 6-6 expectation, we could compare the observed proportion of accidents (2 out of 690) with the observed population of controls (10 out of 690). In this case, 2-9 is still significant, 2-8 is not, so this depends on a change in the random picking of 2 controls, not one.  That’s about a 33% chance, not a 46% chance.  But the general notion that this is a fragile result is still true – because it depends on a carefully constructed, but still small, data set.


I think part of the impetus for asking me to look at this was the current controversy over a protected bike lane on Dodge in Evanston, IL  

In this case, a protected bike lane (with parking on the left, curb on the right) has replaced a regular bike lane (with traffic on the left, parking on the right).  I have not been on Dodge since the change, and can't comment on this particular case.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

Randy Cassingham of This is True included this recently:

In recent reading, I’ve stumbled on a paper by Carlo M. Cipolla. An Italian, Cipolla taught economic history at the University of California at Berkeley, and proposed “The [Five] Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”:
  1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
“Our daily life is mostly made of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm,”

Cipolla wrote in the explanation of the 3rd law. “Nobody knows, understands or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does what he does*. In fact there is no explanation — or better, there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.”

The fifth law has a corollary: A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit. (Because a thief at least has motives, even if you don’t agree with them.)

It’s all spelled out in his short paper: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
It's a fun essay, not to be taken too seriously.  But there is a puzzle here with the second law. Cippola writes:

Whenever I analyzed the blue-collar workers I found that the fraction s of them were stupid. As s's value was higher that I expected (First Law), paying my tribute to fashion I thought at first that segregation, poverty, lack of education were to be blamed. But moving up the social ladder I found that the same ration was prevalent among the white collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction s of the professors are stupid. So bewildered was I by the results, that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: s fraction of the Nobel Laureates are stupid. 
What? Some Nobel Laureates are stupid? There could be at least two factors in play here.

The first is that we humans have areas of expertise and areas of non-expertise, which is where we are stupid. I didn't say ignorant, I said stupid.  I am ignorant of the inner workings of a modern car engine. I would be stupid if I tried to make a major repair myself.

But smart people make this mistake all the time. Thinking they are smart, they express opinions in areas far outside their area of study. Academics, who tend to be experts in narrow areas, are particularly prone to this.

The second is Lawrence J. Peter's Peter Principle: people rise to their level of incompetence.

A junior employee does a superb job, so they get promoted to a job they do very well. So they get promoted to a job  they do well. Then they are promoted to a job they are competent at. Finally, based on that long track record, they are promoted to a job that is beyond their capabilities.

So, you start out smart in an organization, but can easily end up incompetent, which is so close to stupid you can't tell much difference.

Thus, with the help of these two phenomena, we can see how there can be stupid people distributed everywhere.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

TV changes

I was intrigued by a bit of clickbait that said "What TV show was #1 the year you were born?"

But it was depressing to see that they only provided information beginning 10 years after I was born. I felt instantly older.

So, I decided to look further.  One of the interesting things I found was how different the top shows are from what's on TV now.

Let's take the oldest ratings I could find, for the 1950-51 season, from http://fiftiesweb.com/tv/tv-ratings/.
We see actual TV plays here at the top -- a genre that's disappeared.  Each week there would be a different play, unconnected to what was shown the week before.  There's a couple of comedy-variety shows (not many of these any more), one western, and Talent Scouts, a distant cousin to "The Voice" and "America's Got Talent".

If we move forward to 1958-59 we see the dominance of the Western:
Except for the Danny Thomas sitcom, all off these top shows are Westerns -- a genre that's pretty much disappeared from prime time TV now.  (Arguably, The Real McCoys was more of a rural sitcom.)

Even those of us who lived through these days tend to remember best what's still shown on TV. Those are mostly sitcoms: I Love Lucy, Mayberry RFD, The Brady Bunch, and so on.

In terms of drama shows from that era, the one that comes first to mind is The Twilight Zone. Twilight Zone is still shown on reruns, and deservedly fondly remembered.  But it never shows up in the ratings of top shows. Despite its prominent effect on popular culture later, it wasn't much respected at the time.

Mike Wallace asked [Rod Serling] a question illustrative of the times: "...[Y]ou're going to be, obviously, working so hard on The Twilight Zone that, in essence, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, you've given up on writing anything important for television, right?"

Thursday, August 04, 2016

Advertising a product you don't want people to buy

A friend sent me this link to a bunch of slick-looking automobile posters. These are from Tascen's Automobile Design Graphics, which has 500 car advertisements across eight decades.

One of the fascinating ads here is the one for the '67 Falcon.
There's a tricky problem advertising a product you really would prefer people don't buy (because you'd rather sell them a more expensive model).
So you have a plain product shot. Relative to the others on this page, it looks dorky. And it's for a guy who can't afford to take the family somewhere nice, or at least cruise around Mulholland Drive -- the best you can do is take them out to pick flowers in a field.

If you were a real man, you'd get a Mustang!  Look around the showroom and spend some bucks, man!

Similarly, compare the wimpy guy in this non-alcoholic beer commercial with the typical macho babe-magnet beer commercial:
Are they trying to sell O'Douls, or are they really trying to un-sell you?

Now just above the Falcon ad you have the 1957 VW bug ad. That's another cheap car, but that's the only car VW had on the US market at this time, so they aren't worried about downselling you. You can feel the excitement in this illustration, although in a real VW beetle you'd mostly feel bumps  The Volkswagen advertising in the 1950s and 1960s was some of the best advertising ever.

Now, the expert commentary on the Falcon ad says this was an ad aimed at women -- e.g. as a car to take the kids to school in, etc. That makes some sense.  But note that the ad still can't bring itself to actually have the woman drive the car. In those days, women only drove cars when the husband wasn't in the car.

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

2016 Election: More times I was wrong

I hesitate to make any comment on the 2016 presidential election, because I have been pretty much wrong so far.

1. Like nearly all pundits, I didn't expect Trump to have much staying power, and I figured he would be a distant, comic memory by summer of 2016. 

And there I am posting in April, that I was wrong.  I find it useful to look back and see where I have been wrong. It's good for the humility, and also helps you listen to others -- they might be right!

But we can go further.
2. I didn't expect Hillary Clinton to run. I figured she would explore the situation, but figure it wasn't worth the hassle.  She'd have to endure a likely FBI inspection of her emails. She'd have to listen to Benghazi endlessly. Republicans have had that store of attack information from 2008 safely stored away, and have added to it.  Her record as secretary of state? Not much to run on. There's still much terrorism, the Arab Spring has only made the unrest in the Arab world worse. It's not that these things are necessarily her fault, but then there's not much to brag about either.  There's the sleaziness of the Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments.  

Who needs to listen to these things when you could have a nice, well-earned retirement? But like Gollum and the ring of power, she just can't give it up.

3. I was wrong when I thought Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush would be the worst matchup for the country because of its dynastic aspects. Now poor Jeb is showing up in a humor sketch at the 2016 Emmy show:

It started with the opening sketch, in which Mr. Kimmel hitched a ride to the ceremony with several celebrities. Among them was Jeb Bush, one of several Republicans defenestrated by Mr. Trump, who said that he was now driving for Uber. “If you run a positive campaign, voters will ultimately make the right choice,” Mr. Bush said, adding, “That was a joke.”

4. I was wrong in thinking dear Bernie Sanders would make a serious run at Hillary. I supported Bernie, but was pleased / surprised that so many others did.

But the fact that Bernie had such a strong campaign does point out that Hillary Clinton isn't much of a campaigner. If she was, she would have wiped out Bernie quickly -- and, in fact, would have been both nominated and elected in 2008.  And she would easily be much ahead of Trump now.  If she loses to Trump, she will clearly be in the running for the worst campaigner ever, although it's not clear exactly how one would measure that.  

But that's not what I came here to say.

So, what do I want to say? Let's start with some bullet points.

1. The RNC (Republican National Convention) was a dark, negative view of America.  The DNC was much more optimistic. You could even view them as polar opposites, as this editorial cartoon does:

2. Over the last decades, nearly all the increase in wealth has gone to the 1%, and a lot of the rest to those just under the 1% as the upper middle class expands

3. As to the rest of Americans, they aren't getting richer. The good union manufacturing jobs are shrinking. The decline of fixed benefit pensions make the future unsure. Their children aren't going to be better off than they are, and many of them are less well off than their parents. 

4. Hillary and the Democrats really don't offer much here. The bipartisan support for trade legislation over the last generation (NAFTA, etc.) is now a whipping boy. Obamacare was a noble effort, but is likely to collapse due to poor design as premiums take large hikes next year.

5. Trump channels these disaffected (largely white male) people. It's not that Trump has helped them in the past (preferring immigrants for his hotels and bullying suppliers) or that he has a plan for the future (other than "I can fix it" bluster). Might as well believe in the tooth fairy.  It's easy to scapegoat Mexicans, Muslims, women, and the whole spectrum of Trump insultees, but that really doesn't get us anywhere.  

6. So, if you are one of those many Americans who feel squeezed, you're being pandered to by a bullying, clueless narcissist on the one hand, and a party whose convention features all those groups you blame on the other. 

    That's a real bleakness of this election for many.

     And it's not going away soon. Anyone who believes either bullying billionaire Trump or Hillary, darling of Wall Street will do anything meaningful about income redistribution is a dreamer.

     One of the things people feel most squeezed about is emergency medical bills and/or large health insurance premiums.  Both these could be solved by a single payer system such as Canada, Britain, France, etc. have (albeit with higher tax rates). We should be talking about how to transition to such a plan -- a very tricky endeavor from where we are now.  But instead we see mostly carping about Obamacare (not trying to fix it) with some alternative proposals,but none that are very specific.

That's pretty predictable given the strong vested interests among drug companies, insurance companies, hospital companies and other corporate entities dependent on the dysfunctional status quo. 

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Social media shaming

As an example of social media shaming, a friend posted this on Facebook this evening:
Now I don't like Trump either, but this bit of syndicated shaming from Occupy Democrats isn't likely to improve the political dialogue at all.

And we all know that Republicans have been preparing piles of dirt for Hillary Clinton for years. 

Shame versus Guilt

A Facebook friend posted a link to David Brooks article on The Shame Culture.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/opinion/the-shame-culture.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0

Brooks is publicizing an argument made by Andy Crouch in Christianity Today. "From online bullying to Twitter takedowns, shame is becoming a dominant force in the West....Typically carried out by anonymous online users with axes to grind and little to lose, doxxing involves making someone’s private information public. That includes home addresses, phone numbers, financial histories, medical records—anything that can be found in the endless databases available to canny hackers.
Doxxing can be a drive-by prank on most anyone who draws attention. But more often its targets are singled out for humiliation....
Brooks summarizes:
Crouch starts with the distinction the anthropologist Ruth Benedict popularized, between a guilt culture and a shame culture. In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad.
Crouch argues that the omnipresence of social media has created a new sort of shame culture.

But is this quite right?

I would put it a little differently than Brooks or Couch.

The classic argument is that we lost the ability to be a shame culture when we moved from rural areas and small towns to big, anonymous cities where either nobody knew us OR if they shamed us we could easily find another group of friends (easier than living in a town of 200, for example).

 I think it's possible that we've lost both guilt and shame, by and large. The move from absolutes to relatives cuts down on guilt, and I explained shame above. In certain aspects we have a greed culture -- what's best for me, which is inherently socially isolating.

Perhaps this is part of the decline in religious observance in the West -- guilt, shame and fear (of Hell) were major factors in sustaining religious observance.

Honor-Shame evolving into Fame-Shame

But now, having thought a bit more about Crouch's argument, I'm more sympathetic to his point -- that in social media communities such as Facebook, we have created an arena in which we can be shamed by information we have shared (or videos that have been taken of us, etc.) Rather than being born into a small-town community, we signed onto it.

But on Facebook, we're being shamed by idiots, rather than the classic small-minded small-town people -- usually good people with a different/narrower point of view.

And instead of the opposite of shame being honor (external) or self-esteem (internal), "large parts of our culture are starting to look something like a postmodern fame-shame culture."

Fame is, of course, much different than honor.

Is shame good for us?

Here Couch and Brooks disagree:

Couch sees an opportunity:
“Honor–shame dynamics are intrinsic to the gospel,” missionary executive Werner Mischke told the ION attendees, “not just a lens we put on to make the gospel understandable to oral cultures. When we read the Bible’s emphasis on honor and shame, we are taking our Western lenses off to see what’s actually there.”
Brooks isn't so happy about the return of shame:
 The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.
I'm more with Brooks on this in my current thinking. I see polarization causing a lot of harm in the U.S. -- where we tend to just listen to people and sources that agree with us, which isolates our thought and gives power to that thought -- we dare not disagree with these people and sources, or we will become shamed.

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Politics as unusual, 2016

For Lent, I decided to give up political posting on Facebook.  No posts, no liking other posts, no comments on the political posts of others, no matter how much they need my advice ;)

This has been a hard vow to keep.

But I keep reminding myself that with all the heat, there's relatively little convincing being done by Facebook posts and tweets.

Do pro-Bernie posts make others "Feel the Bern"? Do those comments wondering how Bernie is going to convince a Republican Congress to do anything have any negative effect on Bernie supporters? [especially those who realize that it was a Republican House that wasted all that time trying to impeach Bill Clinton, and is hardly composed of Hillary fans]

The endless posts attacking and parodying Trump don't seem to be having much impact so far. Seems to be more proof that "There's no such thing as bad publicity." (P.T. Barnum)  I don't understand it. I predicted last summer that Trump would be only a distant memory by the summer of 2016 -- sort of like remembering what year Howard Dean was the temporary frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. You have it here in writing: I WAS WRONG.

The pro-Hillary posts seem determined to emphasize the least persuasive arguments for me (an older white male).

  • Hillary is inevitable so Bernie should just get out. 
  • We wouldn't be asking the same questions of Hillary if she were male.
I don't find either the argument that she is inevitable or the argument that I'm a mysogynist particularly persuasive in getting me to be a Hillary supporter.

I've yet to see a positive post about Cruz in my newsfeed.  I see positive posts from my friends about Bernie, Hillary, Rubio, Trump, Kasich, Carson, and even Lindsay Graham. But I have yet to see a positive post about Cruz, except a couple that basically say "He's odious, but better than Trump." 

But I digress. My month away from the US in January and my current vow of silence make me realize that we're all just posting to ourselves on Facebook, and we're unlikely to be convincing anyone.  

To the extent that we are reading these things, I think I am like many of my friends in finding the political discourse on social media profoundly depressing.  Is this the 2016 candidates, or something about social media, or both? Or maybe we're just here at this point now: 
and with March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, and early November still to go!