A surprising social dividend?

According to a recent press release, a new study “has found that the relationship between the economy and crime rates [in the UK] has varied over time. ... The association between unemployment and property crime – which was strong in the 1970s and 1980s – weakened after 1995 and became non-existent by 2005. These findings help to shed light on why the recorded crime rate did not rise following the 2007-2008 financial crisis.” Why has this link melted into air? The researchers have no clue: “We cannot be sure why fluctuations in economic conditions no longer predict the sorts of changes in recorded crime rates they used to. It may be due to differences between the sorts of economic shocks experienced by the UK in the 1970s and 1980s compared to today. It could be because of changes in the labour market dampening the effects of recent economic downturns -- or it could also be due to trends in crime prevention measures, such as growth in use of burglar alarms, CCTV and car immobilisers.” But what, exactly, is special about 1995 and 2005? Many things, but perhaps 1995 was the year when internet use became more widespread, and 2005 – when internet access reached a point of saturation? So, instead of savoring the thrill of petty crime, some potential young delinquents could get the dopamine flowing through “massively multiplayer online games” and other web-mediated excitement? So perhaps the internet doesn't make "us" less social in the non-virtual world, after all...

Who cares?

Anne-Marie Slaughter has another op-ed piece complaining about the “toxic” work culture pervading American companies (“A Toxic Work World,” NYT). In her words, “the people who can compete and succeed in this culture are an ever-narrower slice of American society: largely young people who are healthy, and wealthy enough not to have to care for family members.” So what can be done to change this? “To support care just as we support competition, we will need some combination of the following: high-quality and affordable child care and elder care; paid family and medical leave for women and men; a right to request part-time or flexible work;” etc. But can care really compete against competition? How about reducing a bit the competitive pressures on companies and individuals? Or the relative rewards bestowed upon non-attached hypomanic workaholics? This, apparently, isn’t in the cards. “We” will need to wait for a “culture change: fundamental shifts in the way we think, talk and confer prestige” – so “we would not regard time out for caregiving — for your children, parents, spouse, sibling or any other member of your extended or constructed family — as a black hole on a résumé.” Who knows – with enough proselytizing, the reigning (and aspiring) 1% could even realize that the bottom line and shareholder value are overrated.

Rush to the ethical bottom?

As announced in the title of a NYT article, “VW Is Said to Cheat on Diesel Emissions; U.S. Orders Big Recall.” Of course, some people will continue to believe that capitalism rewards virtue – and the erosion of traditional values is the work of liberal intellectuals and professors, feminists and gay rights activists, etc. That the financial crisis was caused by excessive government regulation – and what not.

#CollateralDamage at Amazon?

The NYT recently ran a feature (“Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace”) describing the meat grinder through which Jeff Bezos puts his foot soldiers and lieutenants. According to the authors, “the company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers to get them to achieve its ever-expanding ambitions.” Meanwhile, a study published in the Lancet medical journal has found that employees working long hours are more likely to suffer a stroke – by 33 percent for those logging in over 55 hours per week. And, as we all know, chronic stress can take a severe toll – unless you are one of those ultraperformers who somehow thrive on stress hormones. So here is a task for Bezos’s beloved big data, alongside the more pragmatic uses to which it is put within his empire: calculate how many employees have faced premature death as a result of the “purposeful Darwinism” pervading the company. On a different note, it’s remarkable how libertarian polemicists can still depict political institutions as the main force placing constraints on individual choice and self-actualization.

The pursuit of increased #dopamine firing rates

In an older NYT article (“Hijacking the Brain Circuits With a Nickel Slot Machine”), science writer Sandra Blakeslee offered a curious response to those old questions regarding the deepest roots of human motivation. She said neuroscientists were uncovering an inconvenient truth: “The number of things people do to increase their dopamine firing rates is unlimited.” Hypothetically, the human “executive brain” should know better. But, across a broad range of behaviors – from the intoxicating pursuit of money, power, and celebrity, to all sorts of physical and virtual overconsumption – it appears not to; and to know no limits to the rationalizations it will spin to justify all sorts of problematic behaviors.

The white male’s burden?

Two days ago, the Pacific Standard web site carried two parallel stories – one on ultramarathoners, the other on mass shooters. Do these seemingly unrelated groups have in common? In a way, they do – both are mostly white males. The piece on ultrarunners mentions one part of this answer (“Who Runs 100 Miles?” – “Ultramarathon running draws a particular type of athlete – one who has plenty of free time, doesn't mind pain, and is also white.”). The other one points to the second part (“What Makes American Men So Dangerous?”). So what drives white American males to such physical and mental extremes? I am reminded of psychologist Fred Previc who has written about the “dopaminergic mind,” hell-bent on stereotypically male patterns of thinking and behavior – I  sispect  he might have part of the answer. It remains a bit unclear, though, how pale skin may be related to such supercharged ways of being-in-the-world...

#Baltimore revisited

The riots in Baltimore reignited an old debate: Are members of a particular racial group disadvantaged because they lack the attitudes needed for economic success? Or because they face discrimination – which is the root cause for any alleged attitudinal problems, too? The same question has been asked about poor whites, but also about women – in general or in particular areas (like business or science). Of course, it could be both – but in some circles “blaming the victim” is seen as adding insult to injury. In this context, why not recall Martin Luther King’s immortal words from over 50 years ago: "There are certain things in our nation and in the world which I am proud to be maladjusted and which I hope all men of good will will be maladjusted until the good societies realize. … I never intend to become adjusted to segregation and discrimination. I never intend to become adjusted to religious bigotry. I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few.” Should anyone be blamed really for failing – or not wanting – to adapt to social and economic conditions that are obviously problematic – even in the absence of any personal bias and discrimination?

#Greece to pay any price, bear any burden?

According to an article in the Pacific Standard, a couple of studies have found a crisis-related uptick in suicides in Greece. The authors of one even allege that “at least 10,000 additional economic suicides between 2008 and 2010” can be attributed to the country’s economic slump. The title of the PS article is meant to be a bit disturbing (“When Economic Instability Turns Deadly”), so it got me thinking. Has anyone tried to assess the human cost of economic transitions – for example, with the methodology used to calculate war casualties? And not just in a country like Greece where the economy has contracted so much. How about, say, Bulgaria – which Bulgarian political commentator and social entrepreneur Ivan Krastev recently included among the East European countries that had possessed the social preconditions for successful reforms (“A Greek Farce, Then Gloom,” NYT, 16 July 2015)? Or Ghana, which (with the help of a major debt write-off) has enjoyed a prolonged period of political stability and entered the club of middle-income countries – to recently face new financial and social woes? This, by the way, would be a fun topic for a quantitative Ph.D. dissertation.

#Anomie? #Ennui? Problem fixed!

So it turns out the Brave New World of tomorrow may need not some mushy tranquilizer or opiate, but good old stimulants (to everyone according to his/her need): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-artificial-willpower1. 

Der #Zeitgeist bites

Yesterday, I was sitting in a small city park. A few benches away, a young woman seemed to be drawing – intensely focused – something in a sketch notebook. Then she lifted the piece of paper to which she had applied her effort to take a closer look at it. It was a large scratch card.

The truth is in…

Two studies of the role of stress hormones in financial trading. One concluded that “the hormones testosterone and cortisol may destabilize financial markets by making traders take more risks, according to a study.” The other – that “high levels of the stress hormone cortisol may contribute to the risk aversion and 'irrational pessimism' found among bankers and fund managers during financial crises.”  What are we to make of such contrasting findings in “behavioral finance”? Perhaps, one way or another, allostatic overload will wreck financial speculation – which has become the lifeblood of Western civilization? Unless most trading is handed over to female recruits – since the second study also confirmed that women make slightly better decisions under conditions of chronic stress? As we were once told as teenage military conscripts, this is a prospect you can see only through a crooked tubino (its Bulgarian version, that is). 

Don’t #deepdream!

So a football/soccer player scores an own goal in the second minute of injury time – quashing dreams of world cup glory. And what is the immediate reaction of most teammates? Half of the team, including the hapless goalie, gather around the crying player, hug and try to comfort her: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/sports/soccer/england-own-goal-at-womens-world-cup-brings-tears-and-sympathy.html. My own reaction on seeing this? If only the world of business, politics, education, science, etc. could be run by losers with such stereotypical female characteristics – regardless of the chromosomes they carry! Of course, I don’t even need to pinch myself...

Germany’s #Grimm predicament?

Marina Warner describes in the NYRB how Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm once stripped German folk tales of much graphic detail (“Rescuing Wonderful Shivery Tales”). Which makes me think – could the insensitivity that the original versions betrayed have anything to do with problematic German theories and behaviors in the past? And help understand current German indifference in the face of so much austerity-related hardship elsewhere – and impending economic collapse in Greece?

The pursuit of #cheppiness

Yet another potentially depressing article on the opioid epidemic in the U.S. – this time in Time Magazine.  It says on average 46 people are dying every day from an overdose, with over 2 million addicted to the deadly painkillers and hundreds of thousands hospitalized for drug abuse every year. Many addicts have taken to shooting as a more efficient drug delivery method, and there have been outbreaks of AIDS and other needle-sharing diseases. So how did it get to this? The article says “it took a tragic combination of good intentions, criminal deception and feckless oversight to turn America’s desire to relieve its pain into such widespread suffering.” The FDA and medical associations trumpeted the benefits of opioid painkillers, and over 20 states passed legislation intended to boost prescriptions. So I was going to say “positivity bias” (a.k.a. "optimism") played a role, too – but perhaps it should not be overestimated. Even after the deadly potential of the drugs had become apparent, the FDA continued to approve ever more potent formulas. And the pharmaceutical companies producing them continued to engage in aggressive marketing practices, occasionally crossing into illegal deception. Their business plans, of course, depended on getting as many customers to use as much of their products as humanly possible. Back in 2012, the libertarian fundamentalists at Reason Online fretted that “the government’s medical meddling hurts pain patients.” Their more recent solution to the “problem”? Let marijuana free!

#Automation is us

Nicholas Carr has another potentially disturbing amendment to “The Glass Cage” on his blog: “Media Takes Command.” Where automation is taking us, indeed! Just two minor qualms: 1) There has never been real “panic about automation” in the US, despite the dire warnings of a few smart “Luddites” – there is too much “positivity bias” around for that. 2) Automation will not just displace some and change the nature of work and the skill sets of others – it is already changing us, and particularly our kids, at the most basic neurosomatic level (this, I thought, was the central idea of the “Google making us stupid” piece – and it must make it easier for humans to be replaced by bots). And it can’t all be for the better – unless my Bulgarian “negativity bias” is way too strong…

#TheEndofSatire, among other things…

“The Rise of Meritocracy” was the title of a British satirical novel that came out in 1958. And you have to pinch yourself occasionally to recall that “The Best and the Brightest” wasn’t coined as a compliment back in 1972. Now it turns out Carry Bradshaw’s exploits started out as satire, too. It’s news to me at least – but it’s hardly a surprise: http://www.greatertalent.com/speaker-news/interview-with-candace-bushnell-in-the-new-york-observer-carrie-ing-the-torch-deep-down-were-all-still-a-little-bit-bradshaw.

"Rachel Dolezal, in Center of Storm, Is Defiant: ‘I Identify as Black’"

The New Yorker saw this coming – or so it seems:

Mechanical man

Saw Ex Machina a few days ago. Was the only viewer in front of a big screen, so at times it felt like I was interviewing Eva (though the flirting part felt less real). It’s a philosophically ambitious movie, meant to provoke some uneasy thoughts. The original Turing test was apparently premised on the idea that a true AI machine should be able to communicate like a real human being. But as humans (or at least a significant subset of humanity) are becoming emotionally number and thus more machine-like, passing the test must seem an increasingly realistic machine task.  Until, indeed, we are “all watched over by machines of loving grace.” And if it is seductive cyborgs vs. psychopathic geeks, it’s really hard not to root for the former. It’s also curious that in the movie the benchmark for AI is defined as the ability to manipulate emotionally another human being. But by this point this should come as little surprise. Even a sitcom like Modern Family that invokes a lost, extended-family-focused mode of living is built around such mutual manipulation. It’s assumed to be, as they say, in the water supply.

To everyone according to her – what?

An article in Pacific Standard, the standard-bearer of pop (social) science, decries “The Hidden Sexism Lurking Behind the Pay Gap.” The teaser beneath clarifies the point: “Let’s stop arguing about how much of the pay gap is due to women’s ‘choices.’ Those choices are often products of sexism hidden from view.” And what is wrong, for that matter, with women – or men, or those adopting any gender-non-conformist self-definitions – not choosing career paths which require mechanical drudgery, manipulating complex algorithms and abstractions, taking incalculable risks with imaginary “investment” vehicles, bossing underlings in the service of ethically dubious ends, etc.? And isn’t the bigger problem hidden in the vastly disparate rewards bestowed by the market upon more and less humane or caring service functions – to the point of sometimes rewarding socially destructive profit maximization? This is, at least, what British liberal theorist Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse was asking 100 years ago – but such utopian musings have now gone the way of openly professed “social Darwinism.” So all that is left is for everyone to get a shot at climbing as high as humanly possible on the existing socioeconomic food-chain – or ladder, if a less laden concept is in order. 

Hearts and minds

Tim Judah has another longer piece on the Ukrainian conflict in the NYRB (“Ukraine: Inside the Deadlock”). A most seasoned war reporter, he this time asks a somewhat naïve question: “It is baffling  … why the Ukrainian government has not sought to win over the easterners by trying to send them its own aid convoys, even if the rebels prevented them from crossing into their territory. To ordinary people in the east it looks like Kiev does not care much about them and considers them the enemy.” Could it be that the volksgeist on both sides includes such communally biased attributions? In any case, this is a predisposition which will forever mystify cosmopolitan intellectuals – who can hardly understand how “weird” their own perspective may seem. Ironically, 100 years ago British observers had no problem understanding such mutual animosities among the squabbling “races” of the Balkans – and Eastern Europe in general.

The illusion of empowerment

The BBC web site carries an article on “placebo buttons” which provide the illusion that those who press them control the operation of doors, traffic lights, thermostats, etc. (“Press Me! The Buttons That Lie to You”). Could planting them seem a bit creepy and manipulative? Perhaps not if, pressing such useless buttons, “people feel happier with the world around them, more in control of events and comforted by the apparent efficacy of their actions.” Some psychologists, however, have pointed to a darker side. The article cites an experiment involving financial traders: some exaggerated how much pressing a button affected the value of financial assets in a game, and they were the ones who tended to take uncalculated risks in real life. This “illusion of control” is heightened under conditions of cut-throat competition, and may operate on a broader scale – a tendency which could perhaps help explain the risky calculations that led to the financial crisis. And how about, one is tempted to ask, invading Iraq and exporting democracy to a historically troubled region? Or launching the Euro and facilitating subprime credit lines to governments? It seems a degree of fatalism may not always be a bad thing – but won’t come easily to the “weirdest people in the world”...

Women’s Liberation 2.0

Anthropology professor Melvin Konner proclaims in The Chronicle Review “The End of Male Supremacy.” The teaser beneath the title clarifies his claim: “Biologically, intellectually, socially, women are the superior gender, and society will increasingly reflect that.”  I am all for that – in fact, it recalls Ashley Montagu’s classic, “The Natural Superiority of Women.” It’s a book which ticks some feminists – but I do occasionally recall it as a most inspiring read. Konner’s treatment of the subject, though, is less sentimental. What does he celebrate exactly? How “millennial male dominance is about to end." And how “glass ceilings are splintering into countless shards of light, and women are climbing male power pyramids in every domain of life” – to a point where entrepreneurship has become “the new women’s movement.” And what, then, happened to the older women’s movement which aimed to dismantle those hated “male power pyramids” and usher in a better world for the meek? It apparently went the away of so many male utopian projects – minus the blood spilled by some male saviors of humanity.

The Atlantic Ocean is half-empty!!

Tonight, I surpassed my own record for uninterrupted TV viewing – 48 minutes (counting from 6:23 p.m. on July 9, 2011, when I joined the “quantified self” revolution). And it was time well spent. In addition to the more political spots I noted earlier, I particularly enjoyed the coverage of the “tide of the century” alongside France’s Atlantic coast. Euronews showed throngs of excited tourists, with some of them sharing on camera their thrill at seeing the sight of a lifetime (technically true, if they would not live past another 18 years or so). And how was the same “story” presented on Bulgaria’s most watched, private TV channel? Apparently, there had been forecasts for 15-meter waves. But the wind had died down, and the mini-tsunami had not materialized – so many tide-watchers had been deeply disappointed.

Soft power outage

Some time ago John Kerry complained RT had acquired too much global influence. For those coming out of hibernation this time of the year, RT is the Russian virtual mammoth Putin has unleashed to spew conspiracy theories and other propaganda in response the Western media’s carefully balanced news coverage. So I decided to check it out. The first segment that came up showed an RT correspondent asking a US state department communicator a simple question: why has the US condemned Russian military exercises within its own territory as destabilizing, while failing to recognize that NATO’s military deployments along Russia’s borders could have the same effect? Instead of giving a simple answer (like: Russia borders Ukraine), the State Department official got into a casuistic argument over what exactly his office had said in response to Russian saber rattling. So how could the free world counter Putin’s propaganda blitz? I was going to say: start by subjecting Sate Department spokespeople to some sort of psychometric test. But this, of course, would be a bit insensitive. So perhaps hire the creative personality that coined the phrase “soft power outage”?