Sunday, May 20, 2018

Reversing The Polarity

I will give with one hand, and take away with the other.

Conservatives and Republicans, even those who are not big fans of Trump, are increasingly disquieted by the behavior of the FBI and the Department of Justice WRT the Trump campaign in 2016. There is something frankly amazing about the lack of awareness of how, exactly, one tries to get good information when one is suspicious of a plausible candidate from one of the two major parties.

Yet let it be noted that I understand some of this.  In 2008, conservatives felt they were raising legitimate questions about Obama.  There were red flags. Has no one noticed that this is a Chicago politician? That his father was not a citizen and his mother hated America?  That he spent formative years abroad in in ambiguous situations? That he is frequently deceptive in what he says now, and his autobiographies leave out large portions of his life, as if he is trying to flood the market with distracting information?  That there are almost no friends or witnesses to give evidence of his life?  Has NO ONE looked into this? I think it likely that if the FBI, NSA, CIA or whatever had looked into his life with great suspicion, and not been too careful about the rules - BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE PRESIDENT HERE - conservatives might have shrugged, so long as it wasn't too bad. They were in fact angry that apparently no one was concerned.

That is the state of mind the people at the intelligence agencies had about Trump.  He is something different.  He has done business with shady characters. (New York real estate.  Duh.  Most of those shady characters are our own, not Russians.) He might even mean well but be entirely duped by Putin or whoever. I can see why the thought would rise...but he might become president.  Don't we have a responsibility....

There is a part of this that is quite reasonable, if you put yourself in their shoes.

I sometimes sit at a team meeting discussing dangerous, or possibly dangerous patients. These are sometimes manipulative people who stir up powerful emotions, who are trying to game the system to avoid consequences.  They shift the blame skillfully, they find powerful allies (ACLU, DRC, legislators, judges, even federal agencies), and uncannily identify weaknesses in their providers. They can get our hospital or their outpatient agencies running down a road of being ready to violate their rights, because not only are they potentially dangerous, but they have pissed us off, offended our sense of justice, and look like they are going to get away with it.

But it doesn't last. More than one person on the team will pretty rapidly declare "Look. Let's look at what our job is here. Ignore the part about what a jerk s/he is. What's our responsibility?  What are the rules and what are the guidelines?"  It's not just about will we get caught? or how will this look? It is stepping back and seeing the possible downstream consequences. It matters.  At a basic level, it's just our job to do that.

That is what I fault the intelligence agencies for. First, do your job. I have some understanding of the panic that sets in that gets people saying "But...but...but...TRUMP!" Yet I ultimately don't believe it.  Is the claim that if Ted Cruz were the nominee then Hillary Clinton's emails would have been thoroughly investigated, sure, but only because of this amazing extremity of Trump the FBI was slapdash, not even taking possession of her computer, because THAT was supposed to be too much of an interference with the election? Is there anyone who believes that? Eventually, someone at the table has got to point out that the agency is undertaking to break many rules to investigate a duly-nominated candidate of a major party, at the behest of the leader of the other party.

Apparently, the bias was so entire that no one at the table said that.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Parakeet Bar

Looking for others, I found this Naragansett commercial.

Okay, I'll have another.

Friday, May 18, 2018


The arguments of the Sovereign Citizens about self-definition trumping societal intrusion are remarkably similar to the arguments transgender people make.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

The Szondi Profile

This came up today. Okay, I brought it up. Reposted from 2009.
This projective test was popular in the 1940's and 50's. The theory was that people chose pictures that revealed their inner character. 48 photos, six groups of eight, were shown to subjects, who identified the people they most liked and disliked in each set. But the photos were specifically chosen to display people of strong pathology, say, extremely depressed or manic. The subject was believed to be recognising something about them at an unconscious level, choosing those who were like him in some way.

It's an interesting idea, and many of us who deal with both the mentally ill and still photos of them like to think we can diagnose from appearance. I don't know if that idea has ever been tested, but the specific theories of Lipolt Szondi have pretty much been shot to pieces. Szondi was a Hungarian psychiatrist who taught a form of depth psychology. He believed there were four axes or vectors in the human personality (We always divide the personality into fours: the four humours, fire/water/earth/air signs, blue/red/green/yellow, Myers-Briggs, etc). Szondi's were catatonic/paranoid, depressive/maniac, epileptic/hysterical, and homosexual/sadistic. Only depressive/maniac would now be regarded as generally opposite ends of a continuum, and even that would admit of exceptions, such as agitated depression.

In particular, I'd like to see him try to sell the idea of sadistic as opposite of homosexual these days. I imagine that formulation was based more on his theories of drives than on uh, empirical evidence.

You can look at the cards and decode the drives from the letters above the right corner of each photo (use "k" instead of "c" for catatonic). These letters were not visible to the tested subjects, BTW.

I knew a psychologist in the late 70's who still used the Szondi profile, even though it was not approved. She had been trained in Prague in the late 30's before she and her family were sent to work camps by the Nazis. She was entirely unmoved by what others thought of the test. She liked it and thought it valuable, so she used it. The test is still used in parts of the world - Brazil and Japan especially, for reasons which I cannot intuit.

Here's another oddity associated with the test. Independent Austrian filmmaker Kurt Kren made "48 Kopfe aus dem Szondi Test" in the late 50's - one of those B&W depersonalised artistic frauds we thought were significant then. The entire film is shot of the 48 heads used in the Szondi.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

What's the Equivalent?

I have declared more than a few times that social pressure is a large part of liberalism. I have previously said that the conservative opposite number is not social, but emotional and sentimental appeals.

That sounds nice and tidy, but I have decided I am not satisfied with it.  Not all conservatives are motivated by sentimental cues, or displays of flag, prairie, and salt-of-the-earth families. There may be some social pressure aspect to conservatism that I am not crediting appropriately.  We, most of us, do move in the direction of those around us.  Is there something further that is particular to those on the right?


Vaguely related: There is a long essay  Shame and Society at "Hotel Concierge," the new blogsite of The Last Psychiatrist. I didn't finish it, but B S King of "Graph Paper Diaries" did. It has moments of brilliant insight, and I think it might be more than 50% sensible.  But it does have some head-scratching sections, so I can't entirely endorse it.  He is a liberal who does not really understand conservatives, but is distressed with where some of his own are headed. It is not a superficial treatment of the subject.  Some of you might take to it better than I did, and it is thought-provoking.


Some lists have this rated the greatest music video of all time.  Ranked highly by all, certainly. I had the song on my Johnny Cash CD collection and found it powerful for years but never saw the video until last night.  I never knew there was a video. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who wrote the song, heard Cash's version and said "the song isn't mine anymore."

When a Lady Enters the Room

Waiting for the doctor today, I wondered whether I should rise when she entered the room. I never have before.  Certainly if one is in a johnny it would be awkward, but this wasn't that sort of appointment and I was fully clothed.  I did rise, and shook hands. I had heard of the custom, especially as a young man, and seen other men do so. Older men used to do it automatically. I think I shall do more of it. I can't rise every time a female coworker enters my office, but I could on first introduction.  I think I will apply it equally to men, come to think of it. It just seems polite.

From that starting point, I wondered if it would be taken amiss by some women, or regarded as archaic as kissing the hand. How far back does the custom go? My search skills may be poor, and someone else may discover the answer, but I was only able to uncover the following: The custom of rising as a sign of respect is common to many cultures, and goes back to prehistory in western Europe, at least. In medieval times, a knight took of his hat or other headgear in the presence of a lady. My wife assures me that in Regency romances men rose when ladies entered the room.

That's the story for women of a certain status, but I could not find when the practice expanded to include all women. It sounds very American to not make such distinctions, and I would like to give us credit for it, but I have no evidence.

Here is the fascinating part. On discussion boards, nearly all the younger people, especially the women, regarded it as a sign of disrespect, or an assertion of male dominance. The reasoning was that we know that women were regarded as inferior up until last Tuesday. Therefore, any difference in how women were treated must be an expression of that. It seems an amazing thing.  People rise when a judge enters the courtroom, they stand in the presence of the king, or of any authority or superior.  They rise in respect for the elderly.  Nurses used to be required to rise when a doctor entered the room. (I recall a few nurses who still did that automatically.) Men rise upon introduction to shake hands (as they do with women), some rising in respect even for an obvious inferior, such as a small child, if it has been a while since they have seen each other.

It is clearly an expression of respect, which was extended to women somewhere along the way.  To accord women more respect or special respect does seem a bit artificial and Victorian.  I can see why a modern sensibility might begin to sniff out some condescension in that, making an elaborate show out of something that was a falsehood. Yet it wasn't a falsehood in the 19th C.  The cult of mother-worship ran high in sentiment.  Noble unstained womanhood was protected from the grim and raw vulgarity of the workplace and the outside world, and so became a finer, more elevated, more moral being. You may protest all you like that this was also a prison and a limitation, but there is no getting around the observation that women were regarded as superior in at least some sphere by the society of the time.  What we think about that now would have been of no importance to them.

Is Progress Possible?

I have given away almost everything by CS Lewis at one time or another, and then have had to, in time, buy it again.  A few years ago I resolved to keep my copies henceforth, to bring as complete a collection as possible when they put me into some home in later years.* I am glad I was given a used paperback copy of God In The Dock. It was formative in my early Christianity and so fully embedded in my thinking that I no longer have to read some of them.  I can already recall every sentence. Others I had forgotten, and am grateful to be reminded of them. More than once I have thought this essay really needs to be brought forward again.  The topic is neglected now, and Lewis's take on it is still much the best. 

Today I bring forward "Is Progress Possible?" which Lewis wrote sixty years ago in The Observer (an English weekly newspaper), as part of their series of five writers answering the question.  Lewis followed CP Snow. The essay is disturbingly prescient, as Lewis often is. He would not a tendency in society and project it forward, as in The Abolition of Man. He was originally trained in philosophy, not literature.  The link is to a Libertarian Christian site, to which I am grateful.
Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists’ puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.

*Given new problems in each eye over the last two years, I wonder if reading will ultimately prove impossible, as it did for my uncle who died this morning. Nothing to be gained by worrying about it now.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Another 3-part Harmony

I sang this in a band called Carroll County in 1973.

Standard for CS&N, it's all about the sound. Nice harmony.  They very much liked running harmonies in parallel like this. What little meaning the lyrics have is mostly evocation of a strained love. Plus alliteration. Someone was remembering from high school English class that you can use alliteration in poetry.

Saturday, May 12, 2018


I read years ago that one difference between British and American humor is that the former relies on an entire humorous situation while the latter is always setting up for a final punchline.  I attribute that to Jewish humor, far more common in the US, which is very punchline-driven. What little I know of 19th and early 20thC American humor suggests that is was also situation-driven driven. Black humor tends to the situational direction, perhaps retaining more of the older American style. I found the British-American distinction to be reliably true of older comedians and acts, but the two have grown back together a bit over the years.

Monty Python was legendary, yet many of their bits run out of steam toward the end. The British style may improve on repeated viewings better than the American style.


"Petty is undefeated." Former Cleveland Cavaliers GM David Griffin on why Brad Stevens got no votes for Coach of the Year. He has apparently used that line often in his career.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

The way the colors landed plays out well for conservatives, who get the red pill, representing reality. I don't know if that was intended in "The Matrix." I rather doubt it. Rog Phillips wrote a science fiction story in the 1950's in which the reality-representing pill was yellow, though it was ambiguous which environment was the real one. I would protest that I don't want either pill, I want what happens without pills, but it's a literary device, and has more drama.

The men's rights movement also uses the concept in terms of red and blue pills, though I am not familiar with whether they mean that red is reality, or just "our way of looking at things." Obviously, the two will be related. I think they mean that taking the blue pill is a denial of biological reality, and imposing a created power structure by social force.

Side note: I think most people credit that men's rights advocates have some legitimate complaints, but that they include a lot of pretty disturbing people. I could say that at work without getting into any trouble. I couldn't say the same thing about women's rights advocates. There may be a punching-up, punching-down element to that. Not a fully sustainable one, given who gets to be in Congress, run for president, or be a media star, but there's enough everyday reality to keep it afloat.

Back to reality.  Terrible joke, sorry. I made a FB comment a few years ago about my news feed skewing liberal, and a second-cousin replied that "reality skews liberal." I did not confront him with the later news reports that FB was indeed putting its thumb on the scale, but I did feel vindicated. Conservatives and especially libertarians feel the same way about their beliefs, that no pill is necessary. If you just take life as it is, you will gravitate to their POV. That is not only the biological reality that men's rights people assure us is more powerful than acknowledged, but the economic reality that market pressures are what naturally occurs, not an imposed system.  There is an additional element of believing that human beings have long-standing ways of behaving and perceiving, whether that is inherited culture or hard-wired.  Well, we all think that, of course. I think it is likely that we move in the direction of social pressure. (Though for some of us, there is a reflexive attitude against social pressure as well.) In the face of that, one would have to drift blue because of media and entertainment, unless one took precautions against it.  Taking a red pill, for example.

One of my arguments against liberals is that they do have many house-of-cards beliefs, that reality can be remade or reimagined with just a little (government, expensive) effort. The replication crisis in the social sciences is not going to undermine conservative beliefs, after all. Even if undermined by enormous destruction of their evidence, few liberals will change their minds, but that's how we all are. My argument against conservatives is the mirror of that.  Too many believe that there's not really any way to change things, so let's not even try.  I am in agreement with them that reality is not as malleable as the educated folk seem to believe.  However, we are not the same men and women as even our near ancestors. There are continuities in personality and culture, sometimes over enormous periods of time, certainly.  That alone suggests they may not change much, or not reliably. Yet even I find passages from colonial diaries strange, not quite understandable.