loquacious

Book: The Drunkard's Walk: how randomness rules our lives

Leonard Mlodinow
2008
272 pp
Rating: 4 out of 5

Quite a fascinating book, which I am sure I will not do credit to here, at least partially because the discussion of some mathematical concepts got a little beyond me at times. But mostly very readable, I would not want to frighten anyone away from reading the book because of some challenging math/logic problems.

The book's thesis is that humans are not very adept at understanding randomness. We seem to be built to recognize patterns, and so randomness is a little hard for us to recognize when it happens. The author points this out in several ways, but the two that stick with me are:

1. Things that are actually random can sometimes appear to have a pattern. Think about it, if random things happen enough times, at some point they will appear to be happening in a patterned way. It's built into the definition of randomness!  But we are easily (and gladly, it would seem) fooled into thinking there is an actual pattern.
2. We just really want to see patterns where there are none. Mlodinow points out many experiments that have pretty much proven this. We especially want (and try to) see patterns that confirm our existing biases when confronted with absolutely randomized series of events.

The book starts with a rather brilliant examination of why people tend to fixate on what are really pure coincidences as somehow meaningful or part of a pattern, or even worse yet, having some kind of direct causal link when there absolutely is none. I've always thought that of course, in an infinite universe, anything can occur, so of course 'miraculous' seeming coincidences are going to naturally (if you will) occur all the time. I find that most people are not very appreciative when one brings this up. Mlodinow explains that too.... as beings that tend to excel (again, proven in experiments) when we feel more in control of any situation, randomness is seen as tremendously disempowering.... and therefore threatening.

I think this is giving me an idea for a new dot... one that has to do wtih limitations of our own brains/perceptions, and how they interfere with us accurately understanding the world around us.

Fundamentalism Dot [The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism]

Karen Armstrong
2000
370 pp.

I haven't been blogging the books I've been reading lately (wow, for a year and a half!), but this one, The Battle for God, intersects with so many other books I've read, I had to put some notes down on paper screen.

The Battle for God, briefly, is the story of fundamentalist movements of the major monotheisms -- Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Her thesis, which I will not do justice to here, is that fundamentalism arose as a reaction to the Enlightenment. She traces the history since then (as well as events leading up to the Enlightenment) with a special concentration on the emergence of fundamentalism as a political force in the 20th century. Basically, she argues that for the first 1000 years of all these religions, no one would have dreamed to try and take the holy books literally. That ancient people's knew the difference between mythos (metaphor) and logos (reason/science), and that they were comfortable using them side by side. Only as reason came to dominate life in Europe did some religious believers start to confuse mythos and logos. She follows how that has played out over the centuries, eventually getting us to where we are in terms of Christian fundamentalists in the US, religious Zionists in Israel, and the Muslim jihadists seen in some Arab countries.

One of my long-term projects, and a major reason for this blog, is to try and connect the dots out there. There are a lot of complex, interacting forces at play in the world, which makes it very difficult to understand the reasons why things are as they are, and why things play out the way they do. I keep thinking there must be a way to isolate and define a few key drivers. Hence, the dots. I think that fundamentalism, as explained by Armstrong, probably ranks as one of the dots. [Other dots covered so far are Globalization and Framing/Linguistics. A dot that I still need to work on is Masculinity, mainly based on Susan Faludi's brilliant book Stiffed.]

The rise of fundamentalism pretty neatly fits into these other cultural happenings. Fundamentalism and Globalization are deeply intertwined, and by globalization in this case I mean exploration/colonization that started hundreds of years ago. Presumably, fundamentalism wouldn't be the force it is if Europeans hadn't both come to the Americas as well as done the Crusades, as well as economically controlled/colonized the Middle East in the 20th Century. The kind of literalist backlash that is fundamentalism is of course exactly what Lakoff is describing in Don't Think of an Elephant . . . a kind of thinking that some find basically impossible to understand. Armstrong's book goes a long way to explaining the (religiously) conservative mind set: it's a fundamental focus on the past as the best possible time, which therefore needs to be recreated. Liberal thinkers (or Enlightenment-thinkers/believers in science/technology) focus on the best times being ahead in the future. If you are focused on recreating the past, of course more change is bad... especially unknown change.

As Armstrong explains it, fundamentalism is basically a by-product of the speedy progress that started happening with the Enlightenment. It might have been inevitable, but it was definitely hastened (and deepened?) by people feeling very threatened by the new world that was envisioned by the elite few at the time that could see the power of science. Basically, science did a really bad job of bringing people along, and we're still feeling the backlash. [Also explained much more eloquently than I have here.]

Armstrong doesn't write about this, but of course it's pretty much all men both pushing the enlightenment side, as well as leading the reactionary fundamentalist side. I haven't really thought through the why of this -- there could be many causal or non-causal relationships in there -- I'm just saying. There's some kind of drive for power/control that's very male... or maybe as Faludi would put it, there's some male reaction to loss of power/control that's very dangerous for our society.

Anyway, I think the book goes a long ways to explaining why things are as screwed up today as they are. Why there are fundamental splits within societies (ie. 50/50 split elections) as well as between societies (US hegemony vs. Muslim self-rule, for eg). Why people 'vote against their own interests' (they aren't!). How it is that the balance of power can be held by a small, radical few in the world we've built.

Vacation Reading

should really blog longer about these, but here are some I read on my extended leave....

• Whose Body? (Dorothy Sayers): mystery about English upper crust book collector who solves grisly murders. 2 stars.
• The Great Transformation (Karen Armstrong): how all the world’s major religions all started from the same seeds at the same time [same author as A History of God]. 4 stars.
• Neverwhere (Neil Gaiman): sci fi/fantasy about a secret subterranean culture beneath London. 3 stars.
• Parable of the Sower (Octavia Butler): sci fi/speculative fiction about a girl in 2030’s America falling apart at the seems who must escape LA on foot. 3 stars.
• The Four Agreements (Don Miguel Ruiz): ancient Toltec wisdom for everyday modern life. 4 stars.
• Dogsbody (Diana Wynne Jones): children’s fantasy about the spirit of the star Sirius who is cast to earth and must find the object that will prove his innocence. 3 stars.
• Parable of the Talents (Octavia Butler): further adventures in post-crash US, replete with vicious Christians. 4 stars.
• The Dark is Rising (Susan Cooper): children’s fantasy about an epic struggle against evil. 3 stars.
• Greenwitch (Susan Cooper): book three in the same series as above. 4 stars.
• The Painted Alphabet (Diana Darling): strange fiction/fantasy based on an old Balinese tale but set in somewhat modern Bali. 5 stars!
• An Artist of the Floating World (Kazuo Ishiguro): fictional account of post-WWII Japan and an artist who had sided with the Empire. 4 stars.

Book 27: An Army of Davids

An Army of Davids
Glenn Reynolds
2006
289 pp.
Rating: 1 of 5

Mr. Reynolds gets my lowest rating of the year! Why? His optimistic treatise on how technology was going to empower us all and create a better future for everyone just stuck in my craw. I found it fascinating that not one page of his book was devoted to those who lack access to these technologies. Perhaps it's because I've spent the past 4 years of my life trying to level the technology playing field, but I was dumbstruck by his chipper tone and his apparent complete ignorance of exactly how non-pervasive these life changing technologies are -- and how this non-pervasiveness is not equally distributed throughout the population.

However, having to admit that technology is just for the educated and those with disposable income would have negated the main message of his book, so I guess I can understand why he willingly avoids this 'little problem.'

All his ideas and theses spring from a conservative/libertarian view of the world: government bad; individuals good!  The market is of course going to save us, and all corporations are good, except for large media corporations. Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be that as a small time blogger, he's annoyed  that those media giants control more eyeballs than he does? Funny how the market works great in every area except the one he's trying to compete in.

If you are rich white college law professor living in urban America  like Mr. Reynolds, I guess one might be quite delighted by the digital revolution: technology makes it easier for him to express his thoughts, capture his ideas, increases time with his family, increases his knowledge, and makes it easier for him to shop.   It's a technology Nirvana for him, but what about everyone else? Reynolds just assumes that everyone has the skills and access to gadgets that he does (as well as the time to learn and use them) or if they don't it's their own damn fault for not pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps (see Lakoff for more on this basic conservative frame).

The reasons why people do not use technology are myriad and complex, and mainly have nothing to do with their ability or desire to use it. I imagine some of the people I've worked with over the past years reading this book. I think they'd find it insulting, condescending, naive and ridiculous. Reynolds really seems to have no grasp on the lives of ordinary people. 

Book 26: The Road

The Road
Cormac McCarthy
2006
241 pp
Fiction
Rating: 3 of 5

Bleak. This is a very bleak book. With a very black cover. Black and bleak. Let's see, how do we sum this one up without giving much away? Not easy, since not much of anything happens except a father and son, picking their way along a road in a post-apocalyptic America, where basically pretty much everyone died from the bombs, and those that are left have run out of food (all the plants are dead as well) and have taken to eating each other.  Well, I just gave it away. That's the whole story. But an oddly compelling story it is. The characters are boiled down essences of human beings. You read the whole thing wondering what you would be like in that circumstance. Would you have given up? Could you endure the pain and agony? What would you do for someone you loved?

Book 25: The Ethical Brain

The Ethical Brain: the science of our moral dilemmas
Michael S. Gazzaniga
2005
178 pp.
Rating: 4 of 5

A pretty interesting book. Gazzaniga has a go at many of the ethical dilemmas that are being brought forth by brain science. He covers stem cell research, end of life issues (when does life actually begin or end, in strict scientific terms? his answers might surprise); brain enhancement techniques (through drugs, or through genetic manipulation); free will and responsibility (are criminals really to blame if the problem they have is a brain 'disorder'?); and what it means to be 'moral', and is there a universal moral sense shared amongst humanity?

Like Mind Wide Open, The Ethical Brain  goes into interesting but not too technical detail on the structures of the brain, and modern experiments that look at what parts of the brain are involved in doing what kind of chores. Like Mind Wide Open, this book shows that we have different parts of the brain that compete with each other, and also talks about a part of our brain that might act as a sort of organizer of the impulses of the various parts of the brain. This area is what tries to make sense of contradictory messages from different brain centers. If there is no good reason, it makes one up by trying to find any kind of potential reason, and has your vocal chords say something that can't possibly be true. Most famously, this is seen in some stroke/paralysis patients, who when asked why they can't move a paralyzed arm, frequently will say things like "that's not my arm" (even though they can see it is attached to their body), or "I just don't feel like moving it." They really believe these answers -- it's their 'meta brain's'  best guess (but  they respondent has no idea that it is a guessed response).

The book is quite rich with examples and some great moral/ethical dilemma situations, which would probably make for great party games as well.

Book 24: Thinking Points

Thinking Points: communicating our American values and vision
George Lakoff
2006
152 pp.
Rating: 3 of 5

Lakoff and the Rockridge folks follow up to Don't Think of an Elephant (read my post on Elephant here).  To a large degree, it's more of the same -- more on frames and how they impact the way people think and vote; more on the conservative/liberal split on the idealized family (strict father vs. nurturant parents).

One of his points that it was nice to think on more is the idea that there is no 'middle' - that the mythical moderate is just that, a myth. Lakoff thinks that some folks have both frames, so they appear to be in the middle, but in fact, they are not. They just have a combination of views (sometimes seemingly conflicting), and watering down your views to appeal to them will just drive them to other side (who has clearer views on everything already).  I wish there was some way to test this theory.

Aside from a few suggestions about some major issues that could be used against conservatives through winning progressive frames -- clean elections and healthy food are two that seem most appealing, although the food one seems more doable since I'm not sure that the D's really want election reform any more than the R's -- there isn't too much new here. I have to point out that at one point the book refers to gay and lesbian 'sexual preference', which is terminology that everyone stopped using about 10 years ago. Not only does it support the conservative frame, it appears to just be lazy editing, as elsewhere in the book, the correct term 'sexual orientation' is used. Doesn't give one a lot of faith in how carefully these ideas were put together.

I'd buy Elephant, if I were you. You can read the first four chapters of Thinking for free on the Rockridge website, btw.

Book 23: Monster

Monster: the autobiography of an L.A. gang member
Sanyika Shakur (aka Monster Kody Scott)
1993
383 pp.
Rating: 4 of 5

Gentle reader, you probably do not know this, but very few, if any, of the books I describe here have anything to do with my work. I read enough at work to want my recreational reading to be about things that will make me grow in other ways.

Monster crosses that line a bit. At work I'm starting to learn more about the juvenile justice system, and I work with some organizations that try to reduce juvenile violence and/or keep youth from recidivating. However, very little of the professional literature talks about why kids get involved in criminal activities.  I have my guesses, but I'm always worried when people are left to their assumptions and 'common sense' (the earth is flat, etc.).

I'm not sure that Monster answers my question. However, it certainly illuminates the inner workings of gang life and membership. There is a very elaborate hierarchy, and a set of relationships between gang sub-units as well as relationships that tie gangs together in some interesting ways.   The complete and utter failure (and cynical lack of caring) in the police and justice systems were breathtaking. I don't have any reason to doubt Shakur's words here.

Shakur's story is the story of race and and the effects of centuries of oppression. Monster is the chronicle of Shakur's long process of coming to know that. It's a harrowing tale, full of 12 year olds who'll kill you for no reason; Shakur himself lost count of the number of people he killed.  He doesn't blame anyone, really, for what he did. Nor does he apologize really. It leaves the reader in an interesting place.

Right now, somewhere, a 10 or 11 year old is joining a gang. That gang is providing something that child needs, something that he isn't getting elsewhere. What does a 10 year old know? They know what they need.

Book 22: Seeing Red

Seeing Red: a study in consciousness
Nicholas Humphrey
2006
160 pp.
Rating: 1 of 5

  An unfortunately complex and annoying book, trying to get at the difference between seeing, perceiving and experiencing. It has the noble goal of saying something philosophical about the nature of consciousness. Maybe I've been out of grad school too long at this point, but this 160 page book read like 320 pages because you have to read every page twice.

In this day and age, that just shouldn't be necessary. Skip it.

Book 21: A Short History of Nearly Everything

A Short History of Nearly Everything
Bill Bryson
2003
478 pp.
Rating: 5 of 5

I think that Bryson has nailed it on the head here. The natural world around us is basically unknown to us. Those who understand its deep mysteries spend years becoming experts and don't know how to explain it all to anyone. Moreover, I'm not sure that we'd really get it. The universe is a bizarre place that life here on earth hasn't really prepared us to understand -- which is kind of logical, when you think about it. We don't really need to understand the macro world of the universe or the micro world of physics (and biology) to really get by, so why would most of us ever need to really try?

I guess you might reasonably ask at this point, "why read a book about things we can't really understand (or apply to our lives)?"  I don't have good answer to that, other than "why not try?"

Actually, I do think it's incumbent on us to try and understand the world we live in. Understanding the physical world/universe might just help us be better human beings. Plus I think that one of the big problems of the world is a general lack of inquisitiveness... so let's go!

I'm not even going to go much into the content of the book here - let's just say it includes the creation of the universe, how we figured out what our planet is made of, how old the earth is, animal and plant biology, and much much more. The book is a history of scientific thought (mistaken thought, more often than not!), and shows us how little we understand about the world we live in, and how little time we've understood what we now know. [which, given the historical evidence, could largely turn out to be mistaken]

In the end, the book does really make you look upon life - even your own life - as an amazing and precious thing. As Bryson points out, a whole lot of things (accidents mainly) had to happen over 10 billion years or so, in order for me to sit here typing at this moment. Matter in the early universe had to get dispersed in the right way for a big clump of it to form together (the Earth); various species (the majority of known species) had to go extinct while the one branch leading to homo sapiens survived, which then somehow attained consciousness; all of my ancestors had to meet and copulate at the right moment in time; etc. etc.! That's not even counting all the stuff that makes me (cells, etc.) continue along as planned.

It really is crazily improbable that you, gentle reader, or I should exist. While I'm not quite ready to consider God as a plausible explanation for existence (somehow adding an omniscient diety into the mix just seems to add a layer of improbably complexity!),  it is quite humbling to consider the lengths to which nature had to go to create this world, and these sacks of water and protein for us to exist in.