Detailed Abstractions

This week @ the Economist’s debate series, they are discussing another interesting topic.  Starring Lera Boroditsky, Assistant Professor of Psychology @ Stanford University arguing pro and Mark Liberman, Distinguished Professor in Linguistics @ University of Pennsylvania, arguing against  (whole thing here):

This house believes that the language we speak shapes how we think.

Still in the first round of of the debate, the pros have a large majority with a full 75% of people agreeing.  This seems self evident and may lead some to question why debate this particular topic with so much agreement.

The answer:  the nuances of the argument itself.   Indeed, while Mr. Lieberman’s job is to argue against the proposition, he starts his opening arguments by agreeing with the basic premise:

Properly interpreted, the proposition is true: the language we speak shapes how we think….

& of course goes directly into his disagreement:

…But the way we think also shapes the language we speak, and the way we live shapes both language and thought. When we encounter or create new ideas, we can usually describe them with new combinations of old words. And if not, we easily adapt or borrow or create the new words or phrases we need. As Edward Sapir once put it, “We may say that a language is so constructed that no matter what any speaker of it may desire to communicate … the language is prepared to do his work.”….

He goes on to define this key difference in interpretation.  While he nominally agrees with the idea, society has been inundated with ideas which simply aren’t true.  With discussions, articles, and not very well done research telling us all about the number of words Eskimos have for snow, whether the Apache had a word for “lie”, and even popular culture through the likes of Ayn Rand.

The crux of the issue however, is that most of these stories are either exaggerations of the truth or just completely false.  Like the Hopi Eskimos, having apparently somewhere between 5 & hundreds of words for snow depending upon the source, might have specific words to identify different types of snow that other cultures don’t have.

But whether they have specific words for such things as hard iced snow, or falling snow, or wet snow, it’s not as if other languages can’t use two word phrases with adjectives and nouns to get to the same point.

Taken this way, it seems as though having more words for snow than other societies doesn’t say those other societies are somehow less equipped to speak about snow, but instead gives us some insight into what is important to the Hopi.

& then there’s the other side as well, presented by Ms. Boroditsky, which starts:

Exciting empirical advances over the past decade have at last provided us with scientific answers about how languages shape thinking. Importantly, while some of the influences of language on thought are remarkable, there is nothing strange about them, they are just a normal function of how human brains work. Let’s start with the basics of perception, mathematics and navigation, and end with the sex of toasters, social judgments and prejudice….

She moves from there to highlight interesting research in terms of various societies, such as those with more words for colors of those who do not have words for left & right.  In the later example, they use more cardinal-type language to define position (such as north-east).   This seems to have given them a better sense of direction than cultures where left & right are used.

Going forward, she also talks about math and number language:

For example, some languages do not have exact number words (there may be words for “few” or “many” but none for “seven” or “sixteen”). Speakers of such languages generally are not able to keep track of exact quantities—they cannot count. Without being able to count, you are unlikely to be doing algebra, solving differential equations…

Which is true in a large sense, but isn’t true in the technical one.  We actually know quite a bit with respects to the evolution in math language and its use and necessity in understanding math functions above simple counting. 

So humans had a need to start counting things.  This need brought us new language to describe various amounts.  Over time, with the advent of more and more commerce, this math language became written, and for the west, this was in Roman Numerals.

Of course anyone with experience with Roman Numerals can attest pretty easily to how difficult it would be to multiply or divide, but even that is just the starting point.

The true power of math and math thinking didn’t really happen until we stumbled upon two mythical number concepts, zero and infinity.

Take that beginning and look forward a few thousand years, and we routinely run math calculations on numbers which have no real language associated with them and numbers which can’t even be understood by humans (IE it’s hard to understand what a billion, billion stars really means, when you have no concept of what a billion of anything looks like, regardless of having a “word” for it ).

Irregardless, she goes forward to talk about more interesting research, including ethnic bias, gender specific nouns, and even points to a study which attempts to show Hebrew-Arabic bilinguals speakers seem to show more favorable attitudes towards Jews when tested in Hebrew than Arabic.  (I find that claim dubious, but without more access to the research, I’ll leave that point for now.)

& while the 75% vote tally on the pro side is unlikely to change drastically, with rebuttals, expert comments, & closing statements still to come; it should be very informative in the end.

Not that I expect much out of press unwilling to engage in critical thought on even the smallest of issues, but this tax debate and almost every press outlet’s discussion of it refuses to acknowledge even basic points in a logical way.

Fact – the real discussion is about extending the tax cuts passed in 2001 & 2003 during the Bush Administration (here); I.E. maintaining the status quo. 

The press?  [all emphasis added]

The AP reports  (here) :

WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax deal struck by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans essentially gives Americans a pay raise.

WSJ (here):

Tax-cut optimism fueled a rise in short-term U.S. Treasury yields…

Kansas City Star (here):

This week’s tax-cut compromise would contribute almost $1 trillion to the nation’s federal budget deficit over the next two years and add sharply to the mounting national debt…

CNN (here):

News of a high-cost tax-cut deal between President Obama and the Republicans…

DesMoines Register (here):

Forget federal deficit: Tax cuts all around!

& these are just five examples in a long line of examples.  I could honestly publish ten more articles today alone about “tax-cut” idiocy, but won’t (maybe two more though).

Truth is, it’s frustrating to see professional writers who are unable to use language in any way consistent with reality, which I don’t think is asking too much.   

I’m certainly not asking for all writers to agree with me (that in itself might freak me out a little).  It’s their right, at the discretion of their employers, to write what they wish.  So they can and should write articles against the compromise or the extension of the tax cut policy in general if that’s what they believe.

I’ll still argue they’re wrong of course due solely to the economics of the situation, but here I’m wondering why we can’t at least expect the press to use terms like “cut” only when a true “cut” actually exists.

The logic is beyond simple – there are no tax cut proposals on the table.  None.   This is not about cutting anyone’s taxes.

Secondarily, this cannot increase the debt at all.  As logic dictates by not giving money to the government which they do not now have nor have they requested, you have in effect done absolutely nothing.

Makes me want to rob them, turn around later and give only half their stuff back…  When they looked frustrated and confused and finally asked with anger, “Where’s the rest?”

I’m simply reply, “It would cost me way too much to give you everything” and calmly walk away.

A DA Post earlier this week (here) wondered if the level of rhetoric during the tax debate, like calling for pitchforked mobs or referring to the GOP as terrorists, seems a little odd now that we have President Obama’s compromise which includes continuing the same tax basis for all.

The President has even argued in that no so distant past (2009) that raising taxes during a recession was bad policy, but apparently he is now against the policy he was sort of for, but then again against….

Speaking on Monday he explains what really, really, might, sort of be true, depending upon whether he’s for it or against it… (whole thing here):

…A few minutes later, Chuck Todd of NBC News asked the president what he had to say to fellow Democrats. That prompted a different analogy – that he was trying to prevent harm to the American people, who were essentially being held hostage in the tax debate.

Quick side bar – I wonder how the voters who just sent this group of legislators to Washington DC feel about being associated with hostage takers?  Meh, probably nothing.  Continuing:

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed,” Mr. Obama said. “Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy.”

With all due respect, I think people should be questioning the wisdom of a sitting President who seems to be so insecure about a recent decision, that he feels the need to use inflamatory rhetoric in order to distance himself.

Though seen through this light, the Democrats’ prior inflamatory statements probably fits into the overall strategy for re-election.  When the President can “trumpet” the tax deal, while other top Democrats talk about the inevitable “screwing” without the deal, then you can see a basic strategy to take credit for the deal most Americans agree with, while simultaneously distancing himself from the deal his backers don’t like (poll info here).

But the best part of the President’s discussion on this issue has to be this:

“I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised,” he said. “Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.”

Which for those playing the home game means, “I know I haven’t done everything I said, but my intentions are in a good place.”

Just like the world’s worst surgeon saying something like, “I know I keep killing patients, but honestly I’m trying desperately not to”, the President is telling us directly, all that matters are his intentions.

If only it were that easy.

MasterCard made a decision to stop taking credit card transactions for donations to Wikileaks and hackers struck back (here):

The website of MasterCard has been hacked and partially paralysed in apparent revenge for the international credit card’s decision to cease taking donations to WikiLeaks….

Though not very inventive nor innovative, they used an old and mostly discarded technique by anyone claiming the title “hacker” known as DOS (Denial of Service) – continued:

…A group of online activists calling themselves Anonymous appear to have orchestrated a DDOS (“distributed denial of service”) attack on the site, bringing its service at www.mastercard.com to a halt for many users….

& if that weren’t enough to prove a bunch of third graders have too much computer time on their hands, they decided to name their playground bullying an “operation”:

…”Operation: Payback” is the latest salvo in the increasingly febrile technological war over WikiLeaks. MasterCard announced on Monday that it would no longer process donations to the whistleblowing site, claiming it was engaged in illegal activity….

Irregardless, the truth is oppression by government or oppression by mob rule, is still oppression and by covertly attacking private business to try and punish specific policies or to try and force a change in policies is little better than taking your money forcefully at gunpoint.

In the current political landscape which is America, with admissions from Senator Dodd for not reading the financial regulation he helped author (here), or Senator Baacus admitting he hadn’t read the health care reform bill he helped craft (here), you would be hard pressed to find a situation in which any politician seemingly cares about going overboard with their rhetoric, but the tax debate seemed to spark rhetoric like that only seen during war time.

Senator Menendez thinks things are sooooo bad, he calls the dealing with the GOP similar to dealing with terrorists (here):

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Friday compared the tax-cut fight with Republicans to negotiating with terrorists…

& not to be outdone, Senator McCaskill thinks pitchforks and violence are needed (continued):

…while Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri suggested Americans might need to “take up pitchforks” if Congress renews tax breaks for the wealthy….

& let’s not forget, Senator Brown… who thinks paying people to stay home is the beginning of job growth (here):

….extending unemployment benefits that creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra ten or twenty or $30,000 in tax cuts that they likely won’t spend,” Brown said….

No worries that Sen. Sherrod et al are wrong on the facts (here):

After the dividend tax rate came down, average dividends among the top 1% surged to $52,814 in 2004 and $83,072 by 2007. Reported dividends of the top 1% in 2007 were twice as large as the previous peak in 2000….

&

Average capital gains among the top 1% rose from $145,433 in 2002 (in 2008 dollars) to a record $427,930 in 2007….

But it does make one wonder where you go from there with their party leader has made a deal with terrorists & those deserving of pitchforks? (here):

Short video of Author Brad Thor discussing Wikileaks most recent release of US classified documents where he asks, “Why are we so reluctant to kill people who need killing?”

An excellent publication overall, the Economist, is using their online debates to ask a question which doesn’t seem to have any useful answer (here):

This house believes that America’s political system is broken.

The current debaters are Matthew Yglesias, defending the motion and Peter Wehner arguing against.   In their second round of the debate, the house is winning with a full 75% agreeing to a broken US political system.

I say it doesn’t seem to have any useful answer as the most likely result from such a poll will be based mainly upon emotions.  Since most lay people don’t typically sit around and try to analyze political systems, the answers from the majority of respondents will have to fall back on other knowledge and human behavior demoonstrates this is likely to be emotions.  IE – if I like what’s going on, no fixing.  If I don’t like what’s going on, it needs fixing.

Reminds me a little of an argument I’ve seen a number of times in the health care debate.  Invariably, someone will put up a poll telling me how many people think their health care costs are too high.  & my retort stays the same, with some variation of Socratic questioning like… ”So?  Did you expect to see a poll that said most Americans want to pay more for anything?”

But I digress, the question has been asked and for Mr. Yglesias, things aren’t going well.  His baisc argument starts something like this:

American political institutions are in a period of crisis. The source of the crisis is relatively simple. Our institutions work only when leaders can reasonably expect broad bipartisan co-operation, but the emergence of more ideologically rigorous parties makes such co-operation extremely unlikely…

Which might make for a good thesis, assuming you can prove that broad bipartisan co-operation is indeed a requirement (hell, prove it’s useful…) as well as proving that more ideologically rigorous parties have come into existence.

His proof?  In the short, yet varied history of the US, he points to the last few election cycles – excluding all information about 9/11 and two wars and the nominal fact that the higher the consequence of any legislation the more ferocious the public debate – he starts his historical research by going all the way back to President Bush the younger; who entered the presidency with:

…an unprecedentedly weak electoral mandate. More voters marked their ballots for Al Gore than marked their ballots for Mr Bush. The median voter in the election supported Mr Gore. But thanks to a combination of litigation, stubbornness and the perversity of the electoral college, Mr Bush succeeded in prevailing and becoming president….

Just a quick note here – is it a little odd to start an arguement to theoretically prove that idealogically rigirous institutions are harming us, by being idealogically rigid… but whatever.

He contends that the result of the weak mandate  and an inability to overcome a Senate fillubuster worked well:

…This led to a fair amount of legislative co-operation in the first Bush term. A series of important changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were approved; an extremely costly new prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare; income taxes were steeply cut—all on an at least somewhat bipartisan basis….

Somewhat bipartisan?  Like idealogically rigirous, “somewhat bipartisan” is undefinable in any concrete terms, but a quick look on just the tax cuts seems to indicate consistent partisan fighting.

What we know?

The cuts themselves were passed in two bills.

1. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 &
   1. Senate vote here, House vote here
2. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
   1. Vote totals here

In 2001: only 1 Republican voted against it in the Senate out of 33 nay votes (the other nays were Democrats), and in the House, all but one of the 154 nay votes were cast by Democrats.  & of course out of the yea votes, while less one sided, still doesn’t appear to be bipartisan.  In the Senate, 12 of the 58 yea votes were cast by Democrats and in the House 28 votes our of 240 yea votes were cast by Republicans.

& 2003?  I guess Mr. Yglesias would also be surprised to learn that in the 2003, the tax debate was even more lopsided (more…)

Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Reason review here), now has his own movie, “Cool It”:

The movie’s specific goal (here):

Amidst the strong and polarized opinions within the global warming debate, Cool It follows Lomborg on his mission to bring the smartest solutions to climate change, environmental pollution, and other major problems in the world.

& Considering the only other major films such as “Inconvenient Truth” are nothing more than fear inducing propaganda, Mr. Lomborg’s rational style and willingness to deal with the reality should make for a good film.

DA Posts on Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus here & here