Life by the numbers

In years past, I used to rest assured that I was in good shape, physically, economically and socially. That was before computers gave me the ability to know exactly how I'm doing. It used to be easier to pretend that one was in good health. Nowadays, hundreds of websites let you know about all of the diseases that threaten you, complete with many symptoms that undoubtedly match some of your symptoms. Of course there have always been books and magazines with medical information, but never before could you so easily pinpoint so many symptoms with a free Google search or a quick visit to the symptom-checker at Wrongdiagnosis.com. Economically, we used to put our money into some sort of mutual fund or other investment, and we considered that we were "married" to the account. Computers now give us the ability to track our financial health second by second. Computer-programmed trading also creates crazy jumps and plunges in the market. Ignorance was bliss, and many advisers argue that you should go back to finding a reasonable place to put your money, then ignoring it for long periods of time. Then there is one's social health. It used to be that I could assume that I had an indefinite (large) number of people with whom I had a friendship. That was before Outlook came along to tell me exactly who I did (and did not) know well enough to have a phone number or an email address. In Outlook, you'll get the exact number. Ooops. My social circle is not nearly as big as I'd like to believe. Perhaps you are thinking that Outlook is not the right place to look, and that one ought to look, instead, to Facebook. Thanks to the precision statistics offered by Facebook, we can see that the typical Facebook user has 190 friends. That's it? But what if I get in a bind or I get sick, and I need the help of a "friend." It seems like you could run through 190 "friends" all too quickly. It ultimately presents the same problem as Outlook. It gives you a finite number, and many of them are not really good friends, anyway, as much as I enjoy sharing information with them. A new article in The Atlantic, "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely," by Stephen Marche, should make us even more suspicious of the Facebook phenomenon (the article is in the May 2012 edition, not yet online). We learn (p. 66) that neurotics and lonely individuals spend greater amounts of time on Facebook per day than non-lonely people. He also writes that Facebook has become a place to pretend that one's life is better than it is, and that "believing that others have strong social networks can lead to feelings of depression." He also cites to research showing that "surrogates can never make up completely for the absence of the real thing . . . actual people in the flesh." He concludes that the idea that a website "could deliver a more friendly, inter-connected world is bogus." Further research shows that "the greater the proportion of face-to-face interactions, the less lonely you are . . . [and] The greater the proportion of online interactions, the lonelier you are." He adds that Facebook is not always a bad thing. Like many things, it is a tool that can be used or misused. "It's like a car. you can drive it to pick up your friends. Or you can drive alone." Then again, Facebook puts us into the business of competing with our "friends." "Facebook imprisons us in the business of self-presenting, and this, [according to author Jaron Lanier], is the site's crucial and fatally unacceptable downside." Facebook gratifies "the narcissistic individual's need to engage in self-promoting behavior." So think about this next time you smugly react to your "friend" count. Marche's article is far more nuanced than the above summary, and he would admit that there are many ways to use Facebook. I, for instance, use it to share article, including many articles from this website. I can't help but notice, though, that many people post on Facebook 8 times per day, and they would seem to fall into his description of those having a "narcissistic personality disorder." When you add up your Facebook "friends," then, to see how rich you are with "friends," you might want to set those narcissistic friends aside before counting. So this is life by the numbers, at least if you include this final number, which I take as a challenge, rather than a depressing fact (or use this alternate method of calculating your approximate number of remaining days). In sum, it appears that you will be happier (or at least you will think you are happier) if you get away from the computer and, instead, spend time with a good friend, face-to-face, talking about something other than your health, your investments, and you cyber social circle.

Continue ReadingLife by the numbers

Shame on America for prosecuting Former CIA officer John Kiriakou

Shame on America for prosecuting Former CIA officer John Kiriakou. But America's actions are understandable because Kiriakou embarrasses America by saying true things like this:

  • On Iraq: “The answer to why we’re still in Iraq to this day has almost everything to do with the failures of leadership in 2003 and 2004 and, in some cases, the ascendance of rank deception—deliberate distortions of the facts on the ground.”
  • On FBI waste: After raiding a Taliban “embassy” in Pakistan in early 2002, Kiriakou’s colleague “found something interesting and provocative. A file of telephone bills from the Taliban embassy revealed dozens of calls to the United States . . . For ten days leading up to September 11, 2001, the Taliban made 168 calls to America. Then the calls stopped. The file, amazingly, was in English . . . The calls ended on September 10, 2001, and started up again six days later, on September 16.” Years after sending the phone records to the FBI, Kiriakou followed-up and his FBI contact “replied that it was like a scene out of that Indiana Jones movie. The files were still in those [original] boxes, in an FBI storage facility in Maryland . . . What a waste.”
  • On CIA’s deception about waterboarding: “Now we know that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied. . . it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the arts of deception even among its own.” (Previously, the CIA told Kiriakou that Zubaydah was waterboarded only once and cracked, which fiction Kiriakou repeated in a television interview because his own agency lied to him.)
  • On Torture: “But even if torture works, it cannot be tolerated – not in one case or a thousand or a million. If their efficacy becomes the measure of abhorrent acts, all sorts of unspeakable crimes somehow become acceptable. . . . There are things we should not do, even in the name of national security.”
Jesselyn Radack has the story.

Continue ReadingShame on America for prosecuting Former CIA officer John Kiriakou

The ability to engage in a culture jump started human animals

What gives human animals such an advantage over so many other animals? Culture is the answer according to Susan Okie at TruthDig, commenting on a new book by Mark Pagel:

About 45,000 years ago, members of our species, Homo sapiens, reached Europe after earlier migrations out of Africa via the Middle East. The newcomers’ arrival must have come as a shock to the Neanderthals, a separate human species who had inhabited Europe for some 300,000 years. As Pagel notes, the new arrivals “would have carried a baffling and frightening array of technologies”—not only new kinds of weapons and tools, but also perhaps sewn clothes, musical instruments and carved figures. “It would have been like a scene from a science fiction story of a people confronted by a superior alien race.” The aliens likely didn’t owe their advantages to dramatically superior genes, but to a development, some 40,000 years prior to their arrival in Europe. Something happened that had immensely speeded up their ability to learn, adapt and acquire new strategies for taking over the planet: Homo sapiens had acquired culture.

Continue ReadingThe ability to engage in a culture jump started human animals

Melinda Gates: People should be able to decide if and when to have babies.

Melinda Gates, who identified herself as a practicing Catholic, believes that people should be able to decide if and when to have babies, and that they should be able to use any available birth control device to avoid becoming pregnant. She stresses that birth control should not be controversial, but it often is. She stresses that the focus of her talk is birth control, not abortion, but that the two terms have become confused these days. Gates was speaking on behalf of the Gates Foundation, announcing its new project: to help the 200 million women of the world who want access to birth control but who don't have access. The topic of Gates' talk makes perfect sense to me, but she is up against some deep-seated suspicion that is inter-twined with religion, tradition and path dependence. In America, where 98% of women use birth control, a vocal and powerful minority of people nonetheless believe that all use of birth control is immoral. Many people have become intimidated by the accusations made by religious conservatives and have become reluctant to speak up for the universal right to birth control. Gates points out that the nuns who taught her in high school encouraged her to "question received teachings," and that she is doing exactly that. She urges that sex is sacred, even for most of the people using birth control, and it is a way to take better care for the children one already has by proactively planning one's family. Gates argues that making birth control widely available where it currently isn't (Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Afghanistan) would be transformative. The numbers back her up. She has spoken to women in many parts of the world, and they tell her that they want to actively plan their families. In the biggest province of India, only 29% of women use birth control of any type. In Nigeria, the number is only 10%. In Senagal, 12% and in Chad it is merely 2%. Gates talk is a personal, non-confrontational one. But it is also a talk that presents a big challenge: We need to have this conversation, and that we need to make birth control an essential part of every public health agenda.

Continue ReadingMelinda Gates: People should be able to decide if and when to have babies.

The Fate of the Volker Rule

Bill Moyers opened a recent show featuring Paul Volker with the following:

Well here we go again. The old game of congressional creep. After months of haggling and debate, Congress finally passes reform legislation to fix a serious rupture in the body politic. The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight’s just begun, because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress. They unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back towards business as usual.
Following this introduction, Moyers interviewed Mr. Volker, who discussed the Rule named after him:

Continue ReadingThe Fate of the Volker Rule