Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Archive for category Culture

Morality Index

Oct 23

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | 2 Comments

Can you measure morality? What standard would you use? Well, my old physics buddy, Carl Drews, has decided that a new born (not to mention two older children) doesn’t keep him busy enough, so he’s trying to measure the aggregate morality of the United States at his new website The Morality Index. Carl decided to use the 10 commandments to be his guide to morality. So far he has determined figures for murder, theft, and adultery, although due to the difficulty in measuring it, he’s using marriage and divorce as proxies. I have to say, using just those three indicies, things are not looking good, as the trend is almost a straight line increase in immorality since 1950.

Good luck, Carl, I can’t wait to see how you measure such things as not coveting and honoring your mother and father.

UPDATE: OK, I was wrong – I misread the graph. The trend has been ever upward since 1950, largely based on increasing lifespan. I’m sorry I got it wrong, Carl, and I’m sorry but I think you need to go back to the drawing board – the commandment is “Don’t Kill”, not “Live Long and Prosper”.

And as Carl notes, while I call him my physics buddy, he defected to electrical engineering during college (as I later defected to aeronautical engineering for grad school).

3rd Wave Feminism

Sep 3

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | No Comments

I’ve mentioned before I’m not a conventional Feminist. Well, according to women studies major and Miss America contestant Nancy Redd, I’m a 3rd wave feminist. Too bad my grandmothers aren’t around to find out. I knew I was at least 2nd generation since my mother, with two boys, made sure her sons never knew there was a distinction between man’s and women’s work (she also breast fed at a time when, in the words of my children’s pediatrician, doing so was a political statement). Anyway, I’m in complete agreement with Ms. Redd when she says “This is what third-wave feminism is all about: Be a career woman, be a stay-at-home mom, be Miss America” — and I’m confident that my daughter will live that future.

The author of the piece, Ms. Nesoff, disagrees: “Redd missed the point. She shed a quarter of the 158 pounds on her 5-foot-5 frame to compete for the crown, conforming, in the process, to current notions of beauty. Perhaps what’s being reclaimed by feminists who embrace beauty pageants and impractical shoes is not feminism itself but femininity. … Perhaps some women want to ignore the inequality that persists in our society by coating it in pink frosting. They can strap on those Jimmy Choos and pretend that there is no glass ceiling or rape or sexual harassment.”

Methinks Ms. Nesoff misses the point. The old style feminists seem to see equality only in terms of making women as manly as possible – thus the gripe about reclaiming feminity and conformity to current notions of beauty. Who wants to exchange the patriarchy for the matriarchy, especially if the matriarchy is trying to out patriarch the patriarchy? If a woman wants to wear impractical shoes to look good, isn’t that her decision? If a woman wants to wear work boots, eschew makeup, forgo current notions of sex appeal, have a career in construction, swill beer, and cuss like a sailor, more power to her – but again, shouldn’t that be her choice? Or she can strap on those Jimmy Choos and deal with glass ceilings, rape, and sexual harassment in her own unique style like the rest of us who aren’t demanding that others conform to our theories but who are trying to make the world a better place through our own actions.

Thanks to Dodd at Ipse Dixit for the link.

Tanya has an opinion, too.

Tags:

Men Vs. Women, Me Vs. Maureen Dowd

Jul 11

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | No Comments

The Man Without Qualities is all over Maureen Dowd’s latest with three, oops four as of now, posts that demonstrate that (once again) she hasn’t a clue about what she’s writing about. I generally can’t be bothered with Ms. Dowd as I’m clearly not her target demographic (something she makes clear in that latest column). I know people who admire her, and rave about her writing style. I looked into the matter and discovered that indeed they were right – her writing is amazing as she is able to write a column that is both the column they print and the perfect parody of the same. “As Dr. Judson told the journalist Ken Ringle, “Her spittle turns his innards to soup, which she slurps up, drinking until she’s sucked him dry.” I’ve heard ex-wives described exactly the same way. 

To give Maureen her due, while she uses the same elements over and over, she does manage to arrange them differently on occasion, unlike Molly Ivins, for instance, who writes the same column over and over. No matter what the facts and circumstances are, Molly always manages to draw the same conclusion: Democrats good, Republicans bad, very very bad. Oh wait, sorry, that’s Maureen too.

I try to never be surprised by the media, but I often fail. Michael Savage was (rightly) fired for telling a caller that he hoped he died because he was “a sodomite”. Maureen Dowd tells her readers I hope men become extinct because, well, they have tiny little Y chromosomes, and … … nothing happened, no response. I suppose it’s because of the sheer scale – Mr Savage’s hate was something you could wrap your hands around because it was so personal; Maureen’s hate is hard to see because it’s so vast – half the human race vast. But this time I’m doubly surprised: A top columnist in the Newspaper of Record keeps writing columns on subjects I’ve already covered, and covered better IMHO, as this reproduction makes clear:

Dear Mr. Know-it-all,

My wife and I have been having an argument that is threatening to end our marriage and we need your help in settling it. She says that men can be replaced by a turkey baster, and I ask her who will fight their wars? Then she just laughs (a distinctly unpleasant laugh). So, who’s right?

Dan Collision, Ottumwa Iowa

While I try not to get involved in domestic disputes, I felt I must help as your remark about the laugh makes me believe she has told this story to her friends and they all agree with her that you are a big goofball. So I will tell you, you’re both wrong. Men can’t be replaced with just a turkey baster; a hot water bottle is also required (in season). I can understand you two overlooking this as we are just now getting cooler weather and all summer long your mere presence in bed has been making her too hot (and not the good kind of hot, either). And the thing that’s actually kept us from being replaced, since turkey basters and hot water bottles are cheap and plentiful, is an automated system to take out the trash. When this system is cheap and plentiful, then mankind will become womankind. For the nostalgic woman, it will store the odor from the trash and then spray this fragrance at random intervals in the house while saying “Ah, that’s better”, “Don’t light a match”, “Like roses”, or “I wouldn’t go in there if I were you”.M

As to your remark about fighting wars, physical combat would be obsolete without any men. Instead, each country would make catty remarks about the other country behind its back, until from embarrassment one country would surrender and the victor would take some of the remarks back (how much would be part of the peace settlement) and the loser would take them all back. So Dan, I hope I’ve done my part for domestic tranquillity.


PS You’ll know women have been replaced when you see chisels and gasoline sold in the cleaning products aisle at K-Mart.

Tags:

The Perception of Racism

Jul 8

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | 2 Comments

Clarence Page wrote about hate crimes in one of his columns a few years ago. Mr. Page was quoting statistics on hate crimes from the FBI that showed that white against black hate crimes were about 3 times more prevalent than black against white. He went on to state that since Blacks make up only about 10 percent of the population, they are being victimized out of proportion to their numbers. He had his statistics wrong, though, because it’s not the number of victims that drive the number of hate crimes, but the number of perpetrators. That is, victims don’t ask to be victimized, but perpetrators force them to be. So you would expect, given equal hate in this country and perfect crime reporting, that the ratio of racist hate crime would equal the percentage of the population, which is more like five times more white on black than black on white hate crimes.

That got me to thinking about perceptions of racism in this country, where blacks and whites consistently disagree about the amount of racism. Blacks consistantly report through surveys etc. that racism is more prevelant and more significant than whites. This led to the following thought experiment: let’s say that there is a certain rate of racism, and let’s say it is constant between the two races. Let’s also assume for the experiment that whites outnumber blacks by a ratio of 5 to 1 (roughly true for the USA), and that whites and blacks have equal power to commit a racist act. What would each group experience with regard to the frequency of racist acts?

On average, blacks would experience 25 times the amount of racist activity directed against them that whites would experience, even though each race would perpetrate the same number of racist acts per person, simply because there are 5 times more whites than blacks (5 times more acts, but only 1/5 the people to experience the acts). In other words, the amount of animosity a minority feels is the square of the ratio of the relative majority to minority populations.

And when it would come time to report the prevalence of racist acts, whites would report only one fifth the number of racist acts that blacks would, simply because whites would spend much more time in white-white interactions where no racists acts would occur. The disparity is caused simply by the relative size of the two populations, and not any bias on either races’ part. Each races’ experience would be different and equally valid from its standpoint. Additionally, if you asked how important race was to your life, whites would tend to say unimportant since, on average, only 1/6 of their interactions would involve race, but blacks would tend to say very important since, on average, 5/6 of their interactions would involve race.

Again, all of this disparity is caused by the disparity in population, and says nothing about the underlying amount of racism or poor racial perception. It’s not that “whites don’t get it” or that “blacks are hypersensitive”, but that each group is reporting accurately on their different, equally valid experiences.

Let’s throw in a look at how general meanness (not race related) can get factored in as well. Let’s assume there are 5 million whites, 1 million blacks, and on average each white and each black commits 5 racists acts a year and 5 mean acts a year. At the end of the year, there are 25 million anti-black racist acts, 5 million anti-white racist acts, and 30 million general mean acts. Therefore, on average, each member of a given race will experience in a year:

White: 1 racist act against, 5 mean acts against.

Black: 25 racist acts against, 5 mean acts against

So what would each races perception of how important general meanness is versus racism? Blacks would of course say racism is more important than meanness, while whites would say just the opposite. The truth? They occur at an identical (at least in this experiment) rate. So who’s right and who’s wrong? Both are right, since they are reporting from their own experience, and from their own experiences, each group is correct. Remember, all of this comes from whites outnumbering blacks, and having racism and meanness exist.

Of course the real world is is different than the purity of such simple statistics and assumptions, but I really do think that it tells us something about the perception of racism being tied to the underlying population sizes. The larger the disparity in populations, the larger in the difference in how each population perceives racism.

Jack or Theresa?

Jul 2

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | 2 Comments

Tom McMahon picks up a question originally posed by Rodney Balko: If we could clone a thousand Jack Welches and/or Mother Theresas, and drop them into Bombay with some start-up money, which of the two options would do more good for more people, a thousand Jack Welches, or a thousand Mother Theresas? I’d say why not both, but that doesn’t respect the spirit of the question. So if I’m forced to chose, I’d have to say Mother Theresa. She’s already proven she could do a lot of good in India. People like Welch are a dime a dozen; Mother Theresas are far more unique.

Since I consider myself a Hayekian (Freiderich, not Salma) when it comes to political/economic systems, I think the system here made Jack Welch, not the other way around. GE was a thriving concern when he arrived, and it’s a thriving concern after he left. There are very few indespensable CEOs (Herb Kelleher and Steve Jobs are the only two who spring to mind) and they are almost always the founders of a company. The problem with India isn’t a lack of entrepeneurs, it’s the quasi-socialist economy. Indians in the US thrive. A thousand Jack Welches would just disappear without a trace. Instead of Jack Welch, you might consider the founder of GE and great inventor, Thomas Edison, but again the problem with India is it’s political/economic system, not a lack of brain power.

So if I had to pick someone who I’d clone and send to a bunch of countries (if I can clone people and provide them startup money, why limit them to Bombay?), it would be Benjamin Franklin, grandfather of the United States. Not only was he a successful business man (he started with nothing, unlike Jack Welch) and inventor, he also was a philanthropist and a political innovator. Franklin would agitate for the needed reforms both through writing (he was a famed satiricist and top author) and political action and be able to take advantage of them, and yet retain a sense of charity and love for his fellow man.

Tags: , , ,

Moral Smugness

Jul 1

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | 1 Comment

One of the classic situations in which almost all ethicists will tell you it’s okay to lie is the following: You’re sheltering a Jewish family in your house in 1944 German occupied Europe when the Gestapo knocks on the door and asks if you’re hiding any Jews. I bring this up because it leads to the point we all tend to be morally smug. If we were polled, most of us would answer that not only is it OK to lie in that circumstance, but had we been in German occupied Europe in 1944, we would have had to lie as we would have had half a dozen Jewish families living in the attic. Sadly, this isn’t, and wasn’t the case. Most people didn’t shelter the Jews – the few exceptions such as Oskar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, and the rescue of Danish Jews by ordinary Danish citizens (It’s a myth that the Danish king put on the Jewish armband but the truth that Denmark was able to save most of its Jews – the majority who were smuggled to Sweden and even the fraction deported to Theresienstadt) are notable by their rarity. We look down on those who failed at such an obvious moral test. And yet we fail to realize that there are times and places where it’s very hard to be virtuous, and other times and places it’s easy. Apparently, it was far easier to thwart the Nazi’s in Denmark than anywhere else in Europe; not necessarily because the individual Danes had more moral courage, but perhaps because of the support found within Danish society and culture.

We look back at slavery as a huge evil and a moral stain on our country — which it was. But we too easily dismiss the difficult decisions men such as Thomas Jefferson had to make and the moral anguish they suffered. We feel superior – we tell ourselves we would have done everything in our power to end such terrible suffering and injustice, unlike so many of the time. And yet we forget that to be opposed to slavery here and now carries no cost, no penalty, and no moral superiority. Sadly, slavery is still an issue in the world, but mostly overlooked in this country, although you can still do something about it. We feel the superiority, yet it we didn’t earn it, but the people who worked against it and finally ended it at such great cost, they earned it. We’ve simply inherited it, along with a host of other moral improvements that allow us to look down at our ancestors.

We feel so much better about ourselves when we consider how much better we would have done in prior moral challanges than those who actually had to face the consequences. It helps us ignore what we are failing to do because of the consequences to ourselves here and now.

Virtual Sexual Inequality?

Jun 25

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | No Comments

A computer game researcher, Jason Rutter, claims that women characters are worth less on eBay than male characters from Everquest, the massive multiplayer online role playing game (MMOPRG). I love the statement about a growing body of literature about women adopting male characters to keep from being hassled. Clearly, I’m in the wrong line of work – I should be trying to persuade Washington University to hire me as the computer gaming chair. Sadly, I missed the boat on this opportunity as I have so many others. As to the sex difference, it could be that because there are more males playing (“vast majority”) than male characters (80 percent), it could be that old fashioned supply and demand thing instead of that old fashioned male chauvinism, although I wouldn’t rule it out based on the age and geekiness of the average EQ player.

Tags: , ,

When Is A Choice Not A Choice?

Jun 18

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture, Inside Blogging | No Comments

One of my gripes about old time feminists is that they talk a lot about choice, but they don’t really mean it. Abortion should be a choice they say, but when it comes right down to it, they pretty much think that abortion is the only right choice for any “unplanned” pregnancy. What a women does with her life should be up to her they say (and I wholeheartedly agree), but they can’t stop criticising women who choose family over career. I’ve noted before that a lot of my female college classmates made that exact choice – leaving very successful careers to stay at home with the kids. Maureen Dowd has gotten around to noticing the same trend and instead of being surprised like moi, she’s pissed. For her its like a multiple choice test – when given a choice, there’s only one right answer.

Tags: ,

David Broder’s Call For Service

May 29

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | No Comments

David Broder is a sober, thoughtful pundit who rarely provkes a gut reaction in me. But his column about national service provoked one in me, and that amazing thing is that I’m still churning away days later when I have a chance to write about it.

I suppose what provoked the response was the root attitude towards people and liberty that incensed me so. National service is such a seductive proposal, and yet one so at odds with the notion of liberty for all that this nation was founded on. And Mr. Broder’s tying it to the military echoes Edward Bellamy’s great socialist novel, Looking Backward. Perhaps it was the way Broder wrapped socialism in the flag that I found so offensive.

David starts simply and appropriately enough, admiring the success and quality of our armed forces on Memorial Day. But that’s not enough. 

“It does not demean or dishonor them to suggest that this holiday is also a time to consider whether the ideal of national service, which they represent, should be extended to a much larger part of our population — especially our young people.”

So now we’re going to take the all volunteer army, an army composed of people who are doing what they want, who are at liberty to fight for their country, and somehow that relates to compulsory service, people forced to unwillingly labor for others’ ends. There are many service groups, here and abroad, that would lovingly support anyone who willingly wants to labor for his fellow man.

“But there is also a real cost to this country for indulging the notion among those who are entering adulthood that they have no obligation to their country. 

…

But even acknowledging all of this, compared with any past generation of Americans and to any similar cohort of young people in the world, most American youths have extraordinary opportunities, because this country has decided rightly that they are the very best investment we can make.

Is it wrong to suggest that those who are the recipients of this national investment might be asked to give something back to their community and their country? I do not think so.”

Ask away David, but do not tell. Is there anything stopping people from volunteering their time, talent, and energies for causes they think are worthwhile? None. So please, ask, exhort, implore, plead, beg, admonish all you want. But there is a big difference between reminded people how nice they have it, how they are but pygmies on the shoulders of giants, and forcing them to do what you think they should do — that big difference is the difference between liberty and tyranny. 

“Through the luck of history and through the decisions of their elders, no young Americans for three decades have been required to give up a period of their lives for military service. That exemption has nothing to do with their merits or their superior qualities. It is purely a matter of timing.”

Um, David, the draft is a rarity, not a constant, and traditionally (in this country, anyway) has only been resorted to in times of war or more recently in times of cold war. And even then it wasn’t universal.

But this is all warm and up throat clearing. 

“Meanwhile, we know that large unmet needs abound in this society. In the past few months I have gone to briefings on reports documenting the looming staffing crises in nursing, in teaching, in a wide variety of social services and in the bureaucracies of state and federal government. In each of these fields, an aging workforce, often underpaid, is being forced to work beyond acceptable limits to meet the demands of this society. “

You’ve got to be kidding me. We need to force young people into involuntary servitude so that we’ll have enough government bureaucrats? Say it ain’t so, Dave. Actually, nobody is forced to work beyond acceptable limits to meet the demands of this society – you can always quit and do something else. But under national service, people will be forced to work, although not for the demands of society, but for the demands of David Broder. Perhaps we should handle this through the market, you know, where you pay people to do what you want. Why do we have to meet this looming shortage the soviet way? I don’t recall it working so well for them.

“Meanwhile, each year at this time, hundreds of thousands of young men and women are graduating from colleges (where the cost of their education has been subsidized, directly or indirectly, by the public) and are being encouraged to pursue their careers, without much regard to their societal obligations. Those careers can be productive and fulfilling and often of great value to the nation. But the good that these young men and women (and their counterparts finishing high school, junior college and trade schools) could do if they all contributed a year of their lives at the outset of their careers is almost incalculable.”

It isn’t seemly for a man of David’s age to drool over young people, but drool he does. Who decides what all these young people are going to do? David Broder? Society at large? Guess what, the market is how society at large determines the worth of people’s contributions (see F.A. Hayek). Forced labor (or national service, same difference) is how a privileged few determine the worth of people’s contributions. OK, can you tell that this is the truly maddening part? If all that matters is the good that youth could do if they contribute a year of their lives (of course, it isn’t a contribution since that implies something voluntary which isn’t what David is talking about), then why stop at one year. Wouldn’t the good be twice as much if they were required to forgo two years. But let’s not think small, let’s go whole hog. Why not just force them to do good until they drop dead while still in the state’s harness? Oh yeah, that’s been tried and didn’t work out so good. 

Why don’t we have all those people collecting social security staff government bureaucracies? Rather than demand that our youth give up a year of their lives for David’s desire to do good, why don’t we simply require that all those people collecting government money work for it? No doubt that would be awful and demeaning and unworkable; requiring college graduates to work for nothing but the honor of being an American would be ennobling and easy to administer.

“Especially at a time when vital home-front tasks are being shortchanged because of tight budgets, the wealth of talent and energy represented by our young people could make a huge difference if applied to the nation’s needs.”

So my choice is to raise taxes or send our children into involuntary servitude? Isn’t there a third way? 

“It would take the spirit of this holiday and give it real substance.”

No, it would pervert the ideals that this country stands for, and defame the memory of those who died so that I and my children could live in freedom and be at liberty to pursue the aims that we think best. That’s the whole crux of the matter – how do you organize your society. Do people create a better society by each individual working to the goals that they think are best; or do we force people to serve others. This country has demonstrated over the years that the first method creates the better society.

Tags: , ,

The Cat Amongst The Pigeons

May 21

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Culture | No Comments

Sweedish golfing bombshell Annika Sorenstam is playing with the big boys at a PGA tournament. This has provoked much grumbling on the PGA circuit; the PGA is considering an explicit ban on women in response. While it’s playing out in the media as a classic knuckle dragging men vs. virtous women morality play, I’m not sure that’s the whole truth. Certainly Ms. Sorenstam has every right to play in a PGA tournament where I hope she (along with every one else) plays her best. And it would be sheer churlishness for anyone to quit the tournament if paired with her as Vijay Singh said he would. But why can’t men play in the LPGA? Where’s the outrage over that? If it’s funny that the men fret they’ll be beaten why a women, why isn’t it funny that the women fret so much they’d be beaten by a man that they banned men?

It comes down to economics, of course. And the only part of Mr. Singh remarks that had any resonance with me was when speaking in opposition to Ms. Sorenstam playing at a PGA tournament was that she was taking a spot from someone in the field. While I don’t agree, I understand: it’s fine and well for someone to measure herself against men, but it’s a business, and you’re taking money away from a union member. It’s not about the gender, it’s about the money. Surely sexism plays a role, but the reason there is a PGA and an LPGA is money. What would happen if the top ten or twenty female golfers joined the PGA? Well, that would knock ten or twenty men out of the game, and smaller pay days for many who remain — while the play might be elevated, more people means more losers and more people chasing endorsements. Would the LPGA survive? Maybe, but the money might well shrink, as it would be the Second Rate Ladies Pro Golfing Association. So I can see a compelling, non-sexist reason why most men in the PGA would want to keep women out: it cuts down on the competition. And that’s the same reason the LPGA bans men.

Tags: , , ,