
Saturday, February 5, 2022
Forever young

Friday, February 4, 2022
Beneficiaries
*********************************
“Scotch. Double. Neat.”
Jim Quick, for twenty years the bartender at O’Donnell’s Irish Pub, wiped his hands on a towel, tossed it on the counter behind the bar, and turned to his newest patron with a smile. “Do you have a favorite, then? Single malt? Blend?”
“It doesn’t matter,” the man said, slumping on the barstool and running his hand through hair still damp from the rain. “Whatever’s handy.”
Jim selected a bottle, and filled a glass with amber liquid. “Here’s a Glenfiddich. Always popular. Cheers, mate.”
The man held up the glass to Jim, and took a sip.
It was a quiet night—the only ones in O’Donnell’s were the regulars. And this guy, who Jim had never seen before. Despite having the downcast look of a dog that had been left alone in the back yard during a thunderstorm, and being just about as wet, there was something curiously compelling about him. Jim leaned on the polished mahogany bar. “You look like you need some cheering up.”
One corner of the man’s mouth twitched. “I suppose.”
“Let me guess. Problem with the ladies?”
“Oh, no. They beat down the door to my bedroom, honestly.”
Jim looked at him, smiling and frowning at the same time. The man in front of him was completely ordinary-looking, and in fact, the most striking thing about him was how nondescript he was. If he’d had to describe this fellow to the police, Jim would have been hard-pressed to name one feature about him that didn’t begin with the word “average.” But even so, there was no doubt in Jim’s mind that the man was speaking the literal truth.
“Lucky you.”
“I suppose,” the man said again.
Jim gave him a crooked grin. “Hey, if you’ve got more than you want, you could send one or two over to my place. It’s been too long since I had a nice tumble.”
The man shrugged. “Okay.”
“Come on, then.” Jim layered on all of the kindly reassurance that he’d learned from twenty years of dealing with despondent drinkers. “Out with it. What’s eating at you?”
The man raised an eyebrow. “Did I tell you that my name is Ted Cruz?”
Jim’s eyes opened wide. “Seriously? As in the weaselly Senator guy?” He shook his head. “That must be a bit of a burden, having a famous name like that.”
The guy slumped down even further. “No, it’s not really.” He stared into the depths of his scotch. “I lied. My real name is Britney Spears.”
Jim stared at him, and then burst into guffaws. “Oh, mate, I’m sorry to have a laugh at your expense, but… oh, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, whatever can your parents have been thinking?” Then he dissolved into helpless laughter again.
The man put both hands over his face, and leaned into them, sitting motionless for nearly a minute.
Jim finally got a hold of himself, and wiped his streaming eyes with the back of his hand, then reached out and thwacked the man on his shoulder. “I’m sorry for laughing, mate. That was unkind of me. Next round is on the house, to make up for my bad manners.”
The man didn’t move.
“Ah…” Jim frowned, and tapped the man’s shoulder. “Are you all right?” There was no response. “I’m heartily sorry for laughing at you, um… Britney.”
The man dropped one hand, and glared at Jim with the one exposed eye. “My name is not Britney Spears. I was lying again.”
Jim shook his head. “You were just having me on?”
“Yes,” the man said, one hand still covering half of his face.
“Well, you’re the finest liar I’ve ever met, and I’ve met a few,” Jim said.
Finally the other hand moved. “No, I’m not. I’m a terrible liar. I just make stupid shit up. It’s not even halfway to believable.”
Jim shrugged. “Suit yourself.”
The man gave a harsh sigh. “Look. I’m going to tell you something, and see if you believe that. Tell you a story. Okay?”
Jim looked down the bar. The other patrons seemed to be in no imminent need of refills, and no one new had come in since the conversation had begun, so he leaned on the bar. “Sounds worth hearing.”
“My uncle Harry died three months ago,” the man began.
“A pity,” Jim said. “My condolences.”
“Thanks. Uncle Harry was a bit of an oddball. He was my mother’s brother, and was filthy rich. He never married, and so when he died we inherited a good bit of his money, his house, and his stuff.”
“Lucky,” Jim said.
“Funny you should put it that way. I’d always been jealous of Uncle Harry, because he had everything. My mom and dad always just barely scraped by, but Uncle Harry made money without even trying. My dad used to say that he could mint gold coins with his fingertips. He always seemed to succeed at whatever he tried, and had a new girlfriend every week—and each one was always prettier than the last. But even so, he never gave us anything while he was alive. Not one cent. I remember at one Christmas dinner, he came over, ate our food and drank our wine, and didn’t give a damn thing to anyone—not a single present to any of us. He even told us that he had no reason to give away what was his, why should anyone expect a handout? And the funny thing is—at the time, we all just sort of swallowed it. ‘Harry’s a rogue,’ my mom said, in this kind of indulgent way. And my dad said, ‘He’s a charmer, that’s for sure.’”
“Bit of an asshole, sounds like.”
“Well, maybe it seems that way now. But no one was saying it then.” The man nodded toward Jim, as if to point out how significant that was. “He almost seemed to make a point of saying outrageous shit, just to see if anyone would challenge him. Nobody ever did.”
“And you inherited his money when he died. So you got the best of him, in the end.”
“Yes and no. Just from his bank balance, my parents will never want for anything again, and that’s a blessing. But the kids… he specifically willed each of us something. He gave my sister a silver ring, and my brother a suave-looking felt hat with a leather hatband. Me… he gave me a necklace.”
“A necklace?” Jim peered at the man’s neck, which was bare. “Not your style, then?”
The man gave a mirthless laugh. “Actually, it was beautiful. A gold Celtic cross on a thin gold chain. When my mom gave it to me, said that Uncle Harry had wanted me in particular to have it, I thought it was pretty cool. But I don’t wear necklaces much, so I just put the box in my pocket and forgot about it.”
Jim smiled. “A nice keepsake of your uncle, still.”
“I got woken up by the telephone the morning after we got the gifts from Uncle Harry’s estate—it was a Saturday, I remember. Seven o’clock. It was my brother, calling me up to tell me he’d won the lottery.”
“Your brother won the lottery?” Jim said, in awe. “That’s stupendous!”
“Yeah,” the man said, without much enthusiasm. “But what I didn’t tell you is that he was on the verge of bankruptcy. He’d gone out the night before with some friends, sort of as a last fling. He was so embarrassed by his financial problems that he hadn’t wanted to ask any of us for help. But he said that evening, he’d put Uncle Harry’s hat on, and suddenly had this feeling like… he couldn’t lose. He bought one lottery ticket—just one—with the last dollar in his wallet. And now he’s a millionaire.”
“That’s quite a story.”
Again there was that momentary twitch in the corner of the man’s mouth. “Yeah. And my sister… I didn’t tell you about her, either. She recently was diagnosed with ALS. You know, Lou Gehrig’s. She had the tremors, weakness, and all… she was pretty despondent about it.”
“Isn’t that…” Jim stopped, bit his lip. “Terminal?”
The man nodded. “Yeah. Two years, they said. Five, tops. Most of it you’re bedridden. One of the most horrible diseases around.” He paused, took another sip of his scotch. “Only, thing is—she went to the doctor two weeks ago, and he said she’s cured. No sign of illness. In fact, they’re looking into whether she was misdiagnosed in the first place, because no one, he said, ever is cured of ALS. If you get it, you die.” The man looked up at Jim, his eyes intense. “She was wearing Uncle Harry’s ring when she went in for the checkup—the one where they told her the disease was gone.”
Jim stared at the man in astonishment. “That’s… that’s fantastic.”
“We were all thrilled about it. First my brother strikes it rich while wearing Uncle Harry’s hat, and then my sister is cured of a fatal disease while wearing his ring.” He looked at Jim, his eyebrows raised.
“So… the necklace?” Jim prompted.
“It went missing.”
“No!” Jim said, aghast.
“When I found out my sister had been cured while wearing his ring, I thought, ‘I wonder if there’s something about Uncle Harry’s stuff that’s making all this happen?’ So, I took the necklace out of the box, and put it on. I slipped it inside my shirt, and wore it all day. I didn’t notice anything different. Then, that evening… I suddenly realized that it was gone. I turned my apartment upside down—I looked inside the sofa, under chairs, everywhere I could think of. It was gone.”
“Well, that’s devastating,” Jim said with feeling.
“Mmm-hmm.” The man didn't sound particularly devastated. “So, anyway, that night, I was in the bathroom, and getting ready for bed, and I took my shirt off. And I saw this.”
The man stood up, and lifted his shirt. In the center of his upper chest was a small mark, shaped like a Celtic cross—a circle with a cross through it.
“Tattoo?”
“Not one I asked for. But it’s the same shape as the design on the necklace pendant. So I called my brother and sister, and we got together the next day for lunch. And guess what I found out?”
“I wouldn’t try,” Jim said.
“Both the hat and the ring had had a Celtic cross design—it was on the hatband, and engraved into the band of the ring. Both the hat and the ring had gone missing, too—the hat the day after my brother won the lottery, and the ring the day after my sister was given a clean bill of health. And then they told me the best part—my brother now has a tiny Celtic cross mark on his temple, right at his hairline—you have to look close to even see it—and my sister has one on her right ring finger.”
“Sweet mother of God,” Jim said, under his breath. “Wealth, health, and…?” He looked at the man, a question in his eyes.
An attractive young woman, a cosmopolitan in one slender hand, came up to the man, and said, “I’m sorry to interrupt, but I couldn’t help but notice…” She laughed nervously, reddened, and set her drink down on the bar. “This is… this really isn’t like me.” She stopped, and looked at him, smiling.
“It’s okay,” he said, as if he already had the script memorized, and was just waiting for her to recite her lines.
“It’s just that… when you had your shirt pulled up, I couldn't help looking at your bare chest, and I thought, Wow, he is so hot! It just… it just came over me so suddenly, and I thought, hey, you only live once, right? So I thought…” She looked down coyly. “Are you doing anything this evening? I thought maybe we could go to my apartment, and you know… get to know each other a little.” She looked up, smiled.
The man looked at Jim. “Wealth, health, and I sure as hell would just like to be believed because I’m actually telling the truth.” He sighed, and glanced over at the woman, who was hanging on his every word, even though there was no way she could possibly have had any idea what he was talking about. “Not to mention women finding me attractive because I actually am. The brother who was poor gets money, the sister who was sick gets well, and you know what that implies about me?” He shook his head. “Oh, well, I guess there’s nothing to be done about it. Uncle Harry did the best he could, all things considered.” He looked up at the woman, managed a smile, and said, “I’m really good in bed.”
She wiggled her eyebrows. “I’m sure you are.”
“My name is Margaret Thatcher.”
She gave a coquettish laugh. “That’s fine with me. Mine’s Terry.”
The man slid a ten dollar bill across the bar, told Jim to keep the change, and Jim watched as the two of them exited into the rainy night. Leo Corcoran, one of the bar’s regulars, came up, pint of Guinness in hand, and said, “It’s a right quiet night, Jimmy boy. Who was that nice-looking young man you were talking to? Dashing sort of fellow, I thought. I’ve not seen him in here before.”
“Interesting gentleman.” Jim picked up a towel and polished a glass with it. “Quite a lady’s man, I fancy. I think he’ll be scoring a nice little home run this evening, with that sweet blonde who left on his arm. But odd thing, you know? Fellow’s name is ‘Margaret Thatcher.’”
“Is that a fact?”
“It is,” Jim said.
“Never know what you’ll hear next, some days. Stretches your capacity for belief, sometimes.”
“That’s God’s honest truth, lad,” Jim said. “God’s honest truth.”

Thursday, February 3, 2022
An anthrope considers the strange case of couth and ruth
What led me to this unfortunate discovery was a friend who had asked me why "ruthless" was a word but there was no word for its opposite condition ("ruthful," presumably?). I didn't know, but it did put me in mind of the following couplet that I learned from my dad when I was a kid:
We rode in my convertible, my girlfriend Ruth and me,So I went to look it up. It turns out that the "ruth" in "ruthless" is a cognate of "to rue," meaning "to afflict with contrition or sorrow." So "ruthless" originally meant "lacking contrition." "Rue" isn't used much in that sense any more -- besides being the name of a bitter herb, you find it in "rueful," which is sort of the aforementioned opposite of "ruthless" but really has a completely different connotation. Also, it's in the construct "to rue the day," as in, "you'll rue the day you ever double-crossed me, you dastardly and uncouth villain!"
I hit a bump doing 95, and I went on, ruthlessly.
Which brings us to "uncouth." There's no such word as "couth," however people joke about it. The current meaning of "uncouth" as "wild-looking, dirty, scary," is because the last part of the word comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *kynths, meaning "known." So "uncouth" really means -- and is a cognate to -- "unknown," not "unkempt" (whose meaning it resembles more closely today). And, by the way, the "kempt" part of "unkempt" comes from Old Norse kembr, meaning "combed." So it turns out that "unkempt" and "disheveled" were cousins a millennium ago, and still are; the "sheveled" part comes from Old French chevel, meaning "hair." Both, essentially, meant "having a bad hair day," a narrower meaning than today, when both of them usually simply mean "untidy, rumpled-looking."
"Disgruntled" is kind of a funny one, because here "dis" is not used in its most common meaning of a negative, but in its far less frequent role of an intensifier -- the only other example I could find was the obscure "disannul" (meaning "to cancel completely"). The "gruntled" part is a cognate of "to grunt" in its old sense of "to complain." So really, it means "feeling like complaining really loudly." But it's a pity that it's not one of the opposite-words, like the previous examples. I think that having "gruntled" mean "cheerful" would be wonderful.
"Nonchalant," and its noun form "nonchalance," are predictably from French, and were only adopted into English in the eighteenth century. The last part of the words comes from chaloir, meaning "to worry, to be concerned with," so "nonchalant" basically means "Don't Worry, Be Happy." (Hey, if I have to have that ridiculous song stuck in my head for the rest of the day, so do you.) Still, you have to wonder why we can't be "chalant." I certainly am, sometimes.
A lot of "mis" words have no opposites. You can be a misanthrope, but not an anthrope; a miscreant but not a creant; you can commit a misdemeanor, but not a demeanor. A mishap occurs when you are unlucky, but only the hapless amongst us would describe winning the lottery as a "hap."
So anyway, you get the picture. As usual, the answer to my friend's question about why such things happen in languages was "damned if I know." I doubt much of this was new to you -- probably most of these examples were both toward and heard-of -- but perhaps you had never really stopped to think about the question before, so I hope this post was called-for, and that you were able to make both heads and tails out of it.

Wednesday, February 2, 2022
The visual time machine
I don't know if you've ever considered what I'm about to describe; I know I had to have it pointed out to me.
Let's say you're walking down a long hallway, where there are other people, doorways, windows, pieces of art on the wall -- lots of stuff to look at. As you walk, you move your head and your eyes to check out the surroundings, and also so you don't run into anyone. Now, let's say that at the same time, you have a miniature videocamera attached to your forehead, so that it's recording the scene using the exact same perspective and movements as you.
Now, consider the difference between what you saw while walking, and what you'd see if you looked at the video of the same walk down the hall.
The recorded video would have incorporated every jolt from your feet striking the ground, every jerky movement of your head. The visual field would bounce all over the place. You know that show, Finding Bigfoot? The one that's been going on for ten years, wherein despite the name, they have found exactly zero Bigfoots? They're always showing video footage taken with hand-held video recorders, as the crew of the show run about in the woods excitedly not finding any Bigfoots, and those videos look like someone strapped the camera to a kangaroo on speed. The movie The Blair Witch Project was filmed to look like it had been taken with a hand-held recorder, and they succeeded -- to the point that some people find it unwatchable, and end up feeling queasy or headachy from the scene being jostled around continuously.
The question is, why don't we see exactly the same thing? Unless we're rattled way harder than usual -- like riding too fast in a car over a rutted and potholed road -- we have no visual sense of the fact that just like the video recorder, the scene we're looking at is jittering around continuously.
One possible explanation that has been given is microsaccades -- continuous minuscule back-and-forth jerks of the eyes that everyone has (but are so fast that you need a slowed-down video recording to see them). It's possible that the brain uses these quick-but-tiny shifts in the visual field to smooth out the input and erase the sense that what you're seeing is bouncing around.
As an aside, there's another curious feature of microsaccades; they can be used to detect when someone's not paying attention. I read about funny bit of research a few years ago, but unfortunately I can't find a link referencing it -- if anyone knows the source, please post a link in the comments. The gist was that they took volunteers and attached head-mounted cameras to them, but the cameras weren't looking at the surroundings -- the lens was pointed backwards at the volunteers' eyes. The instructions were that the volunteers were supposed to chat with the bartender, and not look around at anything or anyone else.
Then, during the middle of the experiment, an attractive person of the volunteer's preferred gender walked in and sat down a few barstools over.
The volunteers all did what they were told -- none of them turned and looked toward the eye candy parked only a few feet away. But their microsaccades reacted big time. The little jitters in the eye suddenly all were aimed in the same direction -- toward the hot-looking person near them. It's like the brain is saying, "No, I can't look, I told the researchers I wouldn't," while the microsaccades are saying "LOOK AT THAT SEXY PERSON! LOOK! I KNOW YOU WANT TO!"
In any case, some research came out last week, by Mauro Manassi (University of Aberdeen) and David Whitney (University of California - Berkeley), that suggests that there's another smoothing effect at work in addition to microsaccades. What the researchers found was that there is a feature of our brain that does the same thing in time that the microsaccades do in space; they blur out little jolts by averaging the input. In this case, your brain coalesces the images we've received during the last fifteen seconds, so any small vibrations get blended into a sense of a smooth, continuous visual field.
What the researchers did was to show volunteers a thirty-second video clip of a face that was slowly morphing in such a way that it appeared to change age. The volunteers were then asked what age the individual was at the end of the clip. Across the board, they underestimated the age of the face. On the other hand, given a still shot of the face as it was at the end resulted in fairly accurate assessment of the person's age. But when watching the video, the answer they gave was consistently the apparent age of the individual not at the end, but the average over the previous fifteen seconds of the video.
The authors write:
In other words, the brain is like a time machine which keeps sending us back in time. It’s like an app that consolidates our visual input every 15 seconds into one impression so that we can handle everyday life. If our brains were always updating in real time, the world would feel like a chaotic place with constant fluctuations in light, shadow and movement. We would feel like we were hallucinating all the time... This idea... of mechanisms within the brain that continuously bias our visual perception towards our past visual experience is known as continuity fields. Our visual system sometimes sacrifices accuracy for the sake of a smooth visual experience of the world around us. This can explain why, for example, when watching a film we don’t notice subtle changes that occur over time, such as the difference between actors and their stunt doubles.
So once again, our sensory-perceptive systems (1) are way more complex than we thought, and (2) are recording the perceptions we have in such a way that they're not necessarily completely accurate, but the most useful. "I saw it with my own eyes!" really doesn't mean very much. As my neuroscience professor told us many years ago, "Your senses don't have to reflect reality; they just have to work well enough that you can find food, avoid being killed, and find a mate."
And if that means losing some visual accuracy in favor of the world not looking like hand-held video footage from Finding Bigfoot, I'm okay with that.

Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Supernothing
The things that keeps astrophysicists up at night are the irritating little questions about the universe that are simple to ask, and wildly difficult to answer.
Of course, they probably like being kept up at night. Part of the job, really.
In any case, one of the most curious is why the universe is almost isotropic, but not quite. "Isotropic" means, basically, "the same everywhere you look." You can pick out any point in the night sky, and the amount of matter and energy within that region should be the same as if you picked out somewhere else. Now, there are local conglomerations of matter -- you're residing on one, and working your way up the size ladder, the Solar System and the Milky Way are both clumps with higher matter density than the surrounding regions -- but on the largest scales, you'd expect things to be evenly spread out.
When I first ran into the idea of the Big Bang as a teenager, this was one of the hardest things for me to grasp. If there really was a giant explosion at the beginning of the universe, why can't we find out where that explosion occurred? You'd expect high matter density in that direction, and low density at the antipodal spot in the sky. In fact, you see no such thing. But far from being an argument against the Big Bang, it's an argument in its favor. I didn't understand why until I took an astronomy class in college, and the professor, Dr. Whitmire, explained it as follows:
Imagine you're on the surface of an enormous balloon, and the surface is covered with dots. You're standing on one of the dots. Then, someone inflates the balloon. What do you see? You see all the other dots moving away from you, and in every direction, there are just about equal numbers of dots. It's isotropic -- similar densities and recession speeds no matter where you look. It doesn't depend on your perspective; you didn't just happen to choose the one dot that was at the center of the expansion. It would look the same if you were standing on any other dot. The reason is that the dots aren't moving through space; the space itself -- the surface of the balloon -- is expanding, carrying the dots with it.
"So there is no center of the universe," Dr. Whitmire said. "Or everywhere is the center. It amounts to the same thing."
In the first milliseconds after the Big Bang, the expansion rate was so fast that it smoothed everything out, spreading matter and energy fairly uniformly (again, allowing for localized clumps to form, but even the clumps would be expected to have a uniform distribution, like chocolate chips in cookie dough). When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, it was powerful evidence for the Big Bang Model, especially when they found that -- like matter -- the CMBR was isotropic: the same no matter where you looked.
Well, almost. One of the annoying little questions I mentioned in the first paragraph is that the CMBR is nearly isotropic -- but there are "cold spots," which have a lower temperature than the surrounding regions. I'm not talking about a big difference, here; the average temperature in interstellar space is 2.7 K (-270.5 C), and the largest of these cold spots -- the Eridanus Supervoid -- is 0.00007 K lower. The difference was small enough that at first it was thought to be a glitch in the equipment or some sort of error in the data, but repeated measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has found that it is, in fact, a real phenomenon.
The "Eridanus Supervoid" is a name for the universe's largest collection of nothing. It's a region on the order of between 500 million and one billion light years in diameter, in which there is so little matter that if the Earth sat in the center of it, you wouldn't be able to see a single star in the night sky. It wouldn't have been until the 1960s that we would have found out about the existence of stars and galaxies, at the point that there were telescopes powerful enough to see something that distant.
This empty spot is a bit of a bother to cosmologists. During the "inflationary period" -- thought to be between 10 ^-36 and 10 ^-33 seconds after the Big Bang -- space was stretching so unimaginably fast that it smoothed out most of the local variability, rather like taking a crumpled-up bedsheet and having four people pull on the corners; most of the wrinkles and folds disappear.
So what caused the Eridanus Supervoid? Are we left with, "Well, it just happened because it happened?"
A new study hasn't exactly answered the question, but has generated another piece of data -- and a partial explanation. A paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society describes research that uses information from WMAP and from the Dark Energy Survey to see what's different about that region of space, and they found something curious. The mysterious and elusive "dark matter" -- a component of the universe that amounts to 27% of its detectable mass, and six times more than all the ordinary matter put together -- has as its sole observable characteristic its gravitational effects on the matter and space around it, and that's measurable even if you can't see it, because it bends the path of light passing through it. (The "gravitational lensing effect.") And the recent study found that the Eridanus Supervoid has way less dark matter than is normal for other regions in the universe. As it expands, it becomes a sink for energy -- a photon crossing it is moving through successively more stretched-out space, and its energy drops, as does its frequency. The photon, therefore, is red-shifted, not because its source is moving away from us, but because it's traveling through expanding space.
As study co-author Juan Garcia-Bellido, of the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Madrid, explained:
Photons or particles of light enter into a void at a time before the void starts deepening, and leave after the void has become deeper. This process means that there is a net energy loss in that journey; that’s called the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. When photons fall into a potential well, they gain energy, and when they come out of a potential well, they lose energy. This is the gravitational redshift effect.
Then once the region became a little less dense than the surrounding areas, every photon that crossed through it dropped its temperature and energy density a little more.
This still doesn't explain where the original anisotropy came from; the current thought is that it was caused by random fluctuations on the quantum level when the universe was still smaller than a grain of sand. At that scale and energy, quantum effects loom large, and any minor unevenness might get "locked in" to the pattern of the universe; after that the process described by Garcia-Bellido takes over and makes it bigger.
And 13.7 billion years later, we have a huge blob of space that is just about completely empty, and ridiculously cold. The Eridanus Supernothing.
So that's our excursion into deep space for the day. And some more data on one of those mysterious questions that have, thus far, defied all attempts to answer them. I'm nowhere near an expert, but I'm still endlessly fascinated with these sorts of things -- even if all we've got at the moment are unsatisfying partial solutions.

Monday, January 31, 2022
A spoon full of embarrassment
Server: What would you like?My friend: I'd like the fried chicken half, please.Server: What side?My friend (uncertainly): Um, I don't know... Left, I guess.Server:My friend:Server: Ma'am, I meant which side order would you like with your dinner.My friend: *resolves never to set foot in that restaurant again*

Saturday, January 29, 2022
Locking the echo chamber
It must be awfully convenient to start out from the baseline assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
This observation comes about because Thursday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and I posted the following on Facebook: "On this Holocaust Remembrance Day, I'm thinking about our cousins, Armand Simon, Céline (Bollack) Simon, and Irène Simon, and Baila Dvora (Bloomgarden) Serejski, Avish Serejski, Tsipe Serejski, and Sholem Serejski, who died at the hands of the Nazis in Auschwitz. May they never be forgotten." I also appended a link to a post I did five years ago about the Simon family, who were part of the French Resistance.
Most of the responses were wonderful, but one person, a cousin of mine, wrote the following:
I could never understand how everyday people went along with packing their possessions up and moving to the ghetto thinking how could it get worse? And yet it became much worse. I see this going on in our country today. When we visited Hawaii last March to see our daughter who was living there, we had to get a specific COVID test to enter the state. And it was negative. But when we got there, it wasn’t from the lab approved by their Governor and we were hauled into an area for “processing”. They called our hotel and we’re going to force us in a 14 day quarantine - they wouldn’t even look at our antigen test results! And we went to a lab at the airport recommended by our airline. Well I refused to pay for a resort and be forced to stay in a hotel room for 14 days, so we told them we would stay at our daughter’s apartment. I wasn’t about to give this state a penny of our money and be under their control. When I said to the lady at the airport Aloha, Welcome to Hawaii - she replied, "We don’t want you here." I felt like we were no longer in the USA. And you should see all the homeless in Hawaii because the Governor there shut down all the businesses - tents everywhere. For a state that relies on tourism as a huge part of their livelihood- this was beyond stupid. Many people in the tourist industry had to move to the mainland and those that couldn’t afford to, now had to live on the streets. And now you can’t go in restaurants or bars unless you have a vaccine passport. I have a bad reaction to vaccines so I’m not about to get that shot and it’s my body - nobody should be forced to have to take an injection - EVER! Our country is FUBAR. Thank God we live in Florida and our Governor is the best combination of intelligence and common sense. To think I have to check which states I can travel to is unconscionable. Our country is on a very bad path as a whole. We can only hope that at some point there will be a mass resistance.
When someone pointed out that it was out of line to compare being mildly inconvenienced on your Hawaii vacation to six million people being systematically killed by the Nazis, she responded:
My point was definitely not a comparison. My point is that we are like the frog and boiling water theory if we don’t pay attention to our gradual loss of freedoms. And that is exactly what is taking [sic] with President Numbnuts in office right now.
And damn straight I am in the right state. I would appreciate if all the people flocking here from Democrat states would stay the hell out unless they have the intelligence to know why they want to be here. Don’t come here and ruin our freedom!
This, of course, isn't the first thing like this she's posted; it's just the first one directed at me. She's had gems like a diatribe starting out "All Democrats are pinheads," implying that one-half of the American public are hopelessly stupid. No need to know anything else about them; Democrat = idiot. Done thinking.
I honestly can't comprehend this level of confident arrogance. One of my (many) besetting sins is that I'm almost never 100% sure of anything; to me, most of the world is made up of gray areas, ambiguity, and extenuating circumstances. But my cousin's attitude goes way beyond being sure of oneself. Confidence and a strong trust in your own beliefs and principles are just fine; in her, it has morphed into a conviction that the people who share her beliefs are the only ones worth listening to.
It's a scary position to be in. I wrote a couple of years ago about how absolutely essential it is to keep in mind that your opinion could be based in error -- and cited some research showing that this willingness to consider our own fallibility is essential in science. (I'd argue that it's essential in damn near everything.)
It reminds me of what Kathryn Schulz said, in her amazing TED Talk "On Being Wrong:"
It's like we want to believe that our minds are these perfectly transparent windows, and we just gaze out of them and describe the world as it unfolds. And we want everybody to gaze out of the exact same window and see the exact same thing... If you want to rediscover wonder, you have to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness -- and look around at each other, and look at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe, and be able to say, "Wow. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong."
I chose not to try to argue with her. Maybe that was the cowardly choice, but my impression is that it would have been entirely futile. Once you've landed in that position -- believing that everyone who disagrees with you is either misinformed, stupid, or lying outright -- you're kind of stuck there. I don't shy away from an argument when there's ground to be gained, or at least when both sides are listening; but this person has so locked herself in an echo chamber that it's pointless even to engage.
If what I really crave is slamming my head into a wall, it'd be easier and quicker just to go find a wall and do it.
In any case, I just decided to disconnect. I'm kind of done posting on social media. I'll still throw links to Skeptophilia on Facebook and Twitter every day, and probably will continue to post the occasional pic of my dogs on Instagram, but other than that, I've kind of had it. I'm just weary unto death of the vitriol -- when you can't post a tribute to relatives who died in the Holocaust without it turning into a Fox News-inspired extremist screed, it's a sign that the platform itself is no longer worth the time and anguish. And I unfriended my cousin (reducing the number of my blood relatives who still want to have anything to do with me to "almost one"), because I know about her that one of her mottos is "Death before backing down." Interacting with someone like that isn't worth the toll it takes on me personally.
What that says about the state of affairs in the United States today is scary, though. The media found out a couple of decades ago that polarization and agitation gets viewers, and has whipped up the partisan rancor to the point that each side thinks the other is actively evil. It's kind of ironic that the whole nasty exchange started because of a post about the Holocaust, though. It reminds me of the trenchant quote -- attributed incorrectly to Werner Herzog, and actually of unknown provenance -- "Dear America, you are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that one-third of your people would happily kill another one-third, while the remaining one-third stands there watching."
*************************************
It's kind of sad that there are so many math-phobes in the world, because at its basis, there is something compelling and fascinating about the world of numbers. Humans have been driven to quantify things for millennia -- probably beginning with the understandable desire to count goods and belongings -- but it very quickly became a source of curiosity to find out why numbers work as they do.
The history of mathematics and its impact on humanity is the subject of the brilliant book The Art of More: How Mathematics Created Civilization by Michael Brooks. In it he looks at how our ancestors' discovery of how to measure and enumerate the world grew into a field of study that unlocked hidden realms of science -- leading Galileo to comment, with some awe, that "Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe." Brooks's deft handling of this difficult and intimidating subject makes it uniquely accessible to the layperson -- so don't let your past experiences in math class dissuade you from reading this wonderful and eye-opening book.
[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]
