Jul 082011
 

This story of a man thrown in jail for attempting to cash a perfectly valid check is quite the illustration of how rotten life can be when you have low status and thus, indirectly, of how vicious the struggle for status will be.

By purchasing a home, Njoku qualified for a first time home buyer rebate on his tax return. The IRS directly deposited his rebate into his Chase Bank account. Chase had previously closed Njoku’s account due to overdrawn checks, so it first deducted $600 to recoup its expenses and then mailed a $8,463.21 check to him.

But when he showed up at Chase Bank to cash his check, the teller refused to believe that it was legitimate. He returned later and found the police waiting for him. He was immediately arrested. Within a day, the bank realized it had made a mistake, but because the local detective was off work, Njoku was unable to get out of jail for three days.

By then, he had been fired from his job and his car had been towed. He ended up having to sell the car because he couldn’t afford to get it out of the pound. And after all this, Chase still hasn’t apologized in the year since these events occured.

Hat-tip to The New Republic‘s Jonathan Chait, who also provides us with this more general account at Cracked.com of some of the lesser-known indignities and miseries of being poor even in a rich society “5 Things Nobody Tells You about Being Poor.”

And Cracked.com even gives us a neat antinatalist list: “6 Terrifying Things They Don’t Tell You about Childbirth.”

 Posted by at 13:48

On falling slightly behind

 Uncategorized  Comments Off on On falling slightly behind
Jul 072011
 

Sorry, all.  There are some excellent comments in recent threads that deserve responses and other improvements needed here, but I am just a small bit behind. Life is being a pain — no surprise, I guess, to readers of this blog.  I shall try to catch up soon.

In the meantime, there’s always Woody Allen’s Speech to the Graduates as a diversion.

More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Indeed.

 Posted by at 19:41
Jul 042011
 

With a hat-tip for the concept to Michael Drake.

We cannot prove that our religion is true, but we nonetheless need it because without it life would not be worth living.  And we know that life is worth living because our religion tell us that it is.

 Posted by at 22:00
Jul 042011
 

Merry Independence Day, fellow United Statesians!  From across the pond, I hear our British cousin Samuel Johnson asking us a question:

‘how is it that we hear the loudest YELPS for liberty among the drivers of negroes?’

Sounds like a fair question to me…

 Posted by at 00:01
Jul 032011
 

I maintain that even if we’re lucky in our social norms and evolved psychologies there will still be a lot of sexual misery.  Why?

Consider these theses:

(1)  Human beings are obsessed with status.  Every known society has a system of differential status for its members, with those who have high status receiving admiration, respect, and deference and and those who rank lower having a pretty miserable time of it.  So people work very hard to maintain and perhaps to advance their statuses.

(2) We ain’t getting rid of status.  Sure, we can get rid of any given system of rankings, but people are really good at inventing new status systems.  (This is a large part of the reason why the aftermaths of revolutions range from disappointing to disastrous.)

(3) Status is determined in large measure by who you successfully affiliate with.  The old saying is that “it’s who you  know, not what you know” that matters in the this world, and it’s largely right.  It matters a great deal who your friends and allies are.  Having more of them raises your status, but perhaps more importantly, having ones who are themselves high in status raises your status (and having ones who are low in status, lowers it).  It’s not an accident that a large part of what we think of as social class isn’t just how much money you make but what clothes you wear, where you went to school, how you spend your leisure time, how you talk, and where you live.  These are indicia of affiliation.

(4) Sex has a high degree of social visibilityDorothy Parker once wrote

As I grow older and older

And totter toward the tomb,

I find that I care less and less

Who goes to bed with whom.

This little quatrain is striking because most of us care rather a lot about who goes to bed with whom, and we can usually form pretty shrewd judgments based on not overtly sexual behavior of other people (nudge nudge wink wink you  know what I mean).  For those who we (or our friends) can’t observe directly, there are always the tabloids and related media, which I understand to be doing a perpetually brisk business.

(5) Having sex with someone is about as successfully affiliated as you can get with then. Probably I don’t need to spell this out.

With an understanding of (1-5) in mind, it becomes pretty easy to see how sex is going to get enmeshed in all sorts of status gamesmanship.  There are many possible games, of which I’ll suggest two while inviting you to think of your own.  Before doing so, however, a caution.  I am not interested in having an episode of Angry Gender Wars breaking out here at Diabasis, so let me be clear that neither of these proposed games is a “male” strategy or a “female” strategy.  They are human strategies played in various ways by all genders and orientations (asexuals possibly excepted).  That said, here they are.

Too Good for You. Obviously it generally will not do to be known to be having sex with someone of lower status, although there are some exceptions to this if you can some keep the sex socially invisible (e.g. through patronizing prostitutes).  In a sexist society it appears to be the case that women suffer more stigma from having sex with the “wrong” partners (or with “too many” partners), but there’s some for men as well.  (Try to say “he married that floozy” in tones that sound anything but disdainful).  Conversely there are status benefits to having socially visible sex with someone of higher status:  you’re a stud, or you’ve made a catch.

Now this gives people a fun incentive to reject sexual offers, playing the game of Too Good for You.  If A rejects the overtures of the at least nominally attractive B, A is signaling that (1) A is confidant enough to suggest that A really is somehow better than B and (2) A might really be better than B, because A can (probably) get the sex A wants without having to get it from B.  All the merrier of knowledge of the rejection travels in common social circles of A and B.

Naturally this game cuts into sex both directly (giving people an incentive to reject otherwise attractive offers).and indirectly, because people will often decline even to advance offers for fear of the humiliation (i.e. status lowering) of receiving rejection.  Big-time awesome Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates once put it memorably (though you should mentally substitute your preferred gender-neutral terms of choice for “man” and “woman” in the passage):

No one likes rejection. No man walks into the bar and says “You know what will be awesome? If I strike out repeatedly tonight.” Very often, men…don’t approach the woman they’re most attracted to–they approach the woman who they think they have the best shot at.

And so people spend lots of resources trying to look more impressive so they don’t get Too Good for You played at them.  But since everyone else is likewise spending resources, it’s a treadmill, or perhaps more accurately an arms race, during which all sorts of people spend time not having sex with each other and working too hard too boot to generate the resources consumed in the status competition that results in not having that much sex.  Ugly.  Very ugly.

But of course the ugliness doesn’t stop there.  Human beings an ingenious in the ways of misery.  Consider another possible game.

Monogamy for Thee.  Having access to rare things is good for status, but ownership, the ability to exclude others, is even better.  You get a lot more social mileage out of having Old Master in your study than just going to see one in a museum, owning beachfront property has far more cachet than just being able to go to the beach, and your securing admission to Princeton is made all the sweeter by knowing that for every applicant who got in, eleven are rejected.

There are many things that make people sexy.  Some appear to be universal or nearly so — youth, health, wit, artistic and athletic ability and so on, while others are more local, having perhaps to do with the prevailing standards of beauty or talent particular to one’s culture.  But all of these things are at least somewhat scarce, and their combination in a single person is scarcer still.  Nature is grossly inegalitarian in how it distributes favors.

Now if people are actually fairly promiscuous, then how socially awesome must you be if you can somehow monopolize the sexual attentions of a very attractive person?  Impose a sacrifice of sexual opportunities on them?  (Or at the very least, push their sexual alternatives into socially invisible spaces — the tryst with the gardener, the dalliance with the call girl.)   At the extreme end of human societies we have potentates (marvelous word!) constructing harems with enforced monogamy for many, but even our humble middle classes have their own version of this, grabbing what little status they can by imposing monogamy on each other.

And if you can’t make it work monogamously?  If you think you have a monogamous relationship but are cheated on, or if you can’t establish any monogamous relationship?  Then you’re an object of pity and contempt, and woe is you.  But woe is you anyway, because given your promiscuous nature, monogamy really ain’t all that much fun for you.

Thus the games spin on, and so does the misery.

Jul 032011
 

Can there be any real doubt that for many, many people life is blighted by thwarted sexual desire? Hands up, all of you, who have ever been dumped, ever been rejected, ever been snubbed.  Hands up, all those of you who have ever felt immured in a sexually moribund monogamous relationship that you nonetheless maintained for social approval, financial convenience, the children, and so on.  Hands up, any of you who on some not-so-enchanted evening, gazed across a crowded room at someone wonderful whom you dared not even approach for fear of the snub that would otherwise be coming.  Finally, hands up those of you who’ve ever spent a morose evening at home, alone, with Internet porn.  Or a romance novel.

Those of you whose hands are still down should leave, because you obviously have much more fun things to be doing right now that reading this post. I fear this not though, and trust that I still have most of my readership.

Multiply your experiences, dear remaining readers, by the several billion post-pubescent people on the planet (discount, if you must, for the few happy souls who left our little exercise supra) and you will find that you can fill oceans of woe.

What is going on here?  It’s pretty obvious that human beings are hypersexual primates.  I am somewhat skeptical about claims that men and women are all that different with respect to frequency and variety of partners, at least once we control for centuries of indoctrination about appropriate gender roles.  Folks I respect on sometimes take a somewhat different view about male-female differences, arguing that differences in male and female desires are sufficiently different that sexual markets don’t really clear and that therefore a great deal of sexual suffering is inevitable.  If so, tant pis pour nous.  But I am going to assume for the sake of argument that women as well as men have a taste for sexual variety and a strong drive for sex.  This is a reasonable position, consistent with a great mass of anthropological evidence summarized (a bit polemically, to be sure) in Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá’s Sex at Dawn:  The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.  It’s also consistent with my own experiences observing men and women.

So we are, almost all of us, a bunch of randy little fuckers.  And guess what?  We live in an amazing technological world where we can make children and other hazards of sex go away.  (Sexually transmitted diseases are indeed something of a problem, but we can blunt these with safer practices and better medicine and hey, didn’t a prominent economist also show us that more sex is safer sex?)  And we live in great, diverse, and often dense environments saturated with near-magical communications technology.  Every one of us has an ability to meet orders of magnitude more people than our band-level forager ancestors.  So what does the world look like?  The giant bonobo orgy that we might think that hypersexual primates would make in such a world?

Apparently not.  We’re stuck with a lot of lonely, thwarted people instead.  Why?

The most common answers to this question appear to blame dysfunctional social norms of some kind or another.  We suffer from patriarchy or prudery or (insert what you hate here) and if we could just get rid of that things would be good.

Now don’t get me wrong here:  gender inequality and prudish sexual norms are problems that are real and which might be getting worse, and it would be splendid to do something about them.   But I am not optimistic that rectifying them will make the sexual world all that much a better place.  Achieve beyond-Scandinavian levels of gender equality in economic and political and household life, make everyone open and unashamed about sex as you like.  Even assume that our evolved psychologies are cooperative and nice.  I am sure that the oceans of sexual woe will remain mostly full.

And why that is will be the subject for the next post in the series.

Jul 022011
 

We had our beloved mutt euthanized this week.  It is something no one wants to do, but he had end-stage renal disease, was clearly suffering, and had little time left.

Because I am a sentimental old fool and did not want to bear the thought of his dying accompanied only by a stranger, I stayed with him through the process, which was indeed swift and, as far as I could tell painless, at least for him.

And because I am a crank I was led to wonder at how is that we are so much more humane toward our dogs than toward ourselves.

 Posted by at 08:04
Jun 282011
 

This made me almost sick with outrage.

As low-income families experience growing economic hardship, many are finding that applying for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments on the basis of mental disability is the only way to survive. It is more generous than welfare, and it virtually ensures that the family will also qualify for Medicaid. According to MIT economics professor David Autor, “This has become the new welfare.” Hospitals and state welfare agencies also have incentives to encourage uninsured families to apply for SSI payments, since hospitals will get paid and states will save money by shifting welfare costs to the federal government.

Growing numbers of for-profit firms specialize in helping poor families apply forSSI benefits. But to qualify nearly always requires that applicants, including children, be taking psychoactive drugs. According to a New York Times story, a Rutgers University study found that children from low-income families are four times as likely as privately insured children to receive antipsychotic medicines.

In December 2006 a four-year-old child named Rebecca Riley died in a small town near Boston from a combination of Clonidine and Depakote, which she had been prescribed, along with Seroquel, to treat “ADHD” and “bipolar disorder”—diagnoses she received when she was two years old. Clonidine was approved by the FDA for treating high blood pressure. Depakote was approved for treating epilepsy and acute mania in bipolar disorder. Seroquel was approved for treating schizophrenia and acute mania. None of the three was approved to treat ADHD or for long-term use in bipolar disorder, and none was approved for children Rebecca’s age. Rebecca’s two older siblings had been given the same diagnoses and were each taking three psychoactive drugs. The parents had obtained SSIbenefits for the siblings and for themselves, and were applying for benefits for Rebecca when she died. The family’s total income from SSI was about $30,000 per year.

In the bad old days impoverished parents sold children into slavery or prostitution to survive.  Now they can get by just by poisoning them with psychoactive drugs.  Progress!

From a not-to-be-missed two-part article by Marcia Angell in The New York Review of Books. (First part here, second part here.)  Hat-tip to Jerry Coyne, who provides a useful summary.

 Posted by at 08:04
Jun 262011
 

The late Robert Nozick advanced a famous thought experiment about something he called the Experience Machine.  Imagine that there were an amazing machine that you could plug into.  Your body would float in a tank somewhere, and super-duper neuroscientists would stimulate your brain so that you would think that you would be having any fabulous, fantastic experiences you want.   Would you want to plug into the machine for the rest of your life?  Most people wouldn’t.  Nozick believed that this was because we care intrisically about “real” life and “real” accomplishments, and not just our experiences.  Stepping into the Experience Machine would be, in Nozick’s words, “a kind of suicide.”  (Some readers of this blog might be justified in retorting “And that would be bad why?”)  Many people think that the Experience Machine thought experiment refutes hedonism, the doctrine that all we do (or should) care about is pleasure and the absence of pain.

Now as someone out there on the Internet has already pointed out, the way Nozick set up the thought experiment is a cheat, and what it refutes is a a straw man.   Hedonism doesn’t maintain that we should have the experiences that we want. Hedonism is the doctrine that we should have the experiences that we would most enjoy.  That’s a huge difference.  Because if we consider the whole range of things that might be possible as experiences, most likely you have no idea what those experiences would be.

Wanting and liking are not the same thing. This should be pretty obvious on reflection. Haven’t you had the experience of not really wanting something until someone cajoled you into trying it, and then discovered that you really liked it? Lots of people have had that experience, of experiences from raw oysters to absinthe to anal sex. Conversely, almost all of you have doubtless had the experience of really, perhaps even desperately, wanting something, only to find in the end that it was a disappointment: that promotion, that new car, that hot date that wasn’t so hot. It’s pretty clear from common experience that our domain of ignorance about what we would really like is vast.

And the realm of possible experiences is really vast, especially when you consider that there’s no reason to think that what might enter consciousness need be limited by actually possible technologies or real-world physics. What might it be like, do you suppose, to swim naked for hours under warm tropical waters without ever having to come up for air.  Or to actually have the body of someone of a different gender — really have it, not just the construction of transgender surgeries and hormones but have it with all the organs and all the fine nerves as if they had always been yours.  Or have an animal body?  Or an alien body?  What would it be like to have a splendid leisurely dinner with David Hume?  What would it like to have an organ lesson with J.S. Bach? What would it to be a high-ranking aristocrat in Slaveworld?  (Or a slave in Slaveworld?)  Or to actually experience some of the really bizarre sexual fetishes that now can only be experienced as Internet fantasies?

We don’t know.  But out there there are endless things which you haven’t experienced and haven’t even thought of as possible experiences.  It seems improbable that, as long as you are capable of experiencing pleasure, that there aren’t some that are amazing.

Imagine, then, something different from what Nozick imagined.  This one, unlike the Experience Machine, is not a cheat.  Let’s call it the Hedonic Machine.  Instead of picking out some experiences you want, you simply plug into the machine.   The machine reads what kind of person you are and responds by giving back experiences which you will maximally enjoy.  You don’t know what these experiences will be ex ante.  Because we’re pretty ignorant of what among the vast range of possible experiences we would really most enjoy, here’s a lot of room for surprise in the Hedonic Machine.  People who temporarily plug in to the machine routinely emerge with awestruck expressions and amazed exclamations.  “I never knew that there was such a thing as X. And even if I had known, I could never have imagined that X was so amazing.”  (Needless to say, “X” frequently turns out to be something quite surpassingly obscene, people being what they are.  I shan’t try to specify beyond that  This is a family antinatalist-friendly blog.)

Would you plug into the Hedonic Machine for the rest of your life?  No?  Still afraid that it’s a kind of suicide?  Then answer this:  would you allow yourself to plug in to the Hedonic Machine for just a day?

And once you’ve plugged in for just that day and then gone back to your life, how likely do you think it is that you wouldn’t plug in again?   How much appeal would there be in your “real” life, your labors of cold spreadsheets or hot stoves and commuting and bills (and maybe bratty kids and stale, aging spouse), once you’ve experienced your mind-blowing X in the Hedonic Machine.

If offered the chance to go back for a week next time you wouldn’t jump at the chance?

And a month after that?

And that if everyone had a Hedonic Machine that in they end, they wouldn’t have gone there, step by step, to the point where they really are plugged in for the rest of their lives?  Do we really think that many of us would turn away from the experience, spurning the Hedonic Machine like so many Calypsos, to go back to the Penelopes of our jobs and our mortgage payments and our tax returns?

Do you think anyone would?  Really?

 

 Posted by at 16:27
Jun 252011
 

Over at The View from Hell a week or so ago, Sister Y advanced a recommendation for reading Somerset Maugham‘s Of Human Bondage (1915).   I frequently pass up recommendations for reading due to something of an ambivalent relationship I have with literature:  I enjoy it enough, but at the same time I have embedded in my consciousness a sense that reading “good books” serves primarily as a device for signaling one’s membership in a high-status, educated elite.  (Runs in the family:  my mother for a long time put a cartoon from the New Yorker on her refrigerator.  A well dressed woman speaks to a bookstore clerk:  “Just something for the beach, but I did major in English.”)  This fact makes me wonder if literature is a good use for my time.  But the fact that it’s Sister Y abates my skepticism, and I read the book.

Well worth it.  Really well worth it.  As an illustration of how ordinary life can be (is!) filled with heartbreak and frustration, Of Human Bondage has few literary peers, so I can second Sister Y’s recommendation.  Our hero, Phillip Carey, is orphaned, fails in romance, fails in in his preferred career, fails to achieve his life objectives, encounters shocking deaths (one a suicide, the other one of an innocent child), and naturally endures no small amount of suffering and humiliation in his own right. It’s a fine remedy for unwarranted cheerfulness, which is to say, most cheerfulness.

Sister Y, in her post, concentrates on the image of a Persian rug and its meaning, pursued throughout the novel.  That’s a trope well worth pursuing.  But what struck me were two sentences very near the close, as the hero realizes that he’s just not going to realize his hopes for his life.

He thought of his desire to make a design, intricate and beautiful, out of the myriad, meaningless facts of life: had he not seen also that the simplest pattern, that in which a man was born, worked, married, had children, and died, was likewise the most perfect? It might be that to surrender to happiness was to accept defeat, but it was a defeat better than many victories.

After all the disasters Phillip (who is apparently thinking these sentences) has been through, what’s magnificent is how false this rings.  The final sentence in particular is a sentimentalism, a cliché, the sort of thing you would expect to find not in a serious literary novel but in a self-help book or on an inspirational plaque in somebody’s middle-class kitchen.  This is a use of irony, one of a special kind for which I think there must be a more technical term where a sentimental cliché is asserted at the end of a tragedy.  By being son unequal to all that went before it, the nominal sentiment it expresses is actually being mocked.  Call this the irony of the closing cliché, for lack of a better term.

The irony of closing cliché is an old, old game in literature.  I was reminded of an ancient poem — possibly one of the oldest in English, at least in parts — conventionally known as The Wanderer.

I’ll spare your eyesight.  It opens like this.

Oft him anhaga are gebideð,
metudes miltse, þeah þe he modcearig
geond lagulade longe sceolde
hreran mid hondum hrimcealde sæ,
wadan wræclastas. Wyrd bið ful aræd!

I suppose there are many possible translations, but here is mine.

Often the solitary man awaits mercy,
Or the favor of a lord. Though he, heartsick,
Must long through waters turn his oars (lit. his hands)
In icy seas, going the path of exile.
And fate is unmoved.

And onward through 100 or so lines describing the narrator’s loss of everything he ever cared about and his being driven into exile.  But at the end

Wel bið þam þe him are seceð,
frofre to fæder on heofonum þær us eal seo fæstnung stondeð.

That is,

Better for him that seeks mercy,
Consolation from Father in Heaven where for us all safety rests.

I guess those lines ought to be on someone’s kitchen plaque as well.

 Posted by at 08:48