Putin’s Face, Soul, & Ages of Man, Part 2

Take a look at a slide show presentation, “Nonverbal Communication in a Police Interrogation.” Compared to Dan Hill’s article, it is both more precise, and more tentative. Now look at this picture of Vladimir Putin, and Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov. Doesn’t Lavrov look more expansive and jolly than Putin? And yet, their world views must be very close. From this picture, decide who you would rather go to the movies with. Your buddy Lavrov?

Hill writes, “Reading a person’s emotions is crucial to fully understanding them and it is true that people’s faces best reflect and communicate their emotions.” The implication is that the tools to read other individuals are available to all of us. But  why are we taken in by others so easily? if hidden intentions could be made so easily visible, we would not be so commonly surprised by what other people do.

One way to resolve this paradox is to speculate that people are divided into three groups: the gullible, the skeptical, and the knowing.  The first two are victims of their innate characteristics, while the third, either by Hill’s assertions, or some other talent, are able to divine the intentions of others. But the existence of the third group is frustrated by the characteristics of the psychopath who, by varying estimates, comprise 2-5% of the male population, and about half that frequency in the female.

The popular conception of the psychopath imagines Hannibal-Lector violent criminality, and it is false.  Psychopaths are all over the place. They are particularly evident in the workplace, where it isn’t possible to choose your companions. Like all other human traits, they exist on a continuum, meaning there is no particular boundary at which a person is normal or nuts. Unfortunately for nice guys, the traits of the psychopath are advantageous in certain professions, such as CEO, or surgeon.

Analysis of facial expressions is a part of the division of psychometry concerned with personality traits. The lie detector, actually a variety of devices that measure involuntary responses that accompany emotions, is a tool of the same interrogators who train from  the slide show. The psychopath can defeat both types of tools, because his involuntary responses are decoupled from what he is actually thinking. So are his emotions. The weakness of the psychopath’s emotionality is a boon for survival in some kinds of situations. An extension of the ability to fluently lie, it is in some way the attempt of a “selfish gene” to propagate, in a preference for individual survival over that of  the group.

Refer again to the flashing pictures of Dan Hill’s article, and compare to Lavrov’s broad, toothy smile. Putin’s face is highly expressive, and not artificially pleasant — exactly the opposite of the psychopath, the type science most closely identifies with the religious “has no soul.” Lavrov’s toothy smile says he’s the guy you want to go to the movies with. But on the continuum of psychopathology, Lavrov is probably a little higher on the scale — an asset for constant exposure on the world stage.

The psychopath confounds the bullshit detector with the opposite assertion: The man you think you can trust is the man you can’t. Professional interrogators know  this. But they don’t look for souls; they look for “tells”, the body language by which a poker player sizes up his opponent. For instance, a subject may, when evasive, avert his gaze in the direction of his dominant cerebral hemisphere. Human variability, which Dan Hill conveniently ignores, is partly factored out by a process of calibration of the individual under interrogation. This is why a lie detector examination includes a large variety of inane questions, offered at irregular intervals. Only by comparison can the interrogator obtain information with even a probability of correctness.

In case you have been mislead by the picture of Kerry and Lavrov, you should go  to the movies with Kerry. Lavrov will eat all the popcorn.


Putin’s Face, Soul, & Ages of Man

Reuters has run a really silly article, “Want to know Vladimir Putin’s secrets? They’re all right on his face.” On other occasions, I’ve responded to silly articles with dour condemnation, for example, when Reuters engaged a comic-book writer to critique the F-35. But Dan Hill’s article, which touches on whether Putin has a soul, offers all kinds of opportunities to be silly myself. I try to keep open source intelligence a serious endeavor, which means a limit on how far I am willing to go, publicly, on a hunch. But with Putin’s soul on the table, the sky’s the limit.

The article cites Bush the Second and Joe Biden as having conducted ophthalmic examinations of Putin’s eyes. Although not visible in official pictures, Bush and Biden must have used the opthalmic instrument known as the funduscope to clearly image Putin’s retinas. No mention is made of cataracts or macular degeneration, although Drs. Bush and Biden differed as to whether a soul was observed. Since the medical records do not indicate that Putin’s eyes were dilated for the examination, it is hard to understand the confidence of the examining physicians regarding the presence or absence of soul pathology.

Somebody, somewhere, said  “the eyes are the windows of the soul”, and it was catchy. The great authority, Spirit Science and Metaphysics, says it’s true, so it must be. This is why the U.S. Government, as part of the security clearance process, looks long and carefully into the applicant’s eyes, and notes the presence or absence of a soul. It is a requirement for many responsible positions that the applicant have a soul, with exceptions made for bond traders and bank presidents. And, as is well known, in criminal courts adhering to English common law, the presence or absence of a soul is admissible evidence. In cases of doubt, innocence or guilt can be established by ducking, stocks, or trial by fire.

Further adding to the mess is the recollection of New Yorker columnist Evan Osnos. Quoting the Reuters article, “An unfazed Putin, Biden recalled during a later conversation with the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos, replied with a smile, ‘We understand one another’.” Testimony by Osnos would be inadmissible hearsay. And, of course, Putin is protected by the Fifth Amendment from direct questioning about his soulfulness.

The above, and the contradictory findings of Drs. Bush and Biden, raise doubt as to whether the finding of soul should be admissible evidence into the trial of a person’s character. If at some point in the future, Putin is brought to trial before the International Criminal Court, he might try to have the case dismissed, based upon his uniquely variable condition of soul capacity. In all the annals, it is has been either one or the other.

Whether Putin has a soul must be left to some future occasion, when perhaps, an impartial panel of experts armed with the most modern opthalmic equipment will reach a firm conclusion. So let us move on.  In preface, I am no apologist for Putin.  Putin’s destruction of the free press, and other transgressions against Western ideals, are tragic. When he revived nationalism within the borders of Russia, I thought it was an ugly curiosity. Partnering with a bunch of apes to tear apart Ukraine is unforgivable.

Nevertheless,  four paragraphs of a Reuters article devoted to an idea as tenuous as the soul, and an idea is all it is, contributes to the demonization of Vladimir Putin. This simplification is unhelpful to understanding someone who, at this moment, must be considered our opponent. As  they are understood by the superstitious, demons are very simple entities, because they serve only one purpose, “evil”,  so abstractly pure, it supposedly, according to believers, requires no further explanation. But Putin has all kinds of motives. He may believe many or all of them are good. He may believe others are excusable errors, or casualties of circumstance, such as the shooting down of MH-370. The mix is infinite. Demonization deprives us of the ability to see him as a complex individual, a creation of his time, his country, his life experiences, and personality: the combination psychologists call nature/nurture. For those of you who stare into people’s eyes, I have few words. Modernize yourselves; read William James’ monument, Psychology. It’s been in print since 1892.

To be continued shortly.


Pivot to Asia; Soft Power, 1 of many

Pivot To Asia; Force Projection, Part 3 is a discussion of hard power. Symmetry suggests that “soft power” is a symmetric opposite. At least, that’s what I thought when I finished with, “Next: hard versus soft.” But it’s not. Soft power encompasses every aspect of competition between societies. Perhaps, in outer aspect, in gaining allies by offering favors, there is a symmetry. But the deepest forms of strength and attraction stem from societal perfection.  If the U.S. was Shangri-La,  the world would beat a path to our door. In fact, to the poorest of the poor, the U.S. and Europe are, literally, “to die for.”

So the topic of “soft power” could fill a library. In various guises, it has occupied thinkers for centuries, and had practical use as well. In World Order, Henry Kissinger describes the use by the Celestial Empire of soft power to gain control of bordering barbarian tribes, by corruption with luxuries.  What finally stirred me out of lethargy is Reuters opinion by Barry C. Lynn, “Why China has the upper hand in the South China Sea.”

Lynn’s piece is in the style of “revealed truth“, so popular with religions, as the category seems to encapsulate complicated problems in facts so simple they have to be right. Simply by the history of the category of axe-grinding revealed truths, it is a good bet that Lynn is almost completely wrong. Historically, the category  has given humanity nothing but trouble, a long train of fallacious ideas, each lasting a few short years until the next, then replaced by another one of the same ilk but with opposite polarity.

The common denominator of these revealed truths is that they are things we can, presumably, act upon. The scary part comes first, followed by the invocation to act, which is usually left vague, as the writer himself is at a loss for the details.

The immediate predecessor of Lynn’s idea was the polar opposite. In the early 2000’s, when China was ramping up but not yet perceived as a threat, it became popular to replicate the opinion that the U.S. economy was now “post-industrial”, and had become an “information economy”, solidly based in intangibles.  At one point, some economic nabobs awarded the U.S. “maximum reutilization of capital”, applauding how quickly capital here was recycled into an endless loop of investment instruments. In 2007, it suddenly dawned on the same nabobs that the financial markets had succeeded only in creating an almost infinite web of interdependence, which, according to the now hot topic of long-tail catastrophe theory, is an accident waiting to happen.

It took about five years to do the post-mortem, learn the lessons, and forget the lessons, so we are ripe for a new revealed truth. Lynn worries that China makes so many of our basic needs, they could turn this place into something like Cuba before the embargo was lifted. But Lynn doesn’t mention finance at all. Finance, having been disgraced by the 2007-08 meltdown, is beneath consideration.

Finance is neither what financiers conceive it to be, nor as unimportant as Lynn might imply by omitting a direct reference. In omission, his article has a curious analogy to the survivalist nuts, thinking that they can survive the collapse of society if only they have enough toothbrushes and dry food to hold them over.

Money is an intangible, but intangibles do matter. When the Obama administration put the banks back together, it was not due to any love of banks. It was because, if they walked through the door of multiple too-big-to-fail failures, they were afraid of what lay on the other side. It is possible to destroy an economy by destroying confidence in the currency. And what is confidence, but a complete abstraction?

Mr. Lynn has a valid concern. But in naming that concern as the “why”, the article implicitly advocates direct action against that concern. In fact, Lynn’s issue is a part of an ecology of world trade, an issue without remedy of direct action.  With central banks desperately twisting the interest rate taps, a trade war would send us all to the bottom.

Formerly, the U.S. economy enjoyed unrivaled economies of scale. The rapid expansion of the U.S. in the 20th century gives unfounded basis to the religious devotees of C.B. MacPherson’s interpretations  of Thomas Locke, meaning, unbridled capitalism.

Of late, the U.S. concept of unbridled capitalism has taken some hits. There is mounting evidence that it cannot compete with state sponsored capitalism. Small scale efforts at state manipulation of the economy along the lines of Solyndra generally fail. Sometimes they succeed, as with the “Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979.” Sometimes they succeed brilliantly, as with Sematech.

But all of the above are a thimble-full compared to Lynn’s plaint. So now I shall give my magic prescription that will salve all your cares.

But then, I would be another axe-grinder. The competition of societies is the biggest topic there is. Whatever is done, it must be thoroughly analyzed in the context of total interdependence of all the dynamical structures of interaction between societies. Of these, the material concerns of Mr. Lynn are a small part.

How thoroughly must we analyze? A Moldavian professor advocated the  Russian method of testing bridges for structural integrity.  As he explained, they drive ten loaded dump trucks onto the bridge. If the bridge holds, it is sound. (A few years back, they lost ten dump trucks.) But an address of the Competition Between Societies is beyond that kind of analysis. A bridge stand still; societies are constantly in flux.

So now, here are some guidelines to stay out of trouble  with the next great idea(s):

  • The  total system(s) must be considered together.
  • Such changes as are promoted must  be imperceptible to the casual observer. Specialists must get bored watching the evolution.
  • Strategies must be persistent, implying more political cohesion and continuity than currently exists in the U.S.

Stock up on toothbrushes and light bulbs while they’re still cheap.




U.N. Security Council Syria Statement; Redeveloping the Assad Property

June 5, un.org. Quoting Reuters, “Several Western council members noted that the unanimously adopted statement had the backing of Russia, which has strongly supported the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Russian foreign policy  exemplifies the practice of realpolitik, well summarized by the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article as

Realpolitik (from German: real “realistic”, “practical”, or “actual”; and Politik “politics”, German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.”

That Russian foreign policy adheres to realpolitik does not imply that the Russian principals are themselves without conscience. They rationalize, as well all do, by subordination of their personal feelings to what they consider the Greater Good. Those of us who dislike Russian realpolitik feel  their conception of the Greater Good is flawed. It is also likely that Russian policy makers allow themselves to offer the milk of human kindness as a secondary gesture, provided that the objectives of realpolitik are met.

The few exceptions to the rigorous practice of realpolitik occur with respect to foreign countries with large representations of the Russian diaspora. So many Russians live in Israel that relations are better than one would expect with a staunch ally of the U.S.  And pairing of Russian men and Syrian women, extensive for many years, has influenced Moscow’s affection for Assad . (Ironically, the largest contingent of the diaspora is in the U.S. Russian is the 12th most spoken language in the U.S.)

But personal affection is not a gear in the machine of realpolitik, so its  influence is beyond calculation. In contrast to the moral agony of U.S. foreign policy, realpolitik is a simple machine, with just a few well oiled deterministic gears. The messy moral component is missing, so it is remarkably easy to simulate. The loyalty of Russia to the Assad regime now shows a crack. Since realpolitik admits no consideration of human suffering, the “increasing brutality” of the Assad regime is not a factor in Russian assent to the June 5 statement of the Security Council. Russian assent to this particular statement cloaks what realpolitik would offer as the real reason.

Diplomacy has back channels that do not show in open source media.  In some situations of diplomacy, particularly where the U.S. is not involved, there are also “dark channels”,  widely used by states where lines of communication are not restrained by the apparent formal structure of government. Russia is such a state. Saudi Arabia, ruled mostly by an extended family, is another. So it does not rise to the level of conspiratorial thinking to assume that they know more of what their opposites want than we do.

Russia wants a security landscape in the Middle East, that minimizes, to Russian eyes, spillover to the Caucasus of militancy and unrest typified by ISIS. The Russian view of Sunni Islam is that it is a wellspring of stateless terrorism. By contrast, Shi’ism, with a hierarchical religious structure, is inhospitable to stateless terrorism.  And so goes Iran, which is Shi’ite theocracy. So it is in the interest of Russia to practice balance-of-power by alliance with the Shi’ite powers in the area.

A Shiite alliance also solves part of the map-coloring problem. Since Islam in the Russian (northern) Caucasus is predominantly Sunni, the map-line of Iranian part of the border is reinforced by religious distinction.  This may sound silly, but the reasoning goes way back, when historically a state would adopt a state religion contrasting with others in the area, making of  each village priest or pastor a border cop.

Since Iran actually has historical claims on Russian parts of the Caucasus, the Russian attitude must be something of the nature, “We’ll worry about that when it happens.” Russia, unlike the U.S., does not enjoy the luxury of uncontested borders.

Saudi Arabia has three concerns:

  • Iranian expansion, via Houthi proxies, onto the Arabian peninsula.
  • Assad’s casual atrocities targeting the Sunni majority of Syria.
  • An alleged interest in derailing the fracking business in the U.S. Skeptically, the Saudis, with their business experience and intimate knowledge of oil, must have known that fracking is an impossible target for their oil weapon, impossible because the capital needs of fracking are far smaller than the cost of their weapon.

Formerly, the Russians could play with realpolitik and balance-of-power without compunction. But now, the house is on fire. The realpolitik board game has changed. Adjustments must be made. The Russian economy desperately needs higher oil prices, and the Assad regime is doomed. Since realpolitik admits no sentimentality, it’s time to sell them out. Avoiding a sheriff’s sale, or taking of the Assad Property by ISIS “eminent domain” seizure, is the next job of Russian diplomacy.

The Assad Property is due for redevelopment. The bidders are Iran, through their Hezbollah proxy, and Saudi Group. Both bidders bring unique assets to the table. Hezbollah is a strong builder but short on dough, contrasting with Saudi  Group, who have weak builders but lots of dough.

The two groups have different aesthetic tastes, so the Assad Property will be split into a patchwork of subdivisions, so each can build in their own style of religious motifs. But the Assad Property is in a very rough area of town, dominated by the ISIS Boys. In an adjoining area, Iraq Town,  rival developer U.S. Properties tried community-based development for years, but the place is still a dump.

Can the parties bridge their differences enough to clean the place up?