Sunday, March 13, 2011

Three-dimensional Decision-making Model

In a recent (3/8/11) column in the New York Times, David Brooks writes about the dangers of making policy decisions on the basis of rational thought alone, devoid of an emotional component. He believes that we glorify the former and deny the importance of the latter. Research, he states, points to a strong relationship between the two, which we ignore at our peril.

Brooks raises a fascinating and complex issue with important implications for people, both individually and collectively.

Let's start at the beginning. Psychologists and physiologists have known for decades that various parts of the brain specialize in performing specific functions. For example, consciousness, expressive language, and logical thinking seem to be modulated primarily in the cerebral cortex. The brain stem controls autonomic functions like breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. The limbic system, a complex array of interconnected structures, plays a key role in regulating emotions (among other things).

Anatomically, these separate structures communicate with each other through millions of neurons -- and these connections are apparent in the ways human beings behave. I'll come back to this point later.

First, think of a 2 x 2 matrix, where one dimension relates to "cognitive vs. emotional" and the other relates to "conscious vs. unconscious." Then it's fairly easy to cite specific behaviors that fall almost exclusively into each of the four "cells." Solving a simple algebraic equation during a test (aside from the issue of the motivation that brings a person to this situation initially) belongs in the "cognitive/conscious" cell. I got stuck on a computer programming problem many years ago, decided to give up and go to sleep, and woke up the next morning with a fully formed and accurate solution; that was evidence of "cognitive/unconscious" behavior. Similarly, we are all familiar with emotional conscious and unconscious phenomena (lust and repressed anger, respectively, to cite two common examples).

In more complex situations, it is well understood that the various parts of the brain interact in significant ways. People frequently ignore information that contradicts a pre-existing belief system; one way to explain this would be to postulate that changing one's mind about something important (or admitting that the facts at hand do not lend themselves to a clearcut conclusion) causes an uncomfortable emotional response. Memory itself is selective; recall is generally better for pleasant experiences than for unpleasant ones.

If our goal is to formulate a model for effective decision-making based on a fully functioning brain, there are plenty of places to start for what doesn't work. Apparently Adolph Hitler had full use of his cerebral cortex, in the sense that he could give electrifying speeches, direct military operations, etc. But his thought process was narrowly guided by grossly flawed emotions, based on hatred and prejudice, resulting in catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. And while this is an extreme example (fortunately), the world is full of people whose cognitive output is molded by emotional input that many of us find repugnant. (Witness those who have convinced themselves that it is acceptable to murder doctors who perform legal abortions.)

So apparently the model Brooks proposes is not infallible. Nor is its opposite -- a complete divorce of cognitive functioning from emotion. During the many years that Condoleeza Rice served as secretary of State under George W. Bush, I never saw even the hint of emotion in her public pronouncements. Apparently she was very good at thinking (having become, previously, provost at Stanford University) but very poor at feeling. Thousands of American (and Iraqi) citizens died, partially as a result. Pretty much the same can be said of Donald Rumsfeld; did you ever hear him express regret or sadness at sending so many young men and women to their death, for dubious idealogical reasons. I didn't.

Complicating the picture further, what are we to make of so many people (politicians at every level of government, CEOs of major corporations, union leaders, and many others) who are smart and emotionally intact but feel no remorse at raping their constituents and their country of vast resources, simply to line their own pockets and increase their personal power?

Do we really want good public policy and decent, well-meaning citizens in positions of responsibility throughout this country? Let's start with decision-makers who exhibit sufficient intelligence to search for, examine, and draw correct conclusions from complex data. That's called "critical thinking," and it is in critically short supply in the United States today. Add a healthy emotional component, based on a childhood enriched with parental love and fueled by a mature and solicitous regard for other human beings. Finally, to cognition and emotion, add a third dimension: ethical standards.

Robust cognitive ability, a healthy emotional outlook, and high ethical standards will combine to produce decisions fitting our complex society. But I fear that the human race will destroy civilization as we know it long before evolution produces such a combination in a majority of the members of our species.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Jerry Brown's Budget

California's "new" (but experienced) governor is bringing some urgently-needed honesty and fresh thinking to the budgeting process in a state weary of smoke, mirrors, a two-thirds requirement in the legislature for tax increases, and the ravages of a recession imposed largely by external forces. But some mistakes are being made that will probably doom the effort to continue current taxes soon to expire unless the voters extend them.

First, the good news: the governor proposes to axe so-called "redevelopment funds," which local governments (primarily cities) allegedly use to promote economic and housing projects in blighted areas. Although not a bad idea conceptually, and occasionally successful in practice, this program does not pass the "smell test" when it comes to implementation in many instances. (And who can oppose efficiency in government -- except those who benefit from it?)

As documented by the Los Angeles Times, some governmental agencies have spent millions of dollars and failed to produce a single affordable housing unit. Too often, redevelopment funds constitute essentially a slush fund used to subsidize local developers (private sector "entrepreneurs" who won't take their capitalistic risks without a government handout) -- who of course then use some of their profits to line the pockets of the local politicians who have the power to hand out the money. I used to wonder about the hypocrisy of accepting government subsidies for such developments while opposing the use of tax dollars to help ordinary citizens; but that is old news, as the principle of "me first" -- gradually evolving into "me only" -- seems to rule the country these days. Predictably, local officials are strongly opposing Governor Brown's initiative on this issue.

The bad news is that, as usual, social services for the poor are being asked to shoulder the heaviest burden of budget cuts Some programs are being proposed for complete elimination -- for example, the Adult Day Health Care program that helps seniors continue to live independently when they might otherwise be in nursing homes.

The problem with focusing cuts almost exclusively on poor people is that they will not be able to "carry the day" when the extension of existing tax cuts due to expire comes on the ballot in June -- which apparently is the governor's plan. In this "me first" environment, most people only vote for taxes when they see a direct benefit to themselves With no "skin in the game" for the average middle-class and upper-middle-class citizen, what incentive (other than, umm, "the common good") do they have for what they perceive as self-imposed pain (with no gain)?

The governor needs to identify programs that impact the well-to-do and cut them also, at least proportionately. Then his tax-extension program might have at least a fair chance of success.

Oh, by the way, come around Christmas time, I'd love to see Governor Brown commute some prison sentences. Since his predecessor saw fit to reduce the sentence of the son of a political ally, ignoring the plight of many people who had committed similar crimes, Brown should finish the job by taking a comparable action to benefit those who are not well connected. In addition to saving money on the prison budget, it would help us celebrate a country that claims to offer "justice for all."

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Welcome to the "Inland Empire"

The "Inland Empire" is a vast stretch of land east of Los Angeles County inhabited mostly by cacti and Republicans, characterized over the years by brazen political corruption (the most recent former San Bernardino County assessor used the office as a political headquarters when he wasn't high on meth or participating in rehab) and the intellectual analysis of issues on a level of sophistication that would make any fifth grader proud.

The "West End" of this region -- roughly from the cities of Montclair on the west to San Bernardino on the east -- is served by a daily newspaper called the "Inland Valley Daily Bulletin," which is frequently used by local politicians as a convenient and apparently willing mouthpiece.

Thus, about two weeks after he was sworn in as the representative of the 63rd district to the California State Assembly, Republican Mike Morrell railed in a "Point of View" column (12/16/10) against increased taxes, "out-of-control spending, and looking to big government for solutions" (complete with sentence fragments and plural pronouns matched to singular antecedents). He claimed that "the people" always spend their money more wisely than government; that in the alleged dichotomy between people keeping their money or sending it to Sacramento, "it is our freedom that's at stake"; and that no less a luminary than Thomas Jefferson would certainly have agreed with him.

I would never argue that government is perfect. However, Mr. Morrell's "analysis" fails to mention even the most basic of services that state government is supposed to provide to its citizens -- including such things as public education and prisons (where the aforementioned former County assessor, along with a recently convicted former City Councilman from Rancho Cucamonga, will likely take up residence). One could read his article in vain for any reference whatsoever to any vital service for which any branch of government should accept responsibility. At least, then, he might (if he valued it) claim intellectual consistency; if he believes governments have no legitimate functions, then of course they have no need for any tax dollars. Of course, in order to do so, he would have to ignore the fact that that his alleged hero (other than Ronald Reagan, whom he cited repeatedly in a campaign event I attended) actually described several legitimate functions of government in his acclaimed Preamble to the Constitution.

The day after Morrell's diatribe against taxes and big government, another representative to the State Assembly, 60th District representative Curt Hagman, used an op-ed column (once again riddled with grammatical errors) in the "Daily Bulletin," to defend the e-mail he sent to constituents inviting them to a "Christmas Open House." Apparently he was upset by the fact that some of the residents in his district pointed out to him that he was using government money to pay for an event that was given an explicit religious label. In defending his action, he dug the hole even deeper: "The purpose of my Christmas party was to give people an opportunity to share their views with me on state issues in a casual setting."

I've been to events of this kind, and to the best of my knowledge, very little exchange of views takes place. People network with their friends, eat and drink (presumably at the expense of the government, which, remember, has no legitimate functions), and return to their offices the next bragging that they met an important public official (probably for about ten seconds). But even supposing that the event served as a venue for the casual exchange of views, does the Assemblyman only want the views of Christians?

Earlier this week -- I kid you not!! -- a letter to the editor appeared in said newspaper in response to this controversy, criticizing automobile companies for running a plethora of TV ads for their products in end-of-the-year sales campaigns (which they certainly did!) but failing to mention Christmas in their ads!

I strongly support the right of U.S. citizens to celebrate the religion of their choice (or no religion at all). But would it be too much to ask that they at least recognize the existence of a secular society apart from religion? Secularists are not a threat, as they are apparently perceived. The larger threat to American society is the failure of so many to see that our culture is diverse and can be "unbundled" (religion from non-sectarianism) without the slightest danger to either.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Evolution Continues

As I was discussing the state of the world with one of my liberal friends the other day, a scary thought occurred to me, namely, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the human species as it presently exists.

We all know -- well, those of us who accept evolution know -- that species typically become extinct as a result of failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Homo sapiens may be the first species not only to have caused its own destruction but to have had the power to see it coming -- and failed to heed the warning signs.

Of course, climate change is the most dramatic evidence of this trend. And while we will probably adapt to increments of ten, perhaps twenty degrees around the world, despite the enormous disruption to the food supply and the global economic and political systems, will the species survive changes of fifty or one hundred degrees? Who is to say this catastrophic scenario will not occur, as we continue to burn coal and oil to maintain the status quo, knowing all the while that doing so will eventually destroy the status quo?

Human beings like to think of themselves as members of the smartest species that ever roamed the earth. If this is true, it doesn't speak well of the other species. At least in the United States, we are currently witnessing a full-scale attack on logical debate, critical thinking, acceptance of facts as the raw material from which decisions should be made, and the values set forth in the Constitution but constantly ignored by the very people who claim to cherish that document. Hypocrisy runs rampant and apparently undiagnosed among those whose left brains do not communicate with their right brains; how else to explain the simultaneous drumbeat for tax cuts for the rich AND deficit reduction? "General welfare" is derided as "big government" by those who fail to see the relationship between greed on the part of those who already have enough and poverty on the part of those who have never had enough.

No, if intelligence is a virtue and a prerequisite for survival of the species over the next thousand years or so, I'm not very optimistic.

Nobody reading these words will be alive to see the demise of the human race. The process is far too gradual. But we are heading down the path toward our eventual destruction unless the wise somehow wrest power from the wealthy. I fear, however, that the tipping point has already been passed. Our institutions themselves, for the most part, exist to protect the status quo (or worse). When, in history, did the ruling class voluntarily give up power and accede to the notion that common people also deserve a break? When, except for a few years in the late 1700s, did Americans ever think the future was just as important as the present?

Contrarians could legitimately argue that the United States is an anomaly, that in fact most developed countries (Denmark, England, Canada, Sweden -- you know the list) are much further along the path to permanent civilization. While this is true (take the general availability of health care as just one of many possible examples), the United States, mostly by virtue of its geographic size, its population, and its natural resources, unfortunately has a disproportionate influence on the rest of the world. If you want proof, stay tuned to see whether "the greatest deliberative body in the world," aka the United States Senate, approves a treaty that will reduce the global nuclear arsenal and make the world a safer place -- or whether it will be held hostage to the politics of destruction made possible by the 40-vote filibuster and a few opinionated reactionaries.

I just hope that homo sapiens II, which will invariably come along in another couple of million years, will be more successful than homo sapiens I.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

An Uncanny Coincidence

We learn in today's editions of both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times that a deadline of sorts has been set for the pullout of NATO troops from Afghanistan -- 2014! Between now and then, "primary security responsibility" will gradually be transferred from western troops to the government of President Hamid Karzai. Combat operations for the former will gradually cease (or at least be diminished), in favor of training the locals.

But officials from various NATO countries apparently did not reach complete unanimity; some stated that the deadline was firm, while others indicated it might slip depending on conditions on the ground in 2014.

Amazing as it might sound, 2014 is exactly the same deadline I have set for myself for the imposition of a low calorie diet. I've had this objective since 2002, but it's always been part of a long-term strategic plan, not something I wanted to rush into prematurely. After all, my body is pretty accustomed to carrying around excess fat, and who knows what kind of damage an abrupt and significant change could cause. My stomach, for example, could issue a complaint, probably couched in diplomatic language, that could be devastating to my public image.

I think gradual is best. There is no need to go "cold turkey" on large portions of meat and potatoes. If a lot of people did this simultaneously, the result could be devastating to the meat and potato industries -- and heaven knows we need all the jobs we can find these days. Likewise, cutting back too suddenly on the whipped cream I use to top off my chocolate sundaes wouldn't do the dairy industry any good. If my cholesterol stays a little too high as a consequence -- well, that's just the price I have to pay for being a good American consumer and caring more about other people than my own good health.

So, I am reconciled to starting my diet in earnest in 2014 and working towards it incrementally by decreasing my daily caloric intake by 0.048 per year in the interim. Of course, if conditions change between now and then, I reserve the right to modify my position and postpone that diet until such time as the situation seems appropriate.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Supreme Court Overturns Giant Victory in World Series

In a stunning and unexpected development, the United States Supreme Court has vacated the recent victory of the San Francisco Giants over the Texas Rangers, awarding the World Series crown to the team from the Lone Star State.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which prevailed on a 5-4 vote in the case known as Bush v. Giants.

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, and his office issued a tersely worded statement providing supporting rationale: "What He Said."

"In this opinion, the majority rests heavily on its most relevant precedent, Bush v. Gore," Scalia wrote. "In that case, the Court established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the actual results simply don't matter. Just as the number of votes case in 2000 carried little weight in the presidential election in the State of Florida, so too, by analogy, does the number of runs scored by the Giants in the World Series have little bearing on the actual outcome. Umpires are fallible; this Court is not."

"This Court is bound by the Constitution. No other document or set of facts in evidence is relevant -- especially the opinions of the liberal elite sitting in the press box who claim to be witnesses. A careful and thorough reading of this founding document reveals no clause giving the government -- and by extension, any other body that exists within our territorial boundaries -- the power to declare any athletic team located or residing in the State of California to be the winner of any contest that might be remotely construed as coming under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause. Since there were only two teams vying for supremacy in the World Series, and it is clear that the Constitution does not permit a team from California (and certainly not San Francisco) to be the winner, it therefore follows logically that the title properly belongs to the Texas Rangers."

An attorney for former President George W. Bush, who sat in the stands during the games played in Texas, lauded the ruling, indicating in a prepared statement that "the President is gratified that the Court has once again seen fit to validate the rule of law in a nation that has violated so many of our basic freedoms over the past two years. Of course, the textbooks in Texas would have reported in any case that the Rangers won, but it's nice to have the formal record correspond with the facts as we know them to be."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply worded minority dissent, claiming that the Roberts Court was distorting the founders' intent. "Neither corporations nor the States of California and Texas were in existence when the Constitution was written," she stated. "How this opinion, and several others within recent memory, can be construed in the context of a 'strict constructionist' philosophy, is totally beyond comprehension."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, siding with the majority, explained his vote by saying "I went with the liberals last time. It was the conservatives' turn to win."

Sunday, November 7, 2010

A (Mostly) Thoughtful California Electorate

Regular readers of this blog may assume that I think the recent election demonstrates thoughtfulness on the part of California voters because mostly liberal candidates won statewide offices. That is not the point I wish to make here.

Voters demonstrated sophistication and thoughtfulness, first, because they failed to allow the onslaught of money to purchase their brains. As we all know, Meg Whitman vastly outspent her victorious opponent, Jerry Brown, yet came up short in the polling booth. Proposition 23, which would have "suspended" air pollution control regulations (probably forever, due to the ridiculous criterion established for lifting the suspension), was supported in large part by out-of-state oil companies. The voters saw through it and defeated it by a hefty margin -- 61.2% "No" to 38.8% "Yes."

Dramatic evidence of careful voting is also exhibited by a comparison of the results of Propositions 20 and 27. The former was designed to extend the mission of the pre-existing Redistricting Commission -- which was created by an earlier proposition to put the post-census redistricting process for state officials in the hands of an impartial citizens' commission rather than the gerrymander-prone legislature -- to federal Congressional seats as well. The latter would have scrapped the Redistricting Commission altogether. Thus, Propositions 20 and 27 were, for all practical purposes exact opposites. It is difficult to imagine a rationale for voting for or against BOTH of them; the more logical approach would be to vote for one and not the other (in either direction).

In fact, most Californians did precisely that -- voted for one but not the other. Statewide, Proposition 20 passed by a vote of 61.4% to 38.6%; Prop 27 failed by a vote of 59.6% to 40.4%.

Clearly, some voters did vote for or against both of these propositions; otherwise, the passage rate for one would have been precisely equal to the failure rate of the other. By subtracting the "No" vote percentage of Prop 27 from the "Yes" vote percentage of Prop 20 (and taking the absolute value, i.e. using a statistical method that ignores the direction of the deviation, which in this case is irrelevant), one can calculate a "discrepancy" score that might be considered a measure of the degree to which voters acted in an intellectually consistent manner. Statewide, that discrepancy score is 61.4 minus 59.6 -- or 1.8. (See last week's post for a related issue on intellectual consistency.)

In mostly liberal Los Angeles County (where Brown trounced Whitman by 62.7% to 32.5%), the discrepancy score was 1.1. Reasonably liberal Santa Barbara County (Brown got more votes than Whitman but not by a huge margin) had a discrepancy score of 1.32. Extremely liberal San Francisco had a score of 2.78.

Conservative counties Kern, Orange, and Riverside, where major statewide contests went Republican by substantial margins, had discrepancy scores of 3.22, 5.35, and 6.09, respectively.

The pattern (did I just see some of you liberals smiling?) did not hold across the board. Fiorina clobbered Boxer in conservative Kings County, with a discrepancy score of 2.28. Fresno County, where both Whitman and Fiorina came out on top, had a moderately low discrepancy score of 2.07. In conservative and tiny Butte County, the discrepancy score was a lowly 0.85.

In liberal Humboldt County, where Brown got 56% of the votes for governor to Whitman's 36%, the discrepancy score was a whopping 10.51. What in the world do you suppose those voters were smoking?