Amorality: For those who don't care whether something is "good" or "bad" -- only how it affects themselves

     I have boycotted a certain international company, famous for its chocolate and milk products, for over 50 years. Does that company care? Not at all. They have long ago adjusted their market prognosis to allow for those of us who boycott it. If my boycotting them makes no difference then why do I continue? Because the only reason I would be stopping is because of the inconvenience of continuing the boycott. My inconvenience versus an implicit acceptance of their behavior — that is not a sufficient reason to stop boycotting them. They also have purchased a certain baby food brand. IF I still had small children that might be a reason to stop my boycott. The nutrition of my child versus an implicit acceptance of behavior. A hard call and I’m glad I don’t have to make it.

     This company is not the only such company, of course. In the early 1970s, a well-known international automobile maker found themselves without a model to compete against the new small fuel-efficient cars. So, they rushed to complete a design. It turns out that, for other design considerations, they put the gasoline tank right at the back of the car. Cars were exploding when they were hit from behind. But, it took quite a few months before enough news (back when mainstream journalism was still a legitimate thing) reports triggered a backlash against the car manufacturer and they removed the model from the market.

     Even now, we have international companies which have vestiges of their prior journalism departments. But if they dare to report the reality of abusive governmental people and bodies, they retract and pay fines rather than face the possibility of abuse of power and retribution. The actions MAY be in the best interests of their stock holders (probably not as they are also potential customers) but definitely not in the best interests of their customers.

     What do these situations (and many others not described) have in common? Amorality.

     This is a subject about which I have written a number of newsletters (or blogs) in the past. But, in our world of diminishing trust in the world around us, it continues to be a very important subject. For some, there is no distinction between amorality and immorality and perhaps they are correct. Immorality is doing something that you know is considered bad according to your societal standards. Amorality is allowing something bad to happen (possibly without understanding that it is bad but not caring) but not directly doing the bad thing. There is a gray area which asks if knowing about the action makes a person an accomplice.

     In the above examples, the corporate decisions and actions are largely to do with money. If they could make the money without having the immoral actions occurring, that would be fine with them. But the money is more important. For the chocolate company, they add up the profits they make inappropriately selling their product. They balance that number against the cost of lawsuits for deaths, court costs, and restitution. So far, they make more money selling products and killing people. A similar situation existed for the automobile company. For the media company, none are killed directly but may be killed in related actions.

     Similar situations exist for personal actions. Bullying someone is immoral. Knowing about the bullying and not doing anything is amoral (see what I mean about the gray area between immoral and amoral). Polluting the environment is immoral. Noticing the pollution and not doing anything about it is amoral. Deliberately harming, or killing, someone is immoral (and usually illegal) but recognizing the event and not doing anything about it is amoral. There are some situations in which it seems that there is nothing an individual can do anything to prevent it. But, there really is no excuse.

     Amorality also exists when the company, or person, is unconcerned about GOOD effects of their actions. A company changes their waste flow to capture, and resell, some of the effluent which ends up with the company polluting less. Their action was to make more money via a better process and profitable side-effect but the end result was something good. People don’t complain about that (and I don’t either — I wish it would happen more often).

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Giving & Taking: One cannot exist without the other but there are nuances

      “It is better to give than to receive”. English, even more than many other languages, has shades of meaning according to the exact word used. The word “receive” is passive. Something arrives and you passively receive it. There is no action upon the receiver’s part except to act as a receptacle.

“I received a package in the mail”.

     In the first paragraph, “giving” is an active verb. You are deliberately choosing to remove something in your possession and place it into the possession of someone else or in some other place. You are using an active “give” and a passive “receive”. It is also possible to be an unwilling, passive, person/location that has something available to be used/possessed by someone else or another place. In this case, it is best to use the passive verb “possess”. Possessor A transfers X to possessor B.

“They took what they wanted”.

     “Don’t be a taker”. In this case, “take” is very active. You are removing something from someone, or some place, and taking possession of it. Whether it wants to be possessed by you is of no consequence. Only in the case of an active giver is everything voluntary.

     Confused yet? People get confused and they use the wrong terms all the time. We say that being a taker is bad and a giver is good. But it really depends on the other end of the transition.

• If both are passive, no transaction occurs.

• If one is active and the other passive then the transaction may be unwilling and, most of the time, the morality of a society says that an unwilling transaction is bad. (There are those, of course, that say “might makes right” — if you CAN take then it is all right for you to take. In general, people will SAY that forcing something upon (“giving to”) a person is not proper but may accept the act. If you CAN give but the other doesn’t want it then it indicates a certain amount of hubris.)

• If both are active, it is assumed that it is a willing transaction.

     The above is complicated enough, isn’t it? But we haven’t gone into the situation of an active end and an active refusal. I try to give you something (active) but you refuse to accept it (active refusal). I try to take something from you (active) and you refuse to let it go (active refusal). These situations are conflict cases — conflict of desire — and they are often the basis of wars, vendettas, grudges, and resentments.

     There are more exact replacements, or synonyms of the various verbs within a given situation.

     Taking from someone without their permission (active or passive resistance) is theft.

     Giving to someone without their desire to have it can be called charity or it can be called hubris.

     Adages must be applied carefully. Sometimes it is NOT better to give than to receive.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Spectrums: Deciding upon a number along a long list of numbers does not define us.

     It is very rare that a person can use one particular set of pigeonholes to categorize a person — probably isn’t possible at all. But most measuring devices will come up with “answers”. Looking at those answers more closely, we find that the answers all end up “kind of”.

     I have a result for the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory of INT/FJ. The “/” indicates that I “balance” between the aspects of “Thinking” and “Feeling”. The reality is that the T to F scale is a spectrum. I test out at the very middle. It is my understanding that there is now a refinement that breaks the type-casting into smaller gradations. It also seems to be true that we shift based on relationships. My wife is strong on the Process-oriented side of the MBTI while I am moderate on the Judicious side. When I am with her, my "J” aspect becomes stronger as I counter-balance her “P” tendencies.

     There are many areas that can be measured — with an arbitrary division that says one endpoint or the other (for weight; overweight versus underweight). Some are known to have large “loopholes” but are used anyway for convenience. One such is BMI. For most people (about 90%), this ratio of height to weight works — but for those who have either a lot of muscle mass (such as athletes or other heavy exercisers) or truly “large boned” it does not work well. The measurement of height seems straight-forward but we are all shorter at the end of the day (the older, the greater the difference) and whether we are “short” or “tall” depends within what pool of people we are measured. When I was visiting castles in Wales, I (at 5’ 7” tall) had to duck under every door arch and watch my head within rooms. The suits of armor appeared to be made for junior high school children.

     One of the areas that end up being categorized the most is “race”. Most people would think that this would be definitive but it is actually composed of many gradations and very arbitrary divisions. The concept of race was created to give apparently rational excuses for distinguishing between different pools of people. Thus, one pool could be considered “superior” to others and justified colonialism and slavery. But, if you break down the qualities that are measured, we can quickly see that such classification is balderdash.

     At our sons’ elementary school, there were a variety of genetic backgrounds. I believe there were about 800 students. If, on a particular day (it would be different on another day because of tanning or season of the year), you lined all 800 students up from the most pigment to the least, you would probably have around 50 or so clumps where the pigment level would be difficult to discern between individuals. According to the “race” aspect, however, somewhere between two clumps, the children would be classified as “white” or “non-white”.

     The same set of methods could be applied to hair texture, nose proportions, eye color, cuticle shapes, and so forth. With each spread and grouping, the concept of “race” becomes more and more ludicrous.

     This is not meant to negate personal histories, ethnic commonalities, and other aspects which can tend to group people and may coincide with the categories of “race”. Such identification may be very important to a person, their history, and their perspectives on the rest of the world — but the outside envelope is incidental.

     We have four sons, two of which are on the Autistic spectrum. Before a change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were considered to have Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism is not a disease but it is a change in brain structure that creates challenges for people to deal with inside a “neurotypical” (or “normal”) population. The changes happen before birth and, therefore, nothing that happens after birth has any relevance.

     From a “techie” point of view, you can say that their I/O (Input/Output) connections to the world are wired differently. With this difference in “wiring”, interactions with the outside world do not work the same as others. Hearing, speaking, touching, tasting, seeing, smelling and other bodily interactions with the general population can sometimes be like speaking different languages.

     But our two sons are considered “high functioning”. They have strong verbal skills and are able to do most things that others do. But they do them differently — and one of them includes an aspect of “sensory issues” where the volume of the outside world can vary, in his perception, from moment to moment. As a child, this caused him great distress so he would scream to drown out the outside world with something “he could control”. It continues to affect him about what foods he can tolerate.

     The grandson of a friend is towards the other “end” of the spectrum. His “I/O circuitry” does not allow verbal output. He is not fully at the “end” (where there is NO interaction with the outside world) as he is still able to interact with others and can be an enormous pleasure to be around. It is impossible for those around him to know just what/how/how much/why he processes information.

     Our society has a terrible habit of assuming that those with sensory challenges also have intellectual challenges but such aspects are quite independent. From all points within the autistic spectrum, the goal is have them be able to interact well with others who do not have their particular configurations.

     Another famous spectrum issue is that of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). It has been proposed that IQ is only one of a number of different types of intelligence with all of them having their own “score” or place upon the spectrum. Often a “100” means “average”. Half of the population is meant to be below 100 and the other half above 100. But there are also scales (or spectrums) for emotional intelligence (EQ) and physical intelligence (PQ) and a couple of others. Alas, there is no such thing as a “common sense” quotient — because that term is primarily used as a comparison between those setting the ideal and those either following along or diverting from that ideal.

     Score, scale, spectrum — we are all of more this way than that and the combination of all such comparisons, or evaluations. The array of results, as expressed in lists of numbers, emphasize how unique we each are rather than allowing a single number to pigeonhole us.

     We are one species, one people and our differences all form a part of the population as a whole.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Displacement: Physical and Economic

     Life is change. It can be slow, fast, or abrupt — but it happens. Our planet has gone through changes throughout its history. Asteroids have hit the planet. Volcanoes have caused short-lived, but deadly, global winters for the planet. We have had Ice Ages and receding periods. Continents have split apart and merged.

     We are currently in a global warming period emerging faster than has happened in any other recorded period. This is based on comparisons with historical geologic and ice core readings. It is due to increases of greenhouse gases which prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere and which causes a change in the balance of energy. The oceans are warming and that gives a greater heat/energy source for creation of larger, more frequent, drastic weather events such as droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes and — yes — even blizzards. Almost all scientists agree that humans have greatly contributed to those greenhouse gases. It is not as certain as to whether it still would have happened without humans — but, if so, not nearly as quickly.

     But it IS happening and it’s happening quickly. The changes in weather patterns are forcing changes in crops grown in different areas. The rise in sea level threatens coastlines and many island nations, with much of their area to be below estimated future sea levels, are making plans for migration (or emigration) of much of their population. Larger, non-island, countries will have to deal with coastlines receding inland with established coastal development going under the water. Other large-scale displacements of people will happen because of changes in availability in amounts of potable water. More energy in the system can power many different events and 100-year-floods become 5-year-floods.

     People are not displaced solely because of physical reasons. The tides of change in the economic arena can move people even more than an earthquake.

     The name “Luddite” (named for Ned Ludd who destroyed some mechanical equipment in 1779 out of frustration with changes happening) can be found in literature around 1811. In this region of time, the “Industrial Revolution” was taking place. What once needed ten people to do the manual labor for a task could, with machines, be done with one person (trained differently and with a different set of daily duties). What happened to the other nine? They were unemployed — and, since there were a lot of instances of this happening in the textile industry, there were a LOT of unemployed people without any type of modern “safety net”. They had been displaced by the new technology and machinery.

     Many of the newly unemployed workers had done the same type of work all of their lives. The companies that they previously worked for had no legal obligation for generosity and compassion to help the unemployed workers — nor did the religious leaders of the time urge such!

     Over the years, technology has replaced technology. As Danny DeVito says in “Other People’s Money” (not the exact words) — “I’ll bet that the last company that made buggy whips made the absolutely most wonderful buggy whips ever”. But the buggy and coach have traveled over the hills unlikely to return.

     Over the past 50 years, we have had white-collar labor practices be replaced by programs and computers — and blue-collar positions replaced by automation. It has caused discomfort and displacement but manageable. Now, the process continues to accelerate. Though we have yet to see just how effective, and useful, current AI methods are within society, if they come even close to the use as hoped for by businesses, we could displace 10% to 20% of the labor force. These are not people who have yet to find a job. These are people for whom no job exists. What happens with them? Desperate people do desperate things. A universal base income might keep them alive but there are so many other societal aspects that blend into that and other possibilities.

     While this is something that I have said, and will say, on a disgustingly regular basis; we have problems to approach and work towards solving — but the first overriding problem is getting people to talk to, and work with, each other to work to solve them.

     But we can do it if we want to do such.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Strata: Layers don't apply only to geology

 “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

     Geologists and physical archeologists can look at a cliffside and determine weather patterns, and events of the earth, that tell us some about the history of the earth — including volcanic events, earthquakes, global plates colliding, and so forth. In the case of geology, it is a matter of one new layer being settled upon an older, former, one. The layers are not all active at the same time — unlike layers of human society.

     There have probably been pockets of egalitarianism throughout history and society. The book “Utopia” by Thomas More gives some glimpses into an angelic society such as that; but utopia is an idealized societal structure that can only be approached as a possible goal; a goal that is hardly ever reached — and never maintained.

     General society has hierarchies which can be formalized or implied. In Russian feudal society, the layers were fixed: Royalty, Nobility, Peasants, and Serfs. There was almost no mobility between layers and there were less structured sublayers within each layer. The bottom layer was pretty universal within all feudal societies — the Serfs were property and anyone above them in the hierarchy could do anything to them that they wanted. The top layer was also pretty universal. Royalty owned everything but Nobles might be delegated to be directly responsible for some subset. Peasants (in other named hierarchies, sometimes known as Freemen (yes — gender on purpose)) were no longer considered to be property but terms of mutual obligation with the local royalty/nobility were dictated solely by the higher class.

     Feudal society was common throughout Europe from the 9th through the 15th centuries. It was structured somewhat differently in each region, but still had the ruling classes on top and the working classes (and human property) on the bottom.

     I don’t have enough knowledge about non-European systems to talk in depth about them — but most have in common the idea of a smaller group controlling a larger group that did the everyday work. The primary improvement over the feudal system past the 15th century was the concept of movement, and the creation of what many now call the “middle class”. Prior to these changes, if you were born a serf, you died a serf, and so did your children. Sure, there were tales (often totally made up) that talked about “diamonds in the rough” where a serf became the king — but there aren’t many (if any) recorded instances of this actually happening.

     With increased mobility, a person could move up (or, more rarely, down — if a royal, or noble, lost status they often lost their life) in the social strata. Advancing to the rung of royalty has been strongly opposed by others in the ruling class but in the 20th and 21st century such has happened.

     In almost every economic society, there are people in the bottom layer who do most of the physical work, almost all of the “unpleasant” physical work, and who have very little security in their lives. In India, the Dalits (“untouchables”) are at the bottom. In the U.S., it is minorities, recent immigrants (that did not come in under a H1-B Visa or other high tech Visa), and undocumented immigrants. In Australia, South Asian immigrants bring along their positions within their own caste system and the position of the aborigine is unclear. In much of modern Europe, there is a less strict boundary but those considered as “laborers” still make up the foundation, “lower”, class/layer.

     In the U.S., the layers do shift — as does the population mixture. “No Irish Need Apply”, “Italians go Home”, “Whites Only” (that last one still exists — just not so explicitly), Large influxes of outside groups as immigrants often evoke discomfort, insecurity, and discrimination. And, of course, slaves were the lowest sublayer within the foundation layer prior to official elimination of slavery — though blacks are still often part of the foundation layer.

     In diagrams of caste, or economic/social, systems the layers are often displayed as pyramids. This evolves naturally, as each layer “up” has fewer people and has more freedom of action and allowable actions. In the North American indigenous totem poles, it is the bottom layer that is the foundation of the story and the source of strength and support for the other layers — often representing spirit guardians or an animal protector for the group.

     It isn’t required that the bottom layer be populated by people. We are now entering a period of time when it is no longer a fantasy to have robots, or multi-functioning AI or automation, take over many of the tasks of the foundation layer. Doing such forces a shift of the people filling the existing foundation layers and makes intrusions into other layers. Presently, there are no societies properly preparing for such a disruption.

     The bottom layers of society are vital to local economic/societal functioning. Like the foundation of a house, they are more important to the structure than that which is built on top.

     Without them, the rest of the layers crumble.

     But the treatment of the people comprising the bottom layers is not predetermined. They can be treated horribly, as was most often the case with the enslaved population of the U.S., the situation of the Dalits in India, or the recent immigrant (legal or undocumented). They can also be recognized and respected. Alas, the spectrum of treatment more often leans toward poor treatment. But, since all layers serve a purpose, a more egalitarian treatment is warranted and quite possible to exist within a society.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Woke: The hijacking of a Word

     If I read (or hear) the word “woke” in an article, I immediately know (with a high degree of confidence) what the political, economic, and societal orientation of the person using the word is. Why? Because those that originally made use of the word have almost completely abandoned it. The word has been hijacked from the originators to be used in very different ways.

     The word “woke” has a very simple definition:

To be aware of historical events and attitudes and their continued influence within society.

     There are other variations of the definition but it seems pretty straight-forward, doesn’t it? Simple. Should not be particularly controversial. But, as used by those who still use it, it is.

     Do the people who use it as negative type of 4-letter word still use it with the original definition? I don’t know. It is possible — though, if true, it means that they strongly different in opinion (and deny the facts of primary source documentation) about how historians and sociologists view the past, and present, world.

     If they use it with a different meaning, I cannot say just what that meaning may be. As used within speeches, articles, social media posts, tweets, and political campaigns it has no single consistent definition. It is used as an all-encompassing flag word to stand for everything negative that they believe exists in the people for whom they are using the word.

     The word “woke” is not the only word that has been hijacked in such a manner. And this has greatly assisted the campaign to divide the country and prevent constructive discussion. There is a saying that is used to work out the foundational reasons for events — “follow the money”. In these expanding situations of forcing division where there should be none, the better slogan should be “follow the power”.

     Hijacking a word does not benefit anyone. It just makes constructive dialog harder.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Terrorism: At the bottom of a spiral of grief, frustration, and rage

     I am not an expert in terrorism and I hate it as much as anyone. But, I do have some qualifications in feeling anger, frustration, and grief.

     I firmly believe that no one wants to be a terrorist. There is no career counseling in an office where someone says — “oh yes, that sounds just right for me. I think it would be really great to be a terrorist.” And, on the other side, I doubt very much that a lot of groups, and people, whom most of the world calls a terrorist would, in turn, call themselves a terrorist.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. We all know that life is not fair but do we all have a good idea of just what that means? My brother gets a piece of candy and my mother looks for another but there is no more so I don’t get one. Life is not fair. Anger level 1.

     I apply to a college and am qualified to attend but I am turned down because they have no more open places to fill or no more funding to offer. But someone else does get admitted. They are also qualified but they are put into the front of the qualified queue because one of their parents is an alumnus of the college. Or perhaps the other person is the first in their family to have qualified to enter college and the college places them farther towards the front of the qualified queue. Life is not fair. Anger level 3.

     I have been working for a company for 15 years. I know how to do the work in my sleep (though I do not sleep while working). A position opens up. I am extremely well qualified to fill the position but the company gives the position to someone with no experience but they have a piece of paper that says they know the most recent ways to do the tasks of the position. Life is not fair. Anger level 5.

     My family works hard together to make a life for all. There are no luxuries but everyone gets enough to eat, the clothes are clean and the family is even able to buy shoes (inexpensive or second-hand) when the children outgrow them. A bomb hits my house. My parents and one of my siblings are killed. Our home is obliterated. I have to go on the streets with my little sister and try to scrounge food and locate some shelter in abandoned buildings. I am sometimes beaten by others who are homeless but, more often, I am beaten by people who still have a safe, stable, home life. Perhaps because, deep down, they know that they could easily be in the same position as the homeless boy? Life is not fair. Anger level 6.

     But, as I walk around — avoiding the police who do not want me disturbing people — I see how others are dressed. I see people on television shows whose greatest concern is whether to fry a chicken or have fish for dinner. Life is not fair. Anger level 8.

     Many people who hit these situations give up — and spiral into despair and frustration. Some find it within themselves to struggle to examine what aspects of their situation are able to be changed and succeed in improving their situation. And some settle into non-constructive morasses of blame, bigotry, and complaining.

     But what if there is no way to improve the situation — the laws are against you and people like you? Unlike what happens with Job, there is no one who can restore your family (and, in the Bible, Job gets a new family — not the old one back). No one can restore your house and your neighborhood. It is possible that as soon as you and/or your neighbors rebuild, the new houses are bombed. Anger level 9.

     This becomes a combination of anger about the events and frustration in not being able to change the past, present, or future. There is yet additional anger if there is no one with some degree of power willing to listen. And if you are being used as an “expendable” side-effect of political and military maneuvering then anger and frustration mount.

     These combinations of great anger and huge frustration generate rage. And rage is not rational. It does not stand back and say “how do these actions cause an improvement in my condition or the condition of my neighbors and others in my same situation?” It explodes — sometimes (too often) literally.

     In addition, those who have entered into a state of rage are very susceptible to being used. People with greater power and charisma can easily channel people’s rage into destructive action for their own purposes.

     It is possible for the death-dance of rage and frustration to de-escalate. It happened in Northern Ireland. It was not easy. It can also be contagious. It is currently expanding within the Middle East and it is very difficult to know who deserves the title of terrorist. Possibly none of them believe that the word should be associated with them. Yet rage rules the situation.

     Terrorists are not born, they are created. It will take the concerted, compassionate, efforts of all of us to change those conditions within which they are created.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Success: We don't all have the same definition

     Everyone wants success, don’t they? But that doesn’t mean that I want what YOU mean by success. And it doesn’t mean that you want what I mean as success. This often seems to be a stumbling block in communication — the same word (or set of phonemes — or hand gestures) not meaning the same thing to each of the people conversing. This is especially so when it comes to the word “success”.

     I am in the process of learning Spanish (read/write coming along well, listen/speak not so well) and a recently introduced word is “exito” which the language program I am using (DuoLingo) defines in English as success. I checked the word history of exito and it has come from the Latin word “exitus”. And exitus has its own set of meanings — the most relevant in this case being that of termination or conclusion (also “way out” [of a place]). So we can see some linguistic connections between “exito”, “success”, “exitus, and “exit””. It also gives us a different way of approaching how the word success may really be meant to be used.

     Many people use “success” to mean a positive conclusion — which does partially fit in with the history and definition of the word (the definition does not include “positive” — thus, success could also be applied to a negative conclusion if taken only from word history.).

     In the “western” world, there are a few accepted variants associations which can be applied to success (and are often used as adjectives before the word). Wealth, fame, recognition (similar, but not identical, to fame), achievement, production, number of friends, respect, and so forth. The predominant interpretation in the western world is accumulation of wealth — though wealth is often assumed (but not necessarily true) for those who have achieved status through accomplishments or recognition.

     As a parent, I have a personal definition of success which is above all other definitions. I want my children to be able to successfully “leave the nest”. This is just a different set of words to the concept of having the next generation ready to take over from the current generation. Note that I am not talking about THEIR success — they are the only ones that can define that. I am talking about OUR success as parents. This success may occur even if they remain in our house forever — but they are ABLE to self-support; they have the internal and external resources to continue with their lives. And it means, as a parent, I may not know whether I have had “success” for many years (perhaps not until they “successfully” send out the next generation from the nest).

     In short, although there are certainly biases as to what is involved with success, there is no universally accepted definition.

     How do you define success?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Tariffs: A simple idea but is it useful?

     A tariff is an import tax imposed by a government. It is a simple idea and this newsletter may be the shortest I have written.

     A tariff can be imposed on all products from a country, all products of a certain type from a country, or products produced by a country and imported via a specific company.

     Tariffs are an additive tax on products. This increases the cost to the consumer. It is traditionally used to protect domestic producers. For example, Country A sells product G at a price 25% less than that of a domestically produced product G. If we add a 50% tariff against Country A then domestic prices for product G may now be 25% LESS than that of products from Country A. Domestic producer “wins”. Consumer still “loses” as they will pay more.

     Since any country can impose a tariff, tariffs can be an economic weapon. Retaliatory tariffs are very common with both countries using the tariffs as weapons in an “economic war”. This can lead to a static situation where neither country “wins”. However, the consumer (you and I) still pays for the product and, with the tariff added, pays higher prices.

     Retaliatory tariffs are considered to be one factor triggering the Great Depression.

     Tariffs (retaliatory tariffs, in particular) can hurt producers as well as consumers. A tariff against a country or product, will cause their product to be less competitive and reduce their market. As a local example, tariffs imposed against US grain exports hurt grain producing farmers in the US as it reduces their market.

     Money from tariffs go to the government treasuries but will be paid for by the consumer (you and I). Thus, tariffs are a form of internal tax for citizens of a country.

     In all instances, a tariff will add to the cost and the consumer will pay for that cost with higher prices if they choose that product.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

AI Caution: AI does have limitations to be aware of

     I took an AI course at the University of Idaho in the fall of 1976. Forty-nine years later they are releasing products that have that name associated with them. Is this the same AI as was talked about in 1976? No, not really. If you search for what kinds of AI exist, you will get various lists according to capability, functionality, and techniques/approach. The current AI implementations are at the beginning levels — often called “Narrow”.

     The course that I took in 1976 was more a matter of showing early investigation of programs such as Eliza and early approaches to Machine Learning (ML). Memory capacity, as well as CPU capabilities, were very, very small compared to that of today — and that limited implementations of various approaches. As is true of all computer programs, the main advantage of the computer doing it is that it can do things very, very, fast. Today’s computing power can achieve results only dreamed of in 1976. (And, if the reality is desired, it takes a lot of electricity and hardware to provide the capabilities even today.)

GIGO

     Current Narrow AI implementations such as ChatGPT, Siri, Google maps, or facial recognition are focused on a single type of task. Even the task of answering questions (ChatGPT, etc.) is a single focus. Responses are made according to the data that the program has had access to — and the training (yes/correct, no/incorrect) about appropriate responses. Two problems (among many) arise — are the data that are examined valid (do they meet definitions of facts and correctness) and is there bias (usually according to the trainer) — if they are given proper data but the trainer tells them to reject the proper data in favor of dubious, or clearly incorrect, data?

     Whether it is because of faulty data sources or deliberate subversion by the trainer, these are instances of “Garbage In Garbage Out” (GIGO). This is an old term used by early programmers but it is still valid today. If bad data are part (or all) of the input then the output cannot be trusted. A search response collator (such as ChatGPT) must be treated the same as individual searches which bring back various “hits” at different websites. In other words, even responses from “AI” bots need to be fact-checked.

     Even though you should not blindly trust the output, the use of a Narrow AI can be very useful. It can be used to very quickly gather, compare, and present results similar to the results if you had done a search (or multiple searches), read through the contents, and correlated the contents. The differences are that the Narrow AI can do it much faster but, since it does not have true creative/interpolating intelligence, it does have the caveats mentioned above.

Creativity

     When a Narrow AI presents you with a result in the form that you might submit somewhere or directly use, recognize that this is an “average” of many sets of example data. Although the definitions of such things as “average” are a bit vague — you will be presented with results that are somewhat the average of many possible results. It is very unlikely to be of the very highest quality but is likely to be adequate for your purposes. Personally, unless you have absolutely no skills in the area of the query, I would suggest using the AI result only as a starting template. Change, emphasize, and make it your own.

Permissions

     When a Narrow AI is trained on data, it just grabs data from wherever it has access. When presenting results, the sources are fully hidden from the user. Unlike what would happen if you did the same research, it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to know how much came from this and how much came from that. There is no explicit cautioning about taking the source into consideration and respecting intellectual property rights. This is a legal issue that needs to be pursued (soon) by various governments and legal bodies.

Timeliness

     When you do a search through the Internet, you have the option of age of responses. However, one of those options is to get only the very latest (say — past month) data. When you use a collating “AI” search bot, you do not know just how old the data are. During the first beta testing periods of the various collating search bots, they had an explicit warning that data was obtained only from sources older than a specific date — current data was not included. Lately, such warnings have disappeared but that does not mean that the latest data is incorporated. Given the way that these programs must be trained, it is very unlikely that the latest data are used.

Summary

     Use of an AI program can be beneficial. It can help you create a good, average, example of your desired result. It can speed up searches and correlations of large amounts of data. Results will not be as good as that from expert human intelligence. And there are potential permissions conflicts. Do not treat AI collating bot results as firm, objective, truth — treat all results the same as you would of any other search of data throughout the Internet — with care and a need for fact-checking of potentially subjective results.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Control: The Addictive Illusion

 I would love to be able to control my life. Control the fates of the country, the world, the challenges of the loved ones in my life. I can’t. No one can. That doesn’t mean to imply that we are powerless. We can help to make certain paths more likely and other paths less likely. We are movers of statistical probabilities!

But, somehow, that doesn’t sound all that impressive. It doesn’t sound like something to put on a tombstone or as part of a eulogy.

We are all going to die. Unless some dramatic discovery pops up, we have very little ability to even change our death date in a positive manner. (There are a lot of ways to change it in a negative manner.) A lot of the “do this and live longer” people have finally admitted that it isn’t true. So, they have moved to “do this and feel well longer”. I think this is a very healthy migration. Certainly, it is more accurate and, perhaps, by being more honest more people will be open to the message.

     There are many things that can happen to vividly demonstrate that we do not really have control over events of life. “Acts of God” are a group that is becoming more prevalent of late — due to climate change and shifts in population growth and the direction towards which many direct their hopes. Pay that final mortgage payment — earthquake! Farmers are especially susceptible to such — if one saves and budgets then most of the time a person can survive the lean years (and, due to droughts, floods, mechanical calamities, infestations, etc — there will be some). But, change the statistical frequency of events and all bets are off.

     There are also events, which abruptly change potential paths, that cannot be considered “Acts of God” — because they appear to be in the hands of people. Study for six years to obtain a degree in a field that, at the start of study, seems “lucrative and stable”. Public tastes change, technological “breakthroughs” happen, people wielding power make absurd decisions — what was once stable is now a platform of gelatin. Do your best to protect your family by taking only public transportation — and a drunk driver wipes out much of the family when you are walking along the sidewalk. Even when the statistical situation is stable, there is never a guarantee that you won’t be on the losing end of the curve.

     All that is about control of yourself and the world around you. Control of others? Please, please forget about that. It is possible to create confining parameters to greatly limit choices — a virtual, or physical, prison — but choices always exist even if none of them are desired. With choices, control vanishes. That does not mean to imply that people’s situations are their choices. Control doesn’t exist anywhere. And most might choose to live under very restrictive circumstances rather than the choice of death.

     Except for the method of imposing restrictions on choices, we cannot control anyone (including ourselves). We can, however, provide incentives and encouragement to persuade others (and ourselves) to want to change. We cannot make others happy but we can do things, say things, and work to arrange things such that they are more likely to allow themselves to feel happy. We cannot, and do not, make others angry — their reactions are up to them to choose. But, by pushing their “buttons” we can help to create conditions such that they are more likely to choose to be angry. And by creating conditions that they associate with happiness, we help them to allow themselves to be happy.

     People recognize that we cannot control the weather. They recognize we cannot control the traffic lights when we drive (at least, not most of us). There are other things “out there” that people acknowledge we cannot control. But most of us still think there are aspects of ourselves and others that we can control. Would that it were so.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.