99% and Counting

Economists have suggested that an economic system can maximize either equity or efficiency, not both.  The free market, for example, is hailed (at least in its theoretical ideal) as a model of efficiency. But with its inevitable winners and losers--losers who may through no fault of their own find themselves homeless or starving--the market leaves much to be desired in terms of basic fairness.

Now, another economic dichotomy has become apparent: a split between equality and inclusivity.  As the United States has become ever-more inclusive--reducing or eliminating economic barriers to women, ethnic minorities, and gays--the country has at the same time become ever more unequal ("The Paradox of the New Elite").  Makes sense: As barriers to entry based on outmoded prejudices fall, the pool of prospective economic successes grows.  At the same time, there are only so many spaces at the top of the financial food chain, and more spaces don't appear simply because there are more and more qualified people to fill them.  Thus, those not in the top spots, comprising, let's say, 99% of the population, are an ever-more diverse lot.

Welcome news in its own way to be sure.  If the various "Occupy" movements around the country succeed in bringing about a bit more economic equality, though, we must make sure that such wealth-sharing does not come at the expense of this hard-won social inclusivity.

Kids Today!

"Some argue that today’s child-rearing and educational techniques have produced praise addicts. Roni Caryn Rabin of The Times recently reported on some research that found that college students would rather receive a compliment than eat their favorite food or have sex."

What college was this? How ugly would the students have to be?

Y'know, the food thing, maybe. If you're counting calories and all. Maybe someone compliments you on your ability to resist tempation.

But sex? Really? You expect us to believe that a majority--or at any rate a plurality--of college students, actually chose a compliment over sex?

"OK, Phil. Here are your choices: A juicy steak, a blow job, or a compliment. Which do you want?"

"Hmmm. . . "

"Well?"

"Don't rush me! I'm thinking!"

"Uh. . . OK. . . "

"What was the second thing?"

"A blow job?"

"From a girl?"

"Well, y'know, yes. . . Or a guy, whatever you prefer."

"Or a steak?"

"Yes, or a compliment. Which would you prefer?"

Seriously, that would have to be some major compliment. Maybe if, like, Obama and George Clooney--

[WOS: Again with George Clooney? Really?]

--and, and, like God all came to our office and told us that we were just doing a bang-up job and were a credit to humanity and the best thing since sliced bread--

Actually, we'd still prefer sex. Or a steak.

Personally, we don't even see the need to choose, accustomed as we are to being complimented for sex.

[WOS: Oy.]

Solipsistography

"The Modesty Manifesto"

Perception

No doubt most members of Solipsist Nation have seen this image before, but, if you haven't, what do you see? A young woman turned away from the viewer's gaze? Or an old lady in a shawl? If you can only see one, here's the explanation: The young lady's "ear" is the old lady's "eye"; the young lady's "jawbone" is the old lady's "nose"; and the young lady's "choker" is the old lady's "mouth." Apparently, they can both afford a fur coat.

When people first look at the picture, they see one of these two images. Indeed, it can sometimes be tricky to see the "other" image at first. We suppose psychologists have some theory about what one's initial interpretation of the picture says about the inner life of the observer, but that's not what interests us here. We're more interested in the fact that, whether you see an old lady or a young one, you're right! This picture is both at the same time.

It's an interesting metaphor for much of civic discourse. When two groups debate a social problem, each side is firmly convinced of the correctness of its position. Abortion is the taking of life; abortion is a personal choice. Unions are vital to the ability of workers to maintain their rights against the forces of capital; unions are a drag on the economy, forcing business executives to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of workers' preferences. US troops should get out of Afghanistan; the US has a responsibility to stay in Afghanistan until the country is able to stand on its own. Each side firmly believes in the rightness of its position and cannot convince the other of its consequent "wrongness."

What if both sides are right? This is not to say that one must agree with everything. But wouldn't more problems get solved if each side of a debate could recognize that--to some extent--their opponents are speaking in "good faith," out of firmly held beliefs that are, in fact, correct. That while some see an old lady, the picture is that of an old woman, and vice versa. If we start from a recognition of each others' facts, then maybe we can achieve some sort of common understanding of each others' opinions. And maybe we can achieve some solutions for the seemingly intractable problems society faces, as long as we recognize that everybody--everybody--is operating from sincerely good intentions.

Well, y'know, except Republicans.

Solipsistography

Image from The Heart and Craft of Life Writing

Blinded 'gainst the Right

Dateline: Ironyville.

Turns out social psychologists--whose job it is to illuminate all the subtle biases infecting the body politic and blinding us to the difficulties faced by those not like ourselves--are infected by bias and blinded to the difficulties faced by those not like themselves. At least, that's what University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt says. He has found that a statistically impossible number of social psychologists (something like 536%) identify themselves as liberals. This, in turn, makes it difficult for self-identified conservatives to break in to the social psychology field. But who cares what they think, anyway?

The problem here is that liberal bias lead researchers to faulty conclusions. Let's say a liberal social psychologist examines the virtually non-existent Latino membership in the Ku Klux Klan. He (and it's always "he" because, let's face it, women aren't capable of the academic rigor demanded by the social sciences) may assume a racist explanation. In fact, once you recall that Klan meetings are always held on Tuesday evenings, a simple non-discriminatory explanation for Latino non-participation presents itself: Latinos probably just prefer to spend their Tuesday evenings drinking tequila and committing welfare fraud. QED.

We see liberal bias in the recent mini-uproar over the huge gender imbalance among Wikipedia contributors. Men make up over 85% of the contributing populace. But where a liberal may see discrimination, a cooler head may see an alternative explanation. Remember, that Wikipedia is "open source": Any yutz with a keyboard and an internet connection can pontificate on any topic. Maybe women are just less inclined than men to dilate for15 single-spaced pages on "Lord of the Rings" (which, by the way, only discusses the novel) or 23 pages on "Star Wars" (just the media franchise). When the entry on shoe designer Christian Louoboutin takes up as many pages (four) as the entry on "tribbles," we suspect the reason is less gender discrimination than admirable restraint on the part of female contributors. Maybe a disturbing proportion of men just have way too much time on their hands.

So we ask all members of Solipsist Nation--a decidedly left-leaning bunch--to analyze your own biases. Maybe there is more than one way to look at the world. Then again, that is a fairly liberal attitude, so we may be wrong about it.

Solipsistography
"Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List"
"Social Scientist Sees Bias Within"