On Being a Parent

 I was asked to write something about parenting. I don't know if I'm qualified, but I do have experience. I first became a parent a month after my twentieth birthday. I am now toward the end of my sixth decade. That means I have been a parent for more than twice as long as I have not been a parent. I have four children and a large number of grandchildren. This note reflects my aspirations. Sometimes I don't succeed.

I was young, but fortunate, as a first time parent. Both Sarah and I are readers. I also have a tendency to question whatever I am told and try to reason from first principles. Sarah had been working in a good day care center for some time and has a natural affinity for young children. So we read about child rearing. Not just current books, but older ones as well. It became apparent that child rearing is as faddish as all other aspects of culture. This was both troubling and freeing. Troubling because, in a deep sense, no one knows what they are doing. Freeing because reasonable human beings keep being reared despite the fashions. As a species we instinctually know what to do as long as we follow our better nature. We want to touch and hold our children. We want to see them laughing and happy. We want them to be strong, independent, and fearless. Most of us understand that if a child is unhappy, there is a reason for it. We may never find a cause, but there is one. That means an unhappy child needs and deserves love, support, and compassion even if their pain is caused by the trivial or even nothing we can discern.

Children grow to be adults, but they are not adults. They are unreasonable bundles of emotions, actions and reactions. They can sometimes be persuaded by argument, but they are not rational. They are exquisitely and effectively responsive to their environment. Children will mold themselves to get what they need from their environment. They also have all the normal human instincts and emotions: Empathy and cruelty, a sense of fairness and unfairness, love and hate, rewards and revenge. It is important to remember that they respond to the actual environment, not the stated environment. Parents may talk about love, fairness, and respect. If they display disappointment, favoritism, and criticism, the children will respond to the actual environment not the stated one.

Come to think of it, adults are much the same. The difference is that we have a greater mental capacity to examine the world and form rational plans. We also have a more developed capacity to act in accordance with what we think rather than what we feel. As an adult I may feel rage, but if that will not help the situation I will act calmly and unemotionally to make things better.

One very, very, important difference between adults and children is that children are easily distracted. When distracted, they often forget what happened before. My first child, September, was colicky as an infant. That just means she was fussy and often unhappy. That is when I learned that intense physical actions could erase her emotions. When she was fussy I would sometimes hold her high and let her fall, always in my hands, for a few feet. Her internal reaction was basically "what the hell just happened". Processing the experience often erased her previous unhappiness and she could be re-engaged with something happier. It also started me on a path of raw physicality. By the time she was nine months old I would take her and throw her high in the air and catch her on the way down. We both enjoyed it. On the now outlawed spinners in parks (maybe 15 feet across with metal tubes to hold on to) I would push sets of children just as fast as they could take. You had to watch how tight their grips were and whether anyone was turning green, but it was great fun.

For older children, the same lesson applies. When a child is behaving badly you can lecture them and punish them in various ways. However, they simply lack the mental capacity to reflect and change behaviour. A quick explanation is important so they understand how you view the world, but for most incidents after you have explained you can simply erase the situation. I find humor, games, and even the worst mock magic tricks effective. Recently I took an unhappy child who was effectively being punished for bad behavior with siblings and made things ok again by pretending to take a coin from behind their ear. I can't do such a trick, but I made it so apparent that I was disappointed with my repeated failures that it was funny to them. This erased the distress and they could go back to the family without causing additional trouble. The siblings share a short attention span, so the incident was forgotten and reintegration possible. If the punishment had been likely to be effective, I would have left the kid alone. But self reflection is not a strong point for children and I think a wiser course of action is to make the immediate situation better and get back to normal as quickly as possible. In this case, about two minutes.

Once on a family road trip we ran into a blizzard. This did not please my one year old(?) grandchild in his car seat who wanted us to stop and who wanted to be breast fed. Stopping seemed out of the question if we ever wanted to make it home. I drove for maybe six hours as the toddler screamed continuously. Everyone was as kind and patient as we could be with him. We talked and tried to explain, but he did not stop screaming. This made my driving, in a blizzard, on a highway with spun out cars littering the shoulder, "difficult". I must say though, I was impressed with both his stamina and force of will. For a while afterwords I called him The Dark Lord. He has turned into a fine young adult who has learned to control himself better. But I think he still has that underlying determination and force of will.

In that car, there were three generations of people of mixed ages. I like to believe we all modeled and reinforced important lessons: The focus and self control necessary to accomplish what needed to be done in spite of adversity. The ability to act calmly in an emotionally fraught situation. And most importantly, the compassion needed to deal with a child who was, quite reasonably, completely distraught about their situation.

Stories are important. It is how we, as humans, approach life. We tell ourselves stories of who we are, and who we are not. I tell myself the story that I am an honest, intelligent, capable person. I tell myself this, and believe it, despite the fact that I can recite a litany of my deceits, embarrassingly stupid actions, and incompetence. Having this litany is important in being honest to myself. It does not change my view that, on the whole, I am honest, intelligent, and capable. It is something I aspire to even if I don't always accomplish it.

As a parent we have the opportunity, through our actions, to form the inner story a child tells themselves. If they are constantly accused of deception and bad intent, they will form the inner story that they are deceitful and wicked and will behave accordingly. If they are praised for effort and encouraged in kindness, they will form the inner story that they are hard working and kind.

My father's mother, an irish catholic, raised nine boys. Much of it effectively as a single, poverty stricken, mother because her husband developed parkinson's disease and was totally disabled. She was revered by her children and by many of her peers. She said the way to create honest children was to always believe them, even when lies were apparent. That way they understood that the very air around them was filled with an expectation of honesty. It worked. Her children were sometimes SOBs, but they were almost invariably honest. And, as it turned out, invariably intellectually rigorous. They passed these traits to my generation.

I often say that when a child is just born, they rely on us for everything. By the time they are forty five, we hope they rely on us for almost nothing. The art of parenting is managing the transition between the two stages. One important aspect of the transition is agency. Agency is the notion that you can choose a course of action and see it through. As parents I think we should give every child as much agency as possible while still protecting them from irreparable harm. To show them that even adults were children and did things that were not great, I tell young kids stories about times I did embarrassing things. A favorite seems to be the time, when I was about four, I got up from my nap without my mother knowing and walked to the beach (a few blocks away) NAKED. I was brought home in a police car.

In my mind, the statement that I have four children is not quite accurate. For me, any child in my presence is my child. In the presence of a child, I am not important. The child is the important one and what I am thinking and feeling takes a back seat to what they are thinking and feeling. I think this is reasonable because, given the normal course of events, they will be here after I am dead and gone. They will be able to affect the world long after I cannot, and they are the repository of any small legacy of humanity that I hope to leave behind.

Life is often difficult, unfair, and disappointing for each of us. I firmly believe that if anything is going to allow us to improve our lives, it is compassion. For me, that means putting myself aside and trying to understand others. Once we understand, forgiveness is often possible. This includes compassion for ourselves. That does not mean that we condone actions, just that understanding is necessary for correction, change, and redemption.

Compassion is especially important around children. It not only makes their lives better and happier, it also makes for an emotionally supportive environment. That environment allows them to grow into better people.

My basic advice to other parents is this. Compassion begins with putting aside your needs, your emotions, your desire for a different world. As the Buddhists say, "Comparisons are odious". Look at your current children, your current situation. Understand it, and make it better. Do this with as little regard for yourself as you can manage. You have a lot to juggle and a lot of responsibilities. Sometimes when the toddler is screaming, you just have to tend to business and drive the car. Remember, you are the least important person in the room.

Creating Social Engagement

As the number of mass shootings continues to climb I, like everyone else, will put in my two cents about causes and possible solutions.

I do not believe the problem in the US is one of guns. It is a problem of culture and will not end until the culture changes. Luckily, culture is the sum of what each of us thinks, does, and says. That means we can change it by changing ourselves. This personally daunting task becomes easier as we see our friends and neighbors modeling the behavior. Each of us contains a multitude of selves and we just need to let the best of ourselves come out, repress the worst in ourselves, and reward the better actions of others.

In this post I won't be posting much in the way of references, but I believe that my argument is well supported by the evidence. I am looking at trends, not universals.

First, some words on "safe" and "comfortable". It is ingrained that these words belong together. In a recent survey on traffic in my city people were asked to prioritize the importance of a number of items. One of them was "Streets should be safe and comfortable". In fact, safety and comfort do not go together. If people feel too comfortable driving, they increase their speed which, off the highway, makes the street less safe. In the same way, we often feel most comfortable when we do not engage strangers, but we are social creatures and expanding our social circles makes us better people.

Violence against strangers tends to be perpetrated by people who are socially isolated. Social isolation is defined as a lack of contact with other people and it is deadly in a social animal like humans. The opposite of social isolation is social engagement. Increased social engagement makes us more capable in dealing with people in a variety of situations. It gives us greater control of our environment and makes us more aware of what is going on around us.

Here are some ways we can improve our culture and ourselves. Some are simpler than others. All require some effort, at least at the beginning.

You know that weird person you have noticed? The one that makes you a little uncomfortable? Next time you pass him/her, say hello. You need not converse, just acknowledge their existence as a fellow human being and move along. After a while you might make some small talk or even have a real discussion, but that is not a requirement. It is not likely, but eventually that person could turn into your best friend.

Join or start a group. Almost two hundred years ago Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: "Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations." Prove him right. Join a book club, a bowling league, a soccer team, a bicycle club ... It doesn't have to require much time. Book clubs generally meet about once a month and you don't even have to read every book.

When you converse, listen to the other person. In general, allow them to have the last word. Listening does not signify assent. When it comes right down to it, you probably disagree with everyone around you on one topic or another. That doesn't mean you have to shun them. However... if someone's views are truly vile, feel free to call them on it. Tell the racist "I'm sorry, I could not disagree more. I think your beliefs are without support and if you act on them I will work against you." Again, this is hard, but with practice you will get better at it. If someone seems like they might be dangerous, report them.

If someone asks you for help, provide it. There are, of course, requests and circumstances that make this unwise or infeasible, but make "yes" your default answer. You can take this a step further. If someone looks like they need help, offer it. A little harder is a change of attitude. Be more concerned that everyone who needs help gets it and less concerned that someone who is "undeserving" may be abusing the system.

Our built environment is often badly constructed for social interaction. Do not support this. In choosing a home we often look at the inside amenities. This is important, but don't forget the outside. Is there somewhere outside, facing the street, where you and a couple friends can sit down and watch the world go by. If not, is there a way to easily construct a sitting spot? If a home fails this simple test, don't buy or rent it. Inside, is there a room where you are likely to spend time that has windows on the street? If not, you will have no opportunity to get to know the daily life of your street. It is harder to integrate into a neighborhood if you never see your neighbors. On a nice evening, think about walking around the block. As you go around, say hello to folks. Ask them about their day. If you cannot do this comfortably or if no one is ever around to say hello, you have a bad neighborhood. Try to fix it or move.

Vote to make your community better even if it means increased taxes. If there is a ballot measure to build/improve schools, support it. More parks and improved public spaces, support it. Support it especially if it goes to other folks who have less than you. Send your support to the lowest income schools and neighborhoods. Make sure poor kids have good parks and athletic fields. Even better, make sure your community works to integrate people of all incomes and backgrounds into the same neighborhoods. If, as is common, your school board sets the boundaries of schools to keep rich and poor separate, confront the candidates and ask them to change. A unit of neighborhoods is the boundary for the local elementary school. If a school does not have a mix of incomes, bus the rich kids in. Better is to build more lower income housing throughout the town. This seems scary, but all the evidence shows it makes everyone better and safer.

Underlying all of this is an acknowledgement that we are all people. We differ in backgrounds and in how we think society should work. Communication and engagement teaches us about each other, how to get along, and how much we are alike. We exist in a biological ecosystem, but also in a social ecosystem. Make your ecosystems stronger by encouraging diversity and strong connections.

Human Social Groups

Humans are social animals. We band together into family, social, and work groups. Our money societies allow us to see how dependent we are on these social groups. In most societies, roughly half the people earn the money to support everyone. The other half are either engaged in non-money activities, like taking care of children or the infirm, or they are children or infirm. If you are lucky, you will spend roughly a quarter of your life in the care of others. This includes your time as a child and time when age, illness or disability makes it difficult to earn. If you are unlucky, you may spend all of your life dependent on others.

While we have cities containing tens of millions of people, each individual has a much smaller social set. The average person probably has between one and two hundred people with whom they regularly interact. Humans have hierarchies of social identification and protection. Siblings will abuse each other within a family but band together to defend against people outside the family. People complain about intrusions of federal government in local affairs, but join a national army to defend the country. These nested social groups provide us with protection and purpose. We tend to be loyal to those with whom we identify. We will forgive and protect them, even when they do things we would condemn if done by outsiders.

The identification with social groups and antipathy toward outsiders seems to be a base human trait. I know of no social group without some degree of this. The positive part of this tendency is the ability to come together to work toward a common goal. On the negative side, the separation between us and them allows “us” to treat "them" without any consideration other than our own aim.

Separation of "us" from "them" is often justified because “they” are different from “us”. Biologically, this is hogwash. Each of us has parents and there are familial traits. Some of us are blonde and some have black hair. Some groups of people have lived with enough isolation to show adaptation to their surroundings. For example, groups living farther from the equator tend to have lighter skin. These differences are marked enough so that pathologists can identify human groups from these physical traits. That said, humans are also nomadic and relatively recent. This underlies a remarkable degree of genetic homogeneity. I liken the differences between humans to the differences between brown spotted and black spotted Dalmatian dogs. As a species, we have so little genetic diversity that some scientists postulate that the species was reduced to a very small number of individuals in the not so distant past.

Because there are physical differences between human groups, it is interesting to ask if there might be analogs in other areas. For example, some groups of humans might be more or less capable of mathematical reasoning or eye/hand coordination. I think this is unlikely. Variants like skin color give an advantage in a particular region. Mental and social advantages have no such geographic constraints. People with the advantage will quickly spread the genetics outside their own group. Only extreme geographic isolation could keep advantageous adaptations out of the general gene pool. Human history is filled with tales of travel, conquest, and stranger's babies. Unjustified claims of essential differences between groups of people have been used to justify genocide. To counter this tendency, the standard of proof for assertions of fundamental differences between groups must be extremely high. I know of no evidence that there are physical differences between human groups that elevate the fundamental capabilities of any group. This is especially clear when we look at genius. Genius is characterized by some capability, which is far greater than normal. Think Leonardo da Vinci, Mahatma Gandhi, or Michael Jordan. Genius springs up around the world and cannot be characterized by family, "race" or any other factor I know of. There are musical families, but to paraphrase Aaron Copeland "There was nothing to indicate that Leonard’s parents would produce a Bernstein."

Our upbringing affects who we are, not just emotionally, but physically. There is evidence, for example, that people brought up speaking a tonal language tend to respond differently to sound than those brought up speaking non-tonal languages. In those cultures, a higher percentage of people perceive absolute pitch. Our bodies change based on our environment, but are especially malleable before adulthood. There are some abilities, like language acquisition, that fall off as we grow older.

Humans are genetically pretty homogeneous, but in values, and hence behavior, we vary greatly. Because we learn behavior from each other, values and behavior tend to be cultural. The biggest influence is family followed peer groups and finally the culture as a whole. Some societies are monogamous, some have men with multiple wives and some have women with multiple husbands. In some societies butchers are respected and prosperous. In others they are outcasts. Food taboos are so strong that it is difficult to imagine violating them. Culturally forbidden foods include fish, insects, dogs, and pigs.


Humans like to be comfortable, both mentally and physically. Most of us are comfortable with our beliefs and day-to-day actions. Marked differences make us uncomfortable, so we avoid them. When we have a choice most of us only associate with people who share much of our own outlook and behavior. This tendency divides humanity into separate groups. In every U.S. high school there are the artists and the jocks. They may share classes, but they don't share much else. As adults, when the differences are solely those of belief, we sweep them under the carpet with admonitions about not discussing religion or politics at parties. When apparent differences are physical, the separation becomes stronger. Sometimes physical difference is innate, like skin color. Other times it is cultural, like dreadlocks, ear locks, or tattoos. We use these physically identifiable differences to announce the groups to which we belong. In a group of strangers it is always comforting and sometimes essential to find allies whose actions can be anticipated and whose help will be forthcoming.

In contemporary US society we have confused and conflated notions and enshrined two false concepts. The multifaceted nature of our current groupings is often reduced to false notions of race and ethnic group. Both of these are dependent on ancestry.

Our genetic homogeneity makes the notion of race pretty much absurd. The notion of ethnicity identifies groups of people based on cultural ancestry. This seems more reasonable because humans group first into families and families are a fundamental driver of values and behavior. In the US though, this has become hashed up as well. The cultural value of individualism and laws preventing discrimination based on obvious physical and cultural traits have caused some re-mixing of groups. This shift can be seen most clearly in people whose families have been in the US for several generations. Some of my great-grandparents were ethnically Irish-American. They were strongly Catholic and associated with others of Irish descent. They knew the history of their homeland and had views about their place in it. I am several generations removed from that. In totality, my ancestors came from a number of places. I do not identify with any of those places as a homeland and my customs and habits are only dimly related to that background. My ethnic group is "Middle Class Suburban". Social pressures have isolated some groups more than others in the US. This makes "African American" or "Hispanic" seem more reasonable as ethnic groups. However, there are a great many people classed in these groups who are culturally much closer to "Middle Class Suburban" than to the stereotypical "African American" or "Hispanic” ethnic groups.

It is demonstrably true that humans band together into trust groups. Innate traits like skin color or epicanthal folds are easy markers. As a regrettable consequence, each of us tends to exclude those with innate differences as not part of our group. This is natural, but not inevitable. For example, imagine a room with two black and two white men. If one white man and one black man both have gang tattoos and one black man and one white man are both wearing expensive business suits, they will initially pair up based on clothing rather than skin color.

None of us belong exclusively to a single group and all of us are capable of forming strong associations with almost anyone. Put a group of musicians from around the world in a single room and in short order they will be forming new associations based on their shared passion for sound.

Even in groups with strong cultural mores, there will be rogues. Every society has outcasts and criminals. Some people, gangs, clans, and governments are dangerous to outsiders. That is one of the reasons that we look for cultural allies. They may help protect us from the dangerous humans. But the tendency to bond in groups is more than a need for protection. We also have a need for acceptance by others in our group. The combination of fear and the need for acceptance and protection is very powerful. A social group can manipulate individual humans to do literally anything. They will rape, torture, and murder neighbors with whom they have lived peacefully for years. They will kill themselves and their own children. That is, the very groups we rely on for protection from the dangerous humans can also transform us into those dangerous humans.

Everyone thinks they have things they will do and things they will not do. However, the power of circumstance and persuasion move these lines. Totalitarian regimes recognize this so they create programs to make everyone complicit. Right now you would not think of killing the Jew/Black/Korean/Armenian shopkeeper on the corner, but in light of the past actions of people like him, would you be willing to keep an eye on him and report suspicious activity? Would you if there were a payment? One thing leads to another. Lines are drawn between us and them. They are clearly threatening. You are one of us. You have shown it by your actions – even accepting favors or money. But your status is provisional and must be earned by showing your commitment to us. You must show your commitment to us by acting more strongly against them.

Losing Contact

Like everyone else, my world view is limited and filtered by my own experience. Like everyone else, when there is no available, reliable research I form opinions based on my particular, atypical experiences.

Based on surveys, I have to accept that about twenty percent of adults in the US smoke. My personal experience says it is about five percent because the group of people I interact with day to day are generally non-smokers and the smokers tend not to smoke around me.

I bring this up because I feel a cultural change, but have only the most personal and anecdotal evidence. It strikes me that, day to day, I have less and less genuine human contact, both physical and emotional. I am sure some of this has to do with time of life, particular circumstance, and the softening effect of memory. Despite this, I feel there is a genuine cultural change for the worse in the United States.

Years ago when our family was smaller and very young, we moved to Oregon. This was to a small city. We arrived with nothing but the names of some friends of friends. During the three years we lived there, we developed a set of close friends and companions. I was trying to work as a musician and formed contacts in that community. We formed bands of convenience and played the local taverns and coffee shops. There were day jobs for money, but we spent as little time as possible there because our real lives were elsewhere. I helped people build additions, move, attended births and birthday parties and do all the other quotidian things without the thought of payment or trading labor. We were just in it together. There were parties and saunas and music and love. I don't remember censoring what I thought or said with these people. I'm sure that some folks were put off and probably pulled away, but there were enough left for a small community.

I contrast that to my current situation. My monetary work takes virtually all of my waking hours. Due perhaps to a poor choice or poor opportunity, my commute is quite long. A typical day involves getting up at 5:10am. By 5:30 I am in a spinning class at the local gym. After that I shower, dress and commute to work. At work there is no real communal area and I typically eat lunch alone at a nearby shopping mall. My day is largely spent in work meetings, large and small. Although I am constantly talking with people, it is all work related. I do not get home until about 7:00pm, quite exhausted.

At work, I do not speak freely. Some time ago I made a small, very bad, joke on an email received by everyone in our office (probably sixty people). Some people in management thought that such a joke might be construed by someone as offensive. As far as I can tell, no one actually complained, but some folks fantasized they might. I read and re-read the message and could find no basis for any rational complaint, but I complied with the request to send an apology saying that such communication had no place in our office.

I am more aloof than most people and I see friendships develop and grow in the workplace but I am guarded. I simply do not trust that the organization has my or my colleagues best interests in mind. As a manager, I try to protect the people who work for me, but the day may come where I am asked to do things that injure them. Most of my bosses seem to accept the notion that the primary purpose of our work is to monetarily advance the organization as a whole. I like the people I work with. I respect them. I think the institutions we have created force us apart rather than bringing us together.

In the past few years sending work off-shore has been a common topic of management discussion in several jobs I have had. It generally occurs as almost a spreadsheet computation: cost of labor versus inefficiencies in communication and the cost of developing requisite skills in people far away. In talks about pay we speak of being competitive. Work benefits are a way keep talented people from defecting to other jobs. There are career development programs and birthday reminders, but I feel the underlying sentiment that we are not dealing with friends or even people, but with labor units. Labor units that should be developed and trained and respected, but the basic notion is economic utility. The purpose of the organization is to earn money for the owners. In my current job, the owners want good economic results so they can cash out by selling the company to someone else.

Frankly, I do not think economics should form the basis for our work lives or any other part of our lives. We require money to live and our lives must make sense economically. Work must make money, but that does not mean that money should form the basis of work. Work can be centered around helping others. It can be centered on a common sense of purpose and making something bigger than one person. It can center on doing things no one has done before or better than anyone has ever done them before. It can provide community and a way to help each other.

My reaction to my work brings me distance rather than closeness to others. This is, of course, my reaction. Others may react differently, but I do not think my experience is uncommon.

I sometimes look at movies as a window onto different times and places. A couple of good examples are the original (1951) "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "God Grew Tired of Us: The Story of Lost Boys of Sudan".

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a good story but mostly I like to contrast the everyday life that is portrayed with current life in the US. A human looking alien is loose in Washington. This apparently well educated and intelligent may chooses to live in a boarding house where he finds good middle class folks. (As a side note, Thomas Jefferson, Jon Marshall and Aaron Burr all lived in boarding houses while in Washington DC.) A single mother and her son (12 years old?) live in the boarding house as well. Within a few days the mother trusts the new boarder well enough to have him look after her son. The son has the run of Washington and is allowed to roam by himself. This setting is not the point of the movie and I do not believe that reviewers of the time commented on the lives portrayed. This was simply the texture of the time.

"God Grew Tired of Us: The Story of Lost Boys of Sudan" is the story of some remarkable Sudanese men. Due to war in Sudan, thousands of children were forced to flee, without any adults, across thousands of miles to refugee camps in Kenya. In Kenya they lived in refugee camps run by the UN where they created their own goverment and were schooled. Their lives were confined to the camps and they developed an extremely close knit society based on personal contact, trust and loyalty. The film introduces us to several of these young men given the opportunity of moving to the US. These are remarkable people. When we meet them they have not only survived their epic flight from Sudan, they are also remarkably well educated. Each speaks at least two or three languages.

For them, the US is a land of opportunity and provides a chance for more education and money that they can send to their community back in Kenya. It is not particularly mentioned in the film, but you see this group of men who completely depended on each other in Kenya become a fragmented group of individuals who share the same apartment, but spend no time together. Their communal life is simply shattered by the reality of contemporary American life. I do not believe that they would choose to go back, but as an observer the tragedy and loss are stark.

It is about time for me to change my life to bring it more closely into line with my values. More on this later.

Student Debt is Bad for All of Us

In the Atlantic (online) Conor Clarke wrote a blog entry called "Let College Students Get Into Debt". One statement in the note really stands out.

The second problem is more specific: if the the point of credit-based consumption is to bring lifetime consumption more in line with lifetime income -- as I believe it is -- then college students more than anyone else should be getting into debt.

An interesting rebuttal can be found at
Problems With Clarke's Student Debt Post.

The practical absurdity of the Clarke's statement can be seen in the phrase "bring lifetime consumption more in line with lifetime income". Let us make the giant leap of faith that individuals and lenders are rational enough to take expected lifetime income into consideration. In order to smooth out our consumption we would have to have an accurate notion of an individual's lifetime income. This brings to mind my favorite John Kenneth Galbraith quote. "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." It is the rare person of any age who can accurately predict their income even five years in the future.

The best information about lifetime income comes from statistics about current and past incomes for people in various occupations. This information is useless to an individual for several reasons. First, it is out of date. If the buggy whip apprentice in 1890 had access to these kind of statistics, he would feel good about borrowing money because his future was so secure. Second, it assumes an occupation. Apparently the average college student changes majors two to three times during the course of their studies. Most basically, aggregate statistics may not accurately describe the situation for any individual Averages and Actuals.

Every debt you incur and intend to pay limits future options. Suppose you are a college student anticipating a career with a relatively high income and you borrow commensurately while you are in school. When you graduate, you must quickly (usually within six months to a year) generate sufficient, steady income to service the debt. This puts lower income jobs out of reach. The problem is, many career paths demand some time at a low income. If you cannot tolerate a low income for a period of years, you may not be able to start a business of your own.

Student debt is pernicious because it limits options at a time of life where options are most important. Individuals and society gain when bright people are free to pursue their dreams. These people often give us the new ideas and new businesses that are the lifeblood of the future. One of the natural times for this adventure is the time between schooling and family. Many of our brightest and most educated end their schooling not with a clear field of opportunity, but with the almost immediate need to generate a steady income to service school debt. For many, this pushes them down the employee rather than the entrepreneur path.

Can't we all just get along?

A new coffee shop opened across the street from the office where I work. The local paper had a small article and the online version allowed readers to comment. At another location of the same shop a couple people had bad experiences and posted them. The two incidents were a pregnant woman (eight months) who was feeling ill and put her stocking feet (shoes off) up an a chair to raise them. The owner came by and asked her to take her feet off the chair. The second incident was when a couple of families had strollers that were blocking an aisle. Again, the owner told them to move the strollers. In both cases the people did not complain that they were asked to stop what they were doing. They were upset because the owner yelled at them and treated them badly. Some people called the owner "a jerk".

A second group spoke up in favor of the owner saying the original posters were unbearably rude and deserved the treatment they received. Terms used for the (ex) customers included "self-entitled yuppies", "self entitled a-holes", and "self absorbed". The vitriol was strong.

In thinking about it, I think the "self absorbed" title is probably not far off. The customers engaged in actions that I find completely innocuous, but apparently offend a fair number of people. I think "self entitled" probably better describe the group that defended the owner. Self entitled seems a perfect title for people who expect everyone around them to conform to their notion of correct public behavior. As for the owner, yelling at people probably does make him a jerk.

If something poses a danger to you or others, step in and fix things. But be aware we live in a very large world among people with vastly different upbringings and customs. What is outrageous to one group of people is ordinary to another. I am reminded of the Scandinavian nanny who was arrested in New York because she left the baby in a stroller outside and went into a store. In her home city that was ordinary and expected behavior.

Each of us is upset by different things. In the face of this, we should give each other a little slack. If you find yourself getting upset, ask yourself if your feelings are well grounded. In the case of stocking feet on a chair there is essentially no chance of harm being done to anyone. If you feel strongly about feet on chairs, have a serious discussion with a shrink about why that is. If you are irritated by strollers in the way, politely help to correct the situation, but be aware that people are pretty good at avoiding obstacles.

Also, put yourself in the other person's shoes. Almost everyone has had a crummy day and blown up over some small thing. All of us have had other things on our mind and inconvenienced those around us. Let's all sigh and smile a little more at what we perceive to be bad behavior and try to dial down the outrage. Can't we all just get along?

Blog Comments, Families, Us and Them

I started this blog not because I expected anyone to read it, but because the act of writing clarifies thought. I had been meaning to do more writing for some time, but didn't have an excuse or outlet.

If you look through the posts, at least so far, the comments are made by a small set of people. These folks are my immediate family, the clan for which I am the "Pater Familias". That title does not come from the Roman honor, but from a line in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou". The title of that movie came from a fictional book in another wonderful movie, "Sullivan's Travels".

I am finding out that the comments are an interesting part of the blogging experience, even if they mostly come from my own family. The comments themselves usually have something to say. They are also touchingly protective. They announce "See, I'm reading this. I care". This protective attitude is amusing because, when my children were little, they assumed I was indestructible. To this day I am often mistaken for a trampoline. On an emotional level, one of the favorite pastimes of the family is putting me in humiliating situations. For example, when I had some friends over on Halloween to help in building a fence, my clan insisted I spend dinner dressed up in drag as a beauty queen, complete with toilet paper sash announcing my title "Miss Evil Colorado".

This is part of what I call the hierarchy of social identification. Most of us identify with a whole set of groups that extend from family to peers to school/work, community, nation... This is one of the most powerful forces in human society and sets the stage for collective action. On the dark side, it separates "us" from "them" and allows our collective action to be unspeakably cruel. A family, as with most social groups, has plenty of internal friction. But facing outward, will present a united front and protect its members.

It is demonstrably true that humans band together into trust groups. Innate traits like skin color or epicanthal folds are easy markers. As a regrettable consequence, each of us tends to exclude those with innate differences as not part of our group. This is natural, but not inevitable. For example, imagine a room with two black and two white men. If one white man and one black man both have gang tattoos and one black man and one white man are both wearing expensive business suits, they will initially pair up based on clothing rather than skin color.

None of us belong exclusively to a single group and all of us are capable of forming strong associations with almost anyone. Put a group of musicians from around the world in a single room and in short order they will be forming new associations based on their shared passion for sound.

The identification with social groups and antipathy toward outsiders seems to be a base human trait. I know of no social group without some degree of this. The positive part of this tendency is the ability to come together to work toward a common goal. On the negative side, the separation between us and them allows “us” to treat "them" without any consideration other than our own aim.

Separation of "us" from "them" is often justified because “they” are different from “us”. Biologically, this is hogwash. Each of us has parents and there are familial traits. Some of us are blonde and some have black hair. Some groups of people have lived with enough isolation to show adaptation to their surroundings. For example, groups living farther from the equator tend to have lighter skin. These differences are marked enough so that pathologists can identify human groups from these physical traits. That said, humans are also nomadic and relatively recent. This underlies a remarkable degree of genetic homogeneity. I liken the differences between humans to the differences between brown spotted and black spotted Dalmatian dogs. As a species, we have so little genetic diversity that some scientists postulate that the species was reduced to a very small number of individuals in the not so distant past.

Because there are physical differences between human groups, it is interesting to ask if there might be analogs in other areas. For example, some groups of humans might be more or less capable of mathematical reasoning or eye/hand coordination. I think this is unlikely. Variants like skin color give an advantage in a particular region. Mental and social advantages have no such geographic constraints. People with the advantage will quickly spread the genetics outside their own group. Only extreme geographic isolation could keep advantageous adaptations out of the general gene pool. Human history is filled with tales of travel, conquest, and stranger's babies. Unjustified claims of essential differences between groups of people have been used to justify genocide. To counter this tendency, the standard of proof for assertions of fundamental differences between groups must be extremely high. I know of no evidence that there are physical differences between human groups that elevate the fundamental capabilities of any group. This is especially clear when we look at genius. Genius is characterized by some capability that is far greater than normal. Think Leonardo da Vinci, Mahatma Gandhi, or Michael Jordan. Genius springs up around the world and cannot be characterized by family, "race" or any other factor I know of. There are musical families, but to paraphrase Aaron Copeland : there was nothing to indicate that Leonard’s parents would produce a Bernstein.

Our upbringing affects who we are, not just emotionally, but physically. There is evidence, for example, that people brought up speaking a tonal language tend to respond differently to sound than those brought up speaking non-tonal languages. In those cultures, a higher percentage of people perceive absolute pitch. Our bodies change based on our environment, but are especially malleable before adulthood. There are some abilities, like language acquisition, that fall off as we grow older.

Humans are genetically pretty homogeneous, but in values, and hence behaviour, we vary greatly. Because we learn behaviour from each other, values and behaviour tend to be cultural. The biggest influence is family followed peer groups and finally the culture as a whole. Some societies are monogamous, some have men with multiple wives and some have women with multiple husbands. In some societies butchers are respected and prosperous. In others they are outcasts. Food taboos are so strong that it is difficult to imagine violating them. Culturally forbidden foods include fish, insects, dogs, and pigs.

Even in groups with strong cultural mores, there will be rogues. Every society has outcasts and criminals. Some people, gangs, clans, and governments are dangerous to outsiders. That is one of the reasons that we look for cultural allies. They may help protect us from the dangerous humans. But the tendency to bond in groups is more than a need for protection. We also have a need for acceptance by others in our group. The combination of fear and the need for acceptance and protection is very powerful. A social group can manipulate individual humans to do literally anything. They will rape, torture, and murder neighbors with whom they have lived peacefully for years. They will kill themselves and their own children. That is, the very groups we rely on for protection from the dangerous humans can also transform us into those dangerous humans.

Everyone thinks they have things they will do and things they will not do. However, the power of circumstance and persuasion move these lines. Totalitarian regimes recognize this so they create programs to make everyone complicit. Right now you would not think of killing the Jew/Black/Korean/Armenian shopkeeper on the corner, but in light of the past actions of people like him, would you be willing to keep an eye on him and report suspicious activity? Would you if there were a payment? One thing leads to another. Lines are drawn between us and them. They are clearly threatening. You are one of us. You have shown it by your actions – even accepting favors or money. But your status is provisional and must be earned by showing your commitment to us. You must show your commitment to us by acting more strongly against them.

We are all susceptible to these forces, but we can also recognize them. It is up to each of us to recognize both the danger and the opportunity in the strangers among us. Some wariness is important for self protection. But given a chance, that person who is currently part of "them" may be a valuable part of "us" in the not distant future.