Mathematics After The Fall

I bought a 2010 Toyota Prius on Saturday. Not just any Prius, either; a silver Prius III with the Solar Roof Package. Why? Environmental snobbery? Well, no. According to the survey, over half of 2007 Prius buyers bought it to make a statement. I didn’t. Actually, that was a negative factor, since I don’t feel the need to increase Smug.

My prior car, a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am GT, has been slowly dying. It served me well, surviving a major crash in 2004 (a 18-wheeler clipped my back bumper on the Dan Ryan Expressway). Yet little things kept breaking, like a power window, power mirrors, and weak air conditioning. Things could get bad fast, and I have some summer driving to do. Given my financial and personal situation, it became time to start searching. So I thought about what car would I want today, and in 2015, and maybe 2020.

Reliability eliminates almost everything from GM and Chrysler. Ten years and 89,000 miles was good for the Pontiac, but Nissan, Honda, and Toyota cars routinely run past 100,000 miles. Because Ford has been rapidly improving quality this decade, I left them on the list. It’s not Fix Or Repair Daily anymore, and not surprisingly Ford is the American automaker in the best shape. My driving needs are primarily in the city, and I don’t transport kids, drive on dirt roads, or pull a boat. Since I like quiet and comfort, with some transport needs, I wanted a car that could hold four adults designed for comfortable city life. Driving is not a source of excitement or fun, like a super exotic tour. I’m point to point.

Also, I want to be prepared in case gasoline returns to $4 a gallon, which is one crazy situation away. Like, what if Iran went into disorder? Oh. Oops. The current European average is around 40 MPG, but there are very few choices in America. Diesel engines, popular across the pond, generally don’t come here. Over 35 MPG there are only six options: Toyota Prius, Smart fortwo, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, Jetta diesel TDi, Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan hybrid. The smart was out, because I would like to be married in 5 years and thinking about a three person family (and even if I’m not, reviews call it noisy and uncomfortable). I considered the Jetta, but the more relevant city MPG figures were low and diesel didn’t appeal to me.

That left four hybrid vehicles, two hatchbacks (Toyota Prius and Honda Insight) and two sedans (Ford Fusion and Honda Civic). Two of the four, the Prius and Fusion, can run completely on electric power, while the Insight and Civic use electric solely for assistance. Also, the Civic and Insight are smaller cars than the Fusion and Prius. All four cars are well rated, with good reliability ratings from Consumer Reports. There’s nothing wrong with any of them. It depends on what you want.

I first eliminated the two Hondas. I examined the Insight, including a test drive. I would not comfortably fit in the back seat. Also, the finish is not as nice as the Prius or Fusion. On the drive, though it is pretty quiet, the lack of complete engine turnoff when stopped was a relative negative. On the positive side, it drives more like a sports car. Also, the Insight is least expensive, but the cost difference is not as big as advertised. The $19,800 LX option package does not include cruise control. With cruise and a center console, the EX package costs about $21,500 including destination charges. For $1,500 more, you can get a Prius II. I would recommend the Insight for singles or young couples that want a sporty feel and 40+ MPG.

After trying the Insight and hearing the lack of full quiet when stopped, I didn’t test drive the Civic Hybrid; it uses the same engine style. It looks good and comfortable, and gets very good ratings overall. If you’re looking for the sedan style, it’s a serious contender. It’s smaller than the Fusion, but also less expensive at an estimated real price of about $24,000.

I test drove three vehicles of each of my two finalists. The Fusion/Milan wound up as runner-up, but it’s still a wonderful car. An American company has found the future. It will run fully on electric power; I did that at 30-35 miles per hour. Compared to the Prius, it’s more powerful on the road and lets less road noise into the cabin. The seats are very comfortable, and I easily fit in the back seat. Most of the cars come with sunroof and backup camera. The backup camera in the 501A package projects on the rear view mirror, which might be more appealing than on a navigation screen – as in the 502A package and Prius.
There are a few disadvantages. First, because Ford put the batteries between the back seat and the trunk, the seats do not fold down. Second, though not unwieldy, it is about 15 inches longer and has a larger turning radius than the other cars. Third, the mileage is not as good as the Prius; Real world reports are 38-42 miles per gallon, not 48-52.

Also, the Fusion is the most expensive, with the 501A about $29,500. There are discounts, unlike the other cars; one is a US government tax credit of $1700 until September 30, then $850 for six more months. Furthermore, a few dealers will take Ford discount plans even on this high demand vehicle, though they don’t have to. The X-plan offers a fixed no haggle discount of about 6% from MSRP. With the discount and credit, the effective price is about $26,500. You can get a plan PIN from a Ford employee or by working at some companies, but there’s another easy way. Just buy some Ford stock, which costs $5.72 per share as I write, and according to the documents there’s no minimum number of shares. You can spend less than $100 to buy 10 shares, then apply to get the PIN. If you are interested, you can do a Goodle search, or email me and I’ll give you directions. And you should be interested if you’re looking for a midsize sedan. The Fusion hybrid is the best hybrid midsize sedan. It might be the best midsize sedan short of a $40,000 BMW 3-series. Regular options might be cheaper, but the difference between 25 MPG and 38 MPG is 13 gallons every 1000 miles. At 100,000 miles and $3 per gallon, 1300 gallons is $3900, roughly the hybrid premium. I strongly suggest paying now and getting the quieter ride, if you can.

With options, the Prius I bought cost about the same as my second choice, a black Ford Fusion 501A with leather. What tipped the scales? I considered the advantages of the Fusion above. On the other hand, the Prius is smaller and more maneuverable, while maintaining passenger space. The hatchback design provides more flexibility, and Toyota did a great job of maximizing interior space. The interior is still nice and comfy. Power is more than sufficient. Keyless entry and startup is very nice. Toyota has a better reliability reputation overall, even though the Fusion’s rating has been very good. And the extra 10 MPG is substantial.

In the end, it came down to options. The considered Fusion has a fancy radio, Bluetooth phone integration, sunroof, backup camera, and leather. The midlevel $24,000 Prius III has a fancy radio and Bluetooth phone integration. The Solar package adds a sunroof and backup camera. There’s no leather, but there are other things. A navigation screen is nice, but not worth much since there are good voice navigators available for $250. What clinched the deal were two things designed for hot climates, remote AC and solar roof fan. Getting into an overheated car is miserable, as all the glass raises the temperature inside above the outside air. The Solar package adds a 56 watt solar panel, which powers a fan. (And if things go really bad, I can strip it for electricity.) When it’s hot and sunny, the sun provides enough energy to circulate outside air; the inside becomes like the outside. Then, as I approach the vehicle, I can start the A/C remotely. My passengers and I feel less pain. In no way would I claim this is like, let’s say, cholera in Zimbabwe. I realize I’m blessed to have a car or A/C. Things are good, and I need to take advantage of them to change the world. I’m thankful.

At some point I’ll write up what I learned about buying a car, and interacting with 8 dealerships (4 Toyota, 2 Ford, 2 Honda). Despite the radical increase in technology, people, well, are still people.

On Memorial Day, I decided to delve into a different culture and read a book from a former military man. That book, by James Wesley Rawles, has an appropriate title, Patriots. The subtitle gives a strong hint of the content, “A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse.” It’s been very popular in these troubled times, so much so that the Amazon link above is for the Kindle book only. I grabbed my copy from Borders.

I believe in preparation. Based on a recommendation, I’ve been reading Mr. Rawles’s blog, SurvivalBlog, since the fall. Since I believe in fair value, I donated to the site. If you skip over some of the gun articles (training is far more important than caliber), there’s a lot of good information. Everyone should have supplies to stay in their home for about 10 days, and supplies to flee almost immediately if needed. Just in the past year in Louisville, I’ve faced a windstorm, where much of the area was without power for a week, and an ice storm, where much of the area was without power for a week. These sort of things happen. The official government provides ready.gov if you prefer a site without weaponry. I take suggestions from both places.

The primary point of this review, though, is not to talk about survival preparedness. It’s also not to judge the book as a survival manual, though I will take a short digression. There are very good parts, particularly about retreat preparation, weaponry, and military tactics. Given that Mr. Rawles has lots of experience in that subject, this is not surprising. On the other hand, the book provides little guidance on morale and psychology. Most plans have people living in very small groups, with little to no outside contact, for years. Additionally, much comfort, even down to flush toilets, will be gone. Anyone who doesn’t make serious plans for morale, and psychological issues, shows far too much confidence in their people. And you need people and a group to survive.

Anyway, let’s assume you want to read Patriots as a novel, not a survivor’s guide. It’s not very good. In several places, a character spends several pages lecturing. From a plot perspective, five pages on how radio communications are detected are not interesting, or information on stringing together gun magazines, or building claymores. Can these parts be skipped? Well, yes, but it exposes the slimness of the narrative. It will also make the product placements more obvious. It’s like Chuck and Subway, except with the Encyclopedia of Country Living instead of the $5 footlong. I know that the full titles and authors are there for the survival references, but they don’t help the story.

Furthermore, the characters are often indistinguishable. There’s Kevin, Lisa, Todd, Dan, and over a dozen more. While there are some attempts to keep people apart, and a few succeed (like Dan), it doesn’t generally work. Sometimes Mr. Rawles uses a last name for a character, and I found myself forgetting who it was. They certainly don’t have the distinction of Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn in a much better fantasy series. For that matter, they don’t have the distinction of the characters in the Left Behind series. That’s not a high standard.

Speaking of standards, the fact checking is surprisingly lacking, given the updates for the current financial crash of 2008 and the military details. I find it amazing that Mr. Rawles couldn’t get the number of amendments correct. As of 1992, there are 27, not 26, so the new “27th Amendment” mentioned would be impossible. Furthermore, on page 22, Todd and TK are walking back to their dorm in 2006 even though Todd was married by 2001 and TK was a Sears manager by 2002. And having been at the University of Chicago, a lot of their majors do not exist. Finally, the deaths from the “influenza pandemic” make no sense in Chapter 21; there is no model that would give that mortality rate, yet survive long enough to cause the stated number of deaths, but not be known to people in the west, even by rumor. Pandemics don’t work that way.

Finally, I turn to the plot. The first half was interesting, in a post-apocalyptic situation traversed before by Alas Babylon and other tales. While some might find the fundamentalist Christianity simplistic, I didn’t have a problem; complicated systems would be out of fashion. I did have a problem with the Federal invasion. It combines several far right notions such as United Nations control, National ID cards, Marks of the Beast, and martial law. Furthermore, the opponents seem to have a black ninja problem, where they are orders of magnitude less competent than the heroes. For example, the invading forces had air superiority. Why wasn’t there recon? Or aerial bombardment? The US has bombed civilians in many wars. If the opposition is “worse”, why wouldn’t they use these tactics?

There are too many simplifications, errors, and digressions to make this a good novel. It’s a good reference, but as a work of literature, not a survival manual, Patriots gets a 1 out of 5.

Two similar books get quick reviews tonight: Basketball on Paper by Dean Oliver, and The World’s Most Dangerous Places by Robert Young Pelton.

It seems a little strange to put these books together, so why do I? Because they’re both from a new perspective, and that’s what makes them strong. There are lots of books on basketball, like there are lots of travel guides. You can find shelves of each at Borders. Most, frankly, are boring. Why do I need 20 uplifting autobiographies “with” a secondary author? Why are there 10 guides for each American state? It’s pretty much more of the same.

Basketball on Paper does something different. It tries to quantify the game. There had been, and continues to be, other work on the subject. There’s nowhere near as much as baseball with the Sabermetrics community. Mostly, that’s because baseball is easy to analyze. Almost all actions involve one or two people at a time. It’s pitcher versus hitter, then a fielder and a runner. Everything is separate. That’s what makes some people like baseball, while I find it slow. Basketball, on the other hand, involves ten players moving together, where one failure or success routinely changes several other actions. Basketball is tougher. People still try, and a good starting page is at SonicsCentral.

I’m not going to go into much detail, because if you’re a quantitative basketball fan, you should read the book. If you’re not, you likely won’t. Mr. Oliver is given credit for popularizing the concept of possession, offensive rating, and defensive rating, so it’s good to read to get examples. On the downside, the writing is pedestrian, and there are lots of tables. There are so many tables that my eyes would glaze a bit, and I like this stuff. Maybe I shouldn’t have tried to read it all at once? The writing brings this grade down to 2 out of 5.

And if you want just a little detail, here are the key things to remember.

1. The Four Factors are, in order of importance, shooting percentage, turnover percentage, offensive rebounding percentage, and free throws.
2. The best shot attempt is an open layup. The second best attempt is an open three-pointer by a good shooter. The third best outcome is to get fouled and get free throws.
3. Interestingly, jump shots have approximately the same success percentage at all distances from about 6 feet to the three point line. Thus, medium to long two pointers are silly shots.
4. The disadvantage of a contested shot is very large. In one record, open shots went in about 61% of the time while contested shots went in less than 40% of the time.

Better writing, yet on another limited subject, grants Mr. Pelton’s book a 3 out of 5. Dangerous Places does something different. It provides a travel guide on countries that don’t have many of those silly travel books. As such, I learned a lot about North Korea, Afghanistan, Liberia, Yemen, and the rest. There’s good history. One small problem is that the book was published in 2003, so some countries – like Zimbabwe and Iraq – are somewhat out of date. On the other hand, South Africa and the United States still have bad spots.

The best part of the book consists of true stories, “In a Dangerous Place”. Some of the tales are just amazing. Even if you’re not a history or geography person, like I am, these are well worth the time. The Russian TV show, the Mali airport, and Albanian smugglers are all memorable. These are not happy stories; it’s no Chicka Chicka Boom Boom. You need to have a dark sense of humor to like things here, like the convenient list of mercenary companies. If you do, like with basketball, there are great rewards from an unusual approach.

I was listening to the BBC World Service tonight while reading. They ran a little segment on the very popular Eurovision song contest. One of the great things about modern life is that I can quickly see most of the videos, thanks to Youtube. So I took a gander. I’ll include a few links. As a warning, none of the songs are lewd, but some of the Youtube comments are. Such is unmoderated life.

Eurovision songs tend towards high energy pop numbers. For instance, the third and fourth place songs, from Azerbaijan and Turkey, are clear pop songs with light lyrics, female dancers, and a very attractive female singer. Not that I mind, but these aren’t that memorable.

Another interesting fact is that English is the most common language. 19 of the 25 songs in the final included some English, including the top 5. The Internet and economics have made a difference. There can even be controversy about lyrics, as with the Georgian selection, We Don’t Wanna Put In. A little accent work makes that Russian czar Vladimir Putin. Russia, as host, was not happy, and the Georgians got tossed.

A little more interesting are the other three Top 5 songs. After finishing last in 2008, the UK went with an Andrew Lloyd Webber creation, sung by Jade. She sings well. I wonder what musical can use this song. Maybe a Disney animated feature? It’s nice.

More remarkable are the two victors. Second place went to Is It True? by the youthful songstress Yohanna. Her first album was at age 10, and her experience shows. It’s different. To American ears, this is a country-pop ballad that could immediately play on CMTV. I thought of Carrie Underwood as I listened. Look at these lyrics, from the chorus and bridge. They’re sad. Ouch!

Falling out of a perfect dream, coming out of the blue
Is it true? Is it over?
Did I throw it away?
Was it you?
Did you tell me you would never leave me this way?

Did I dream it?
Will I wake from this pain
Is it true? Is it over?
Baby did I throw it away?

The winner, in almost a rout, was Fairytale by the Norwegian Alexander Rybak. It’s a very good song from the 23 year old. He was born in the USSR, and moved to Norway with his musician parents at the age of 4. Yes, 1990, as the USSR broke apart. His violin skills and folk knowledge are both on display here. Admittedly, this is a pop song, but the dancers are male folk dancers, and it’s a little different. The lyrics are a little sadder. It adapts traditional folk songs to the 21st century pop world. I could see myself singing this at karaoke night.

I’m in love with a fairytale,
even though it hurts
‘Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind
I’m already cursed.

I’m not going to claim that the world will be changed by any of these songs. There’s no political meaning like We Shall Overcome. And there’s no repeated kicking like Hurt by Johnny Cash. There’s not supposed to be. That doesn’t take away from what it is; Eurovision 2009 isn’t going to solve Somalia or Kosovo. Not everything is.

I’ve wanted to see the generally well regarded film Enchanted basically since it came out in 2007. It has had decent but not great reviews. I wondered why. Was it really a great film that critics could not appreciate? Was it a good film, justly rated? Or was it a mediocre film brought higher by people looking for any anti-cynicism?

The movie has finally reached Encore, one of the seemingly billions of digital cable channels that I get. Per usual, TiVo assisted me by recording a showing while I prepare exams for my students. As part of my post-grading funk reduction, I watched it last night. Overall, I agree with the reviews, as Enchanted is a good, not great, movie. Parts, like That’s How You Know, are great. The whole movie could be great. The fact that it fails is, I think, a reflection on our current culture.

I don’t want to be overly harsh here, because this movie gets a lot of things right. It begins at the beginning, with glorious 2D hand drawn animation. Sure, Pixar makes wonderful films; WALL-E might have been the best feature shown in theatres last year. They’re great at computer animation, which is different. Computer animation is the realm of imaginary fantasy. It’s not appropriate for fairy tales, which come from storybooks. Traditional animation was needed here, and I’m glad that Disney reversed its crazy decision to abandon cells for this film.

Another nice touch is the use of last names. Animated characters, like Giselle, don’t have any. The father and daughter, who interact heavily, do get a surname, but it’s Philip, another first name. Only the fully real character of Nancy Tremaine has a typical second name, but that is the family name of Cinderella’s stepmother. It retains a fantasy connection, as does much of the movie. For instance, the pigeons bring Giselle her towel after the magical shower.

Then, there’s Giselle. She carries the movie. Yes, Amy Adams is very pretty, but there are lots of pretty actresses. Ms. Adams does well because she understands the princess role. She needs to be naive, but not stupid. Inexperienced and trusting are the right way to play the character. She understands trouble, like the troll, and evil; she’s seen them, and had to escape. But for her, goodness is the natural state of affairs, so these are anomalies; she’s the anti-Leviathan. Any note of cynicism from her would poison the movie, worse than a poisoned apple. I’m glad that Giselle has none of that.

On the other hand, the writers want to make sure we know that the real world is Hobbesian. Apparently, the original draft of this movie had Giselle landing at a bachelor party. While the writers came to their senses, eventually, there are still unneeded crass moments. One is when leading man Robert’s current girlfriend of five years enters one morning. Thanks to slapstick, towel wearing Giselle has fallen onto Robert. As part of her reaction, the girlfriend rants “how I never stay the night, because Morgan is here and you have to maintain some boundries … ” Does she have to say that? Imply more than kissing? No. Sight would have been sufficient. By doing so, the writers felt a need to be cynical. There are a few other needless cynical words.

The biggest statement about the modern era is made through Giselle’s dresses. As Giselle progresses throughout the film, her dresses change. The first is the wedding dress, which is monstrous. As she goes through, supposedly apparel makes her more realistic. So, in the key scene, the Kings and Queens Ball, what does she wear? A gorgeous queen dress? No. A formfitting purple halter gown.

It’s not the worst dress in the movie – the wedding dress is viciously over the top – but there are five better ones. In particular, the second dress, the blue curtain dress, is much prettier than the purple ball dress. Online voters agree. Also, why would she purchase that dress? It’s out of place at a classic ball. Having Morgan, the daughter, help her in the emergency is completely appropriate. It’s sweet. Then, for some reason they buy and buy and buy. The emphasis on shopping, bags, hair, and makeup is not necessary. Was Giselle not gorgeous before “the real world fashion” took hold? (She was; caring for others is beautiful.) This scene serves just to funnel us from Andalasia to Sex and the City.

The ending, well, has some holes. Like moments before, it feels like it was written by people who don’t understand joy. They are trapped in the cynical, sly modern age of Carrie and Samantha. They’re afraid to pull the trigger, to be fully committed to the transformative power of love. That’s a shame. I’m don’t agree with the quote about true love’s kiss – “it’s the most powerful thing in the world”. (Right now, one could argue for H1N1 influenza.) Still, it has more power than is shown here. It seems our society has lost that power. As I finished this movie, I wondered if Snow White could have been made today. Given that the feature awarded Best Picture of 2008, Slumdog Millionaire, began with a scene where a young boy falls into fecal matter, and some in the audience laughed, I worry about that.

Maybe those that are married know about the power. Or maybe, more likely, divorce rates indicate that it’s lost. We need more Giselles in the world. Where is that portal to Andalacia, anyway?

A romance of many dimensions, says the subtitle to Flatland. It was written in the 1880s, and is out of copyright, so I’m linking to the Project Gutenburg free version. It’s a short read, much talked about by mathematicians. I am not a mathematician, but I’ve heard enough about it, and there’s even a movie with voices offered by a fellow Democrat for Life named Martin Sheen and fellow nerd lover – though somewhat hotter in a bikini – Kristin Bell.

I did notice that the movie has Ms. Bell voicing a hexagon, which is not in keeping with the book. It would surprise me to waste her on the way women are portrayed by Edwin A. Abbott in the written work; the movie crew didn’t, instead choosing to ignore the gender differences in the text. Since I haven’t seen the movie, I will comment only upon the book. Furthermore, I am not evaluating this book as an introduction to dimension and proportionality, a teaching tool. It’s good for that. Instead, I want to comment on the satire and story.

Sometimes, Mr. Abbott is funny or sweet. There’s humor in the visit to Point, a zero-dimensional structure who considers It the entire universe. All outside comments must come from Its thoughts. I thought of people who sometimes act almost as self absorbed as Point. I also thought of sweetness in the description of how the people of Lineland mate. “No, no, neighbourhood is needless for the union of hearts.” For them, it’s about hearing, and distance, and matching male voice with females; courtship can take many weeks, too, until the pure harmony of the marriage chorus is achieved.

On the other hand, in Flatland Women are mere lines – well, very thin parallelograms. They receive almost no schooling, must constantly make noise to prevent a figure from hitting them, and are stuck with just emotion. Each house has a special door for women, to avoid potential entry problems. This is not good. On the other hand, they can use their pointy ends to puncture almost any male figure, including their husbands, a strong inducement to fidelity.

That’s the major part of the satire here, the difference between social classes and genders. British society in the 19th century had strict social structure, where advancement could be made slowly, if at all. In Flatland, triangles can only improve their angles at 0.5 degrees per birth. Regular polygons get to advance faster, one side per generation, but still would take hundreds of years to reach the high dimension of “circles”. Even by British standards, that’s slow. The class system is strong; higher class people do not engage in touch recognition, and in most cases should not even be contacted. (It even holds today at the head of state level, as Michelle Obama caused a great deal of discussion about protocol.) To try to reach a higher class, promising children are often sent to special facilities to be broken and reset. The “Circular Neo-Therapeutic Gymnasium” kills nine out of ten, but apparently it’s worth it to the Flatland classes. To Democrats for Life like Mr. Sheen and myself, though, this would be anathema.

Another modern anathema would be the treatment of women, and I’m not surprised that this was removed from the movie. In Mr. Abbott’s book, women are considered to have lower intelligence to match their lower dimension. They are taught about emotions, with different language. This seems in line with the thoughts of the Victorian era, and its outward restraint against emotion. One might even see a little eugenic critique inside Flatland society, though I’m not sure about that.

The problem with the book, from a 2009 perspective, is that the satire doesn’t make sense. It’s no longer our satire. Of course I don’t like lower classes for women; I strongly prefer multidimensional females with curves. Of course I find such a strong caste system unlikeable. It’s easy to say that, now. Unlike other social critiques such as
Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy, this satire has lost its salt, mostly. Thus, as a social critique, Flatland earns a 1 out of 5. The grade as a mathematical teaching tool would be much higher, if you’re looking for that.

Finally, after almost two years, I’ve gotten around to reading the much talked about book The Black Swan, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The term Black Swan has entered financial vocabulary, so it’s good to evaluate the source. Overall, it’s a good term; a Black Swan event is a rare event, hard to predict, that has a large impact. For instance, until the 17th century Europeans thought all swans were white. They are, in Europe. In Australia, they’re not.

Overall, it’s a pretty good book. I’ll award it a 3 out of 5. However, it can be tough to read at times. Dr. Taleb is pompous. Very pompous. He seems to be basically alone in this world. Describing someone, he wants to “put a rat down his shirt.” While I don’t appreciate false humility, either, or too much self depreciation (as in the saddest hoopster), this book would have more power if it was more targeted. A statistician’s review says it well, so I’ll quote Robert Lund in the American Statistician: “reckless at times and subject to grandiose overstatements; the professional statistician will find the book ubiquitously naive.” As a professional statistician, I agree wholeheartedly.

Before I come back to why I agree, let me list what Dr. Taleb gets correct. He is right that many things in this world are not Gaussian or normal, and not subject to the bell shaped 95% cutpoints like the linked applet. There are many things in his Extremistan, particularly those that follow Mandlebrot power laws, and putting them into his Mediocristan is dangerous. Note that by choosing the word Mediocre for the other group, against the currently positive word Extreme, he induces stylistic bias. Who would ever want to be in Mediocristan? Well, except nature with height and growth processes and stuff. So he’s got a correct point, but overreaches.

Another clear point is about the Ludic Fallacy, which notes that real life does not have the same structured randomness of games. Though he had to invent a term for it, the author is correct. Too many introductory examples involve games of chance, cards and dice and roulette wheels. Equal probabilities and independent events are much rarer in reality than Moore and McCabe’s introductory text. In my classes, I make a point about independence, with several reminders of its importance, including the most important one, the test question.

In other words, I do my job as a professional statistician. That’s the big deal here. I know Dr. Taleb has had dealings with the professional statisticians since the publication of this book, since I quoted Dr. Lund from the American Statistician special August 2007 issue on the book. I suspect that he had very few dealings with my kind before. Unfortunately, what passes for “statistics” nowadays mostly comes from economists. Economists, well, are pretty nasty. A friend of mine once said that “Economists are just sociologists with Asperger’s Syndrome.” I replied that I’ve always thought of them as megalomaniac statisticians, or just plain bad ones. Even the so called revolution, this Freakonomics thing, is really just regression analysis, at the second course level. In some places, it’s not even a good second course level, as this blog post acknowledges a mistake and then tries to defend an abortion model with serious interaction problems. Do they not understand saturation or degrees of freedom? I recommend this critique; even though I might not like all the articles from Steve Sailer, he’s demolished Dr. Levitt on this one. It’s too bad he’s not cool enough to get a fancy book. And who knows – maybe I’ll venture into that perilous topic myself, soon.

On page 239 of my hardback edition, Dr. Taleb thinks that in comparison to what he calls dull statistics classes, “Clearly it would have been more beneficial, and certainly more entertaining, to have taken classes in the neurobiology of aesthetics or postcolonial African dance, and this is easy to see empirically.” I should be careful here. Particularly before computers became readily available, statistics courses focused heavily on computation. I’ve seen those books from before roughly 1990; they weren’t as good as the courses of today. Given his age, he likely had one of those older courses. Postcolonial African dance might well be better. I also wish that standard deviation had a name that didn’t imply standards, like how I prefer credible interval to confidence interval. That doesn’t affect the main point, that the true professionals know the problems, and that at least now we’re trying to get those across.

Precision, research, and greater balance could have taken this book from decent to great, so I look in a little frustration at Dr. Taleb’s work. I do have his other book, Fooled by Randomness, which might not show the problems of this one. It won’t be random, or a Black Swan, if I get around to reading that.

It’s not a secret that I think very highly of heroic women and men. One of my favorite posts is Medals and Goodness, about medals, virtue, and evil. From time to time I read tales of Carnegie Hero Medal award winners. And every American should read every citation of new Medal of Honor recipients. I might suggest Michael Murphy, whose story appeared in the New York Times. Let’s look at part of the official citation.

On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy’s team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom.

Another such recipient is James Stockdale, perhaps most famous for his terrible performance in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. That’s a shame, because his story is much better than what he showed that one night, against professional politicians with less than two weeks’ notice. Let’s summarize Stockdale’s courage:

He was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison for the next seven years. Locked in leg irons in a bath stall, he was routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, Stockdale beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. He told them in no uncertain terms that they would never use him. When Stockdale heard that other prisoners were dying under the torture, he slit his wrists and told them that he preferred death to submission.

Wow.

After his return from captivity, Admiral Stockdale became a leader, author of four books, and philosopher. You might consider his writings at the Naval Academy’s Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. The big lesson here is about how he survived the years in Vietnam, a terrible situation. It’s much worse than anyplace I’ve been, or expect to be. It was a brutal place. He described his philosophy to Jim Collins in the book Good to Great. The story, not long and well worth reading, is quoted on Mr. Collins’ website. Mr. Stockdale said that the optimists never made it out of the POW camps. “They died of a broken heart.” We come to the most important quote, the Stockdale Paradox.

You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end — which you can never afford to lose — with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

Ever since I’ve read that quote, I’ve been struck by its importance. Like most people, I’ve been in difficult, troubling situations. The most recurrent was biochemical depression pain; another was a messy Church situation; there is at least one I don’t talk about out of respect for others.

It’s taken a long time to understand the Stockdale Paradox. It’s manmade, so it’s not as tough as the Holy Trinity, but it’s not easy. It’s both passion and realism, examining both Happily Ever After and Homelessness in America, holding simultaneously hope and logic. What a pair, faith and discipline. Both are not simple. Faith requires believing in what can be, but is not; Discipline requires ignoring what can be, focusing on what is.

Neither of the two parts is difficult to understand, and most people can handle one or the other. Both at the same time, however, is the tricky part. In my struggles, I had to bifurcate my thoughts, almost, dividing them into branches. I built detachment into my thoughts. I got better, and then could combine the future and the present. Well, eventually I got there, mostly. There are still times where my mind can bounce quickly, from the concept of future joy to the pain of a current problem. It’s still a little strange that I can laugh and be happy, then shift to tears within a minute, then come back to happiness in under five. The control is not yet total.

For me, when I fail I generally lose the light of faith, surrounded by the darkness of realism and the funk of depression. I keep trying to gain the lesson given by Admiral Stockdale. I really should read his writings – there’s likely much more there. Right now, in Holy Week, people think a little more about the multiple expression of Jesus, divine and human. In general, people tend not to get that. Maybe the minority that understands some of that dual nature understands some of the Stockdale Paradox as well. Maybe the do, but in the general majority, I think not. There’s too much despair around, topped with hedonism masking despair.
I hope that I can gain more knowledge of how to act and what truly matters, and that I don’t have to go through what Mr. Murphy or Mr. Stockdale did to gain it. Their stories, and their heroism, have helped me, and for that I salute them. Maybe it is enough. Faith and discipline, together, is the lesson.

Most of the books on this site, and most of the books I read, are rather sad. So is much of what I talk about in this blog. It’s part of my vocation, for one thing. Right now there are books on pandemics, flu and AIDS, waiting to be read. There are also at least two books on the misuse of statistics. Another portion of what I read is about pain in the world. Right now there are books about child soldiers and torture. These make my list because I think that a citizen needs to understand suffering. Though plenty in my life is painful, other parts of the world need explanation.

Not everything I read is sad, though. Science fiction appears from time to time. So do children’s books. In a similar vein, this post summarizes some comic books. The blogroll contains the online comics PhD Comics and xkcd, obviously. In the printed paper, my favorite current works are Get Fuzzy and Frazz. I have all four treasuries of Get Fuzzy, of which The Potpourrific Great Big Bag of Get Fuzzy is the latest. I give this book a 3 out of 5. It’s funny. Bucky Katt is nasty, while Satchel Pooch is sweet, and Rob Wilco as the human tries to keep order. I appreciate the casualness at which dogs and cats can speak; it’s one of the funny parts. Everyone that visits just accepts the anthropomorphism. (And I can use anthropomorphism in my blog, yes! Amazing, it’s even in my spell checker.) I’m not sure if this is true. Dogs in my life are nasty, while some cats at least are nice. Then again, it is a comic book, and they can talk. Things can be different.

I also am a fan of Frazz. I own all three books, of which Frazz 3.1416 is the third. Frazz is set in a Michigan elementary school. Part of its appeal is the pro-education bias. Involved teachers are treated well, while inactivity, major sports, and stupidity get little quarter. Additionally, there’s a really sweet love story with Frazz and Miss Plainwell. I appreciate it a lot, so much so that I’ve previously reviewed the first two books. As before, I suggest this book. It also gets a 3 out of 5.

The third comic book continues one of my favorite TV shows, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The idea was to continue the stories, but without the budget. The first five issues were collected in The Long Way Home, which I picked up to take a look. My thoughts are mixed. The stories make sense, the characters still have their character, and I was entertained. I particularly liked the last story, a standalone entitled “The Chain”. But something is missing. It’s the medium, I think. Comic books are more reflective, and lose the immediacy and personality of TV. It’s different wit. When I think of the wit of Buffy the TV series, the comic can’t match that. I’m not a serious comic book guy, and it shows here. Buffy gets a 2 out of 5.

I’m watching the Super Bowl, with a team with history and pride against a bunch of transients in the desert. The NFL understands today’s America, blue and red parts, as the numbers suggest. For instance, they had a smart promotion with Samsung, offering online gift cards for purchasing new HDTVs. First, they were smart enough to partner with a high quality manufacturer. Second, they allowed any store to benefit. Third, they advertised well. While I was going to purchase a Samsung anyway, the promotion encouraged me to select a slightly larger model.
I talk about this not because I want to praise the NFL, or brag about my Samsung HDTV. Though, the TV is really nice, and watching Super Bowl HD is like watching a little movie. I mention this plan because it shows that logical thought has results. Another example of that involves the person the NFL chose to flip the coin. He gots lots of applause, this man, who showed logical thought and results. I mean General David Petraeus. One of his books is on my bookshelf, the US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual. It’s one of my more unusual purchases, which by the standards of my bookcase is saying something. (I bought a copy, but it’s available online for free via the link. I paid because I think it’s a cool title to have on a bookshelf.) Rating it is hard, because there are parts that don’t matter to the general population. I’m going to award it a 3 out of 5, a quality book. I recommend it to people interested in studying leadership and duty.

[Completely non-live Super Bowl update: Wow! Things looked bad for Pittsburgh at the end of the first half, after the tipped interception. Then, the defense had a good setup and made a play. If you watch Pittsburgh's interception, you can see Mr. Harrison make a logical decision. He looks in at the running back, notices him blocking, then retreats into coverage. Also, as to be expected from a state that elects men who promote quasi-legal prisoner abuse, the Arizona receivers attempted a quasi-legal pick on the play. Plus the Cardinals got called for a personal foul. During the halftime show, Mr. Springsteen finished his set with Glory Days, which sort of critiques sports halcyonity. I like his style.]

Why do I want to talk about leadership and duty using this book? Well, the military knows about this. Really, they know much, much more than non-military people in general, and the last government in particular. There’s an entire chapter on leadership and ethics, and and appendix on a Guide for Action. Even if you, gentle reader, are not planning to lead counterinsurgency operations (and I suspect everyone reading is not planning this), I recommend this section. It begins with the first sentence of Section 7-1, “Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to act ethically and in accordance with shared national values and Constitutional principles, which are reflected in the law and military oaths of service.” There’s not a lot of ambiguity there; it’s an expectation.

Furthermore, leaders must work to establish ethical culture. They educate and train. They must maintain the moral high ground. This quote from Section 7-11 is extremely powerful: “Army and Marine Corps leaders emphasize on the battlefield the principles of honor and morality are inextricably linked.” Wow.

There’s a lot of this book that does not cover honor, leadership, or ethics, and I can’t recommend. That’s not for most people. Even for those interested, I’d suggest the free version, in general, unless you think it’s good on a bookshelf like me. Either way, it’s nice to see people have smart plans.

Oh yeah – the good guys in black and gold won, too. I reset the time clock on this to when most of the post was written, during the game.