Captain Obvious

How honest are we with ourselves about how we feel or think? My father was loyal to the Ford car brand … to the point he could not buy a General Motors car even if it was better or cheaper. When I bought a Pontiac Firebird as I graduated from college he bristled with disagreement, and I still remember when he took it for a spin and then dismissed it as a toy. I admire any company that can create that kind of loyalty.

My wife and I now feel the same about the Lexus car brand, having bought the first LS400 to come onshore and having bought new models about every 10-15 years since then. However, we would freely buy another car brand if we liked it better … but we don’t.  We just looked at every alternative once again.

In like manner, people seem to become brand loyal to their political parties as well. I respect that as well, and as I have conversations about political points of view, I find it fascinating to see how people positively interpret things that most everyone else knows are wrong.

After all, everyone knew President Biden’s mental and physical acuity was falling rapidly, but it was only after that debate that the painful truth needed to be faced. Once again, I understand and admire loyalty, but in this case our country was at risk. Yet, everyone within the party ranks insisted President Biden was fully capable.  Similarly, look at the 538 polls about Vice President Harris’s approval rating at the top of this blog.  The sharp uptick occurred when she was designated as the Democratic candidate for POTUS.  What changed?  Was it bias or brand loyalty that kicked in?

Whether it was the word salad or her irritating witch-like cackle, most Americans simply found her unfavorable … that is, until she was the candidate for the highest office in the land. Then, miraculously as if she had become a different person, somehow, she arose from the dead.

What changed? Think about it! No … really … please think about it. Nothing changed. But, now Democrats had to show their brand loyalty … they didn’t have a choice. She never got a single vote in the primary. Nobody wanted her as POTUS, but now she was their choice.  So, when polled, her favorability rose sharply.

I watched this and thought it was remarkable. The Emperor’s New Clothes story was playing out in real time, and nobody seemed to be reporting on it. The Australian media were having a field day mocking our political process, but the American media was so loyal to the Democratic Party and the leftwing policies they were espousing, they ignored it all.  Others are now pointing this out.

Now, after the landslide rebuke of it all, let’s see if anyone learns anything.
This all reminds me of the person I met in New York City snapping his fingers at the entrance to the subway station. I stopped to ask why he was snapping his fingers incessantly and he told me it was because it kept the tigers away. When I reminded him that there were no tigers on the loose in New York City he remarked: “See … it works like a charm!” So, those of you who are brand loyal to the Democratic Party … look at this:

Do you see a pattern here? Do you still want to focus on a person, or are you willing to focus on what you say you believe?  Then, when essentially everyone who is not brand loyal rebukes your ideas, are you willing to learn from it?

Dialogue and discussion are truly needed.  The media has a great deal to learn.  I am seeing some of them press the restart button.  Let’s hope for more.

I must admit I would have never expected someone to argue with me that doing the right thing is always the right thing to do. It never goes out of style. Sure, it can be harder at times than going along with the consensus but standing on principles always seemed to me the higher calling in life. As a kid I was called “goody two shoes” for this position.

What troubles me, according to modern thought, is that it now appears right and wrong are subjective and therefore depend upon personal beliefs and cultural norms. Could this explain why many politicians will privately admit that cheating to achieve their political goals is appropriate.

The branch of philosophy called ethics addresses this question. Let’s focus on just one: are moral truths objective or subjective? In other words, are moral truths (like “don’t cheat” and “don’t steal”) objectively true and thus true independently of what our society says? Or are they subjective and thus relative to what our society says?

Some recent research indicates that about 95% of students answered that moral truths are subjective. One might be tempted to think that this is a generational phenomenon: perhaps a millennial thing, but it is much more widespread.

Another possibility of thinking that morality is subjective could be rooted in some sort of intellectual humility. Perhaps people understand those who disagree morally need to be listened to and given intellectual room so that there is no tone of superiority by those with whom they disagree.

However, one can argue that morality is purely logical, using the argument from common sense. If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But slavery is wrong. Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. This argument is short, but powerful. Intellectuals will now argue with me that you really need to define slavery, because many modern business models have elements of slavery in their design.

Secondly, one can use the argument from disagreement. Consider a simple example of subjectivity: taste. I think vanilla is better than chocolate. Chocolate is alright, but clearly not as good as vanilla! But ask yourself this: if we were to have an argument about which is better (chocolate or vanilla), would we really be disagreeing about an objective fact in the world? No. Clearly not. That’s because this whole dispute boils down to a matter of taste. And taste is subjective.

So here’s the argument. Analogously, if morality is subjective, then no two people could ever really disagree about a particular moral issue. But that’s ridiculous. Just turn on the news for a few seconds, and you’ll see people clearly disagreeing about moral issues! Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. To suppose that morality is subjective flies in the face of common sense and leads to the totally implausible conclusion that we can never really morally disagree with one another.

Morality is objective. It is independent of us and independent of what society says. Therefore, and consequentially, doing the right thing should never go out of style!  Plus, if we believe AI is going to be the basis of future decisions, how can we expect the best for society if we can’t agree now on what is right?

To answer the question posed in the title of this blog, clearly and sadly, yes.

As of Tuesday, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump made their final pitches for victory.  Now, as Americans from coast-to-coast cast ballots, polls showed a razor-close election likely to come down to seven top battleground states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona.  We still don’t know the outcome …

This past year of nonstop political nonsense on both sides of the isle has convinced me that Americans failed math … almost everyone. Nobody understands what the average of anything means. They don’t understand the most likely events, nor do they understand the importance of the “tails” of the distribution … things that are not “likely,” but still happen.

Even when I tell the story of our timeshare in Cancun that was hit by Hurricane Gilbert the year after we bought it. We were feeling pretty good that hurricanes don’t hit that part of Mexico because the salesperson properly quoted that “Cancun had not been hit by a hurricane in 37 years.” At the time, I viewed that with some level of comfort, but in retrospect I should have assumed “we are due,” and would have been correct.

No one seems to appreciate the risk of using numbers to make certain types of decisions. The pre-election polls always indicated the country was about evenly divided between republicans and democrats … and that my friends is a important part of our democracy in that it can create checks and balances on just about everything in our lives. Conservatives like myself have been terribly concerned that the progressives’ rightful leanings need to be considered, but should flatly be denied in areas that affect our public safety.

Therefore, I firmly disagreed with the defunding the police and the idea that some jobs just need diversity in their constituent base other than excellence in talents in abilities. Go ahead and try to rebalance areas where public safety isn’t critical to experiment with new ideas, but please leave pilots, physicians, engineers and others who must have excellence in their abilities alone to properly execute their jobs.

What truly surprises me is the complete lack of appreciation for averages and the distribution of outcomes underlying those averages. The average seldom represents very many people. There are about equal numbers of males and females, but relatively few can be defined as an average … although we seem to be obsessed with these deviants in the mathematical distribution.

No, all too many today will want to quarrel with me on my last label about people who can’t quite decide whether they are male or female because some progressive thinkers now want to offer these deviants from the normal distribution their special spot in the sun.

Yes, these individuals have been marginalized in the past and been the target of hate, but I might remind everyone that I grew up with that kind of hate because I was a geek … a nerd. Our son was bullied by the quarterback of his high school’s football team … so everyone looked the other way … because on average, winning the football games mattered more than doing the right thing.

Averages work well to understand the risks at things like gambling where the odds are useful to predict the likely outcome of repeated bets on a certain strategy. Yet, while the odds are clearly against everyone, since it is a business and the “house” has to make money on average, people repeatedly flock to this activity that is just stupid because of the opportunity and thrill of winning occasionally.

Perhaps that is the summary. Everyone seems to be looking for the adrenaline rush of that occasional win rather than playing a game where the odds are stacked against us. Maybe the thing we call our democracy is nothing more than a game of craps where we just cheer wildly when we win and then keep betting in the hope our horse will come in.

It is funny how we characterize each other to make ourselves feel better. The optimist says the glass is half full and the pessimist says it is half empty. We engineers feel righteous in reminding everyone that there appears to be twice as much glass as we really need.

We are no longer viewing news.  It is mostly views … personal viewpoints and opinions, reflecting personal bias.  It is now indistinguishable from propaganda.  It is so lopsided and ludicrous that even the news media themselves are aghast.

If you check the definition of propaganda, you will find it is defined as biased to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.  While it may be satisfying to some, it does permanent damage to society.  The consequential loss of trust is going to haunt journalism for decades.  It doesn’t take much to destroy trust, and they have proven themselves untrustworthy.

Just watch any of the three major network TV news programs for the following recipe:  Report several positives about the Democratic candidate with the best images they have from a recent event, shift to a gloomy tone to spin up something negative about the Republican.  Include adverbs to what the Republican said, like “falsely” or “unsupported.” 

What makes me especially concerned is that the scientific community has similarly lost their moral compass.  The phrase “follow the money” is always a good guideline, but the willingness to lie to get people to do things crosses a line in my mind and heart.  Yes, I understand the “fake it till you make it” bias in Silicon Valley, but the underlying ethic should still be that you don’t overpromise.  I have already blogged about this so I will let this rest.

I grew up with warnings that some things would stunt my growth, which of course were either “old wives’ tales” or simply ignorant beliefs at the time.  Religious leaders were guilty of using fear tactics to keep people loyal and obedient.  Postmodern critical thinkers don’t accept the fires of hell or eternal damnation.  Religious leaders haven’t yet come up with a new twist on the idea.  So, they are resorting to performances rather than true worship.

Who doesn’t like a good concert?  Recent party rallies prove that point, and the natural backlash when celebrities show for token time slots and then bolt. Bait-and-switch is far from a new idea, but I am sensing many who were party loyal are worn out by it all.

Perhaps this is all a result of the proliferation of media all seeking their share of our minds.  We have become numb, cynical, and distrusting.  We are tired and suspicious of just about everyone and everything.  But most of us can detect propaganda, and we resent it.

We all agree we need to reset the conversation.  Personally, I want apologies as part of that. 

We all realize the world we live in is driven by political correctness and political expediency. Hard decisions requiring sacrifice are simply not on our political agendas, community agendas nor certainly in our national priorities. The prevailing mantra is that we will solve the world’s problems using intellect, our collective wealth, and by banning fossil fuels, which no knowledgeable energy professional will openly agree with. No one seems to want to pay any attention to the elephants in the room screaming we can’t get there with continual and expanding growth in consumption.

Now we hear that AI is going to solve problems that have eluded the greatest minds for decades including how to solve the footprint civilization has on the planet. Sure, we will hear from the magic AI code that microgrids, micro houses, and micro cars are important ideas, but the code, if honest and politically insensitive is going to produce this result:

“The human species is on an unsustainable and irresponsible quest to provide endless uses of raw materials and energy to sustain irresponsible goals that everyone on the planet must come up to the modern standard of living of the major cultures on the planet. It is politically unacceptable to face the options that truly solve this problem, so the only near-term answer seems to be to continue to delude the citizens of the world that there is such a solution without restraint and sacrifice. Either limit the population of the world or limit consumption.”

Pundits claim the latest generation of AI tools can learn on their own and that this does raise the concern that they could start generating answers no mere mortals can understand. As a developer of AI tools for about 60 years, I will let you in on something. Code that supposedly learns on its own will undoubtedly start to produce answers that are politically unacceptable.

Just look at the recent shifts in European countries and even in the US about who can and should enter. Think about the shrinking populations of the supposedly smartest countries on the planet and where the growth in world population is coming from. Then, look at the list of atrocities committed by previous and current world leaders about how they want to solve these problems. Then, remember that all AI systems require “training sets” to give them the optimization logic of how to solve problems. All of history is now being coded into these AI algorithms. Do you really think AI is going to come up with something comfortable if and when asked to solve these problems?

Movies like Hunger Games, Ex Machina, Her, and a host of others will look like child’s play if AI is let loose to decide what we need to do because we as a society are not ready to hear we are on the wrong paths. We still have time, but not a lot of it.