There are a lot of abortions in China, and not many births. Last year, there were about 9.7 million abortions in the major clinics and almost 12 million live births. That’s about 8.5 live births per 1000 Chinese population and 79.7 abortions per 100 live births. If you include the minor clinics and the abortion pill, it’s likely that there are more abortions than live births in China. It’s the preferred method of birth control. In the US, the ratio of abortions to births has grown but we have only about 1/4 as many abortions as births.
Births and abortions per year in China to 2020, from The Economist, 2023. The biggest change is decreased births, not increased abortions.
The birthrate in China is low and decreasing. China had pushed for one-child families as a cure for overpopulation and a route to a richer China with abortion promoted as a safe, painless way to end an unwanted pregnancy. Billboard ads continue to show happy women who are leading their best life now that they’ve had an abortion. Of course, during the one-child years, if you had that extra baby, the state might take your baby him or her. Condom ads were forbidden, and remain so to this day.
China seems to have succeeded too well. The population has leveled out, and has began to decline this year — likely too fast. Meanwhile the economy has grown by an average of 10% per year for 40 years, so that China is now, likely the second largest economy on the planet, but has such an old population that this is unlikely to continue. One down-side of the heavy reliance on abortion is that it’s produced a severe sex imbalance. The Chinese chose to abort mostly girls. It’s also resulted in an active sex trade. I’ve claimed it will lead to war, famine, or an economic collapse in the next ten years.
Add for a Chinese abortion clinic. See how happy the lady is. Chinese ads have English because it’s cool — it suggests that this clinic serves Americans and British too.
In the US, there were 3,664,000 births in 2022, 12.012 births per 1000 people. That’s 1.5 times the birth rate of China, and a 1% increase from 2020, but significantly below the birthrate of the boomer generation. In the last year, there were 928,000 abortions, see graph below, or 25.3 abortions per 100 live births. Our population is as old as China’s, but the additional children suggests that our society will continue longer.
In America, the case for abortion is that it’s a woman’s right, see ad below. Anti-abortion is presented as slavery and a Republican plot for male domination. Politically, this has been a winning argument for Democrats; helping them win big in elections. They made good on the argument and amended the Michigan constitution to allow abortion till birth with the father having no say. The legal and religious establishment has gone along. They may want some limitations, but there is no consensus on what the limitation should be.
Abortions per year, US, Guttmacher Inst. report, 2022.
It’s been suggested that a good way to lower the abortion rate would be higher taxes to provide more healthcare and child benefits. That may be, though I’m not sure it’s the direct, sure route. China has free healthcare and benefits. I suspect that the preachers should do more personally to deal with the vulnerable. Another thought is to promote is rural living. In the US and China, rural areas have higher birth rates, while the cities have low birth rates and high abortion rates. The highest abortion rate in the US is in Washington DC.
In the US, abortion is presented as a right, and as a Republican anti-woman plot.
My overall sense is that Children are good: Admittedly, they are expensive hobbies, but they are worth it, for the parents, for the nation, and in particular for the child. Children are a beautiful part of life and a beautiful part of any environment, IMHO. They like to grow amid sunshine and fresh air.
Humans are funny little creatures. I suspect that God keeps us around for our entertainment value. Each culture provides God its own entertainment. The British by invading basically every country on earth wearing tall, furry hats. We Americans provide grand stunts, like landing on the moon, or an automobile race around the world in 1908 when there were no roads or gas stations. And the French took love, dining, and dueling to a high, almost comic level. In France, the great and near great dueled well into the 20th century. The great French mathematician, Galois dueled to the death over love or politics. The great rationalist philosopher, Descartes, fought a duel, disarmed his opponent, and forgave him because of love. The science fiction writing philosopher, Cyrano de Bergerac, was famous for many duels, typically over the insults in his writing (or his nose).
In France, the great and near-great dueled well into the 20th century.
Instead of writing about those fellows, this post is about two Napoleonic generals, Pierre Dupont de l’Étang and François Fournier-Sarlovèze, who fought 30 duels with each other over 19 years writing a contract to kill each other whenever possible. They didn’t start as generals, of course, but rose through the ranks, though dueling was illegal, in theory, most of the time. They dueled on foot and horseback, mostly with swords, but also with pistols, and managed to wound each other at every meeting. They never quite managed to kill one another, or settle things, but they kept going at it till they became friends, of a sort. They were not that bad dualists, Fournier was a crack shot with a pistol and had killed others in duels. DuPont was better with the sword, but both were good at dodging death by blocking their vital organs.
The antaganism started with a duel, as one might expect. Fournier, a lieutenant at the time, had just killed a popular Strasbourg townsman named Blumm in a pistol duel. The townsman had no experience with pistols so this was sort-of murder, and resented. There was to be a party that evening, and Fournier’s commanding officer sent captain DuPont with a message to Fournier to keep him away until tempers subsided. Fournier attempted to attend anyway, and felt insulted by DuPont’s efforts to keep him out. Fournier challenged DuPont, and DuPont accepted, choosing military swords. Fournier would have challenged the commanding officer, but one does challenge so far above one’s station in France.
They met the next day at dawn. DuPont won the first duel, injuring Fournier by a severe cut to the shoulder. At this point, first blood, most American dualists would have called it quits, and might have become friends. In the duel between Thomas Hart Benton and Andrew Jackson, Benton put two bullets into Jackson but didn’t kill them, and they went on to become friends, and colleagues in congress. But for these two, one deadly meeting was not enough. They decided to duel again as soon as Fournier recovered. That took a month. Fournier rechallenged, they fought again with military swords. This time DuPont was injured. At the next duel, both were injured. Again and again, whenever they met, with swords, cutlases, lances, rapiers, and at last with pistols.
Fournier (left) and DuPont (right). Fournier fought for Napoleon in the Spanish and Russian campaigns, and went on to help write the military code of conduct. DuPont fought in the Austrian, Dutch, and Spanish campaigns, eventually becoming Minister of War for Louis XVIII and deputy of the Charente “The Dualsts” film was shot in and around Fournier’s home town. The painting at left hangs in city hall.
They drew up a contract that they would try to kill each other whenever they were 30 leagues from each other (90 miles) and not otherwise occupied with a war. The duels would pause whenever one of them was promoted since one didn’t duel with someone of higher rank. The two proved to be excellent officers and advanced at a good rate, with occasional stops in prison because of the political turmoil of the time, but not because of their dueling. Fournier went to jail for financial mismanagement and for insulting Napoleon after the Russian Campaign, DuPont went to jail too, for losing to the Spanish, and later for supporting the Royalists. They were released because the army always needs good officers who are brave and successful (Read about their lives on Wikipedia, or here).
Sometimes they would meet by accident and try to kill each other in bars, restaurants, and hotels. Mostly they would meet by arrangement at appointed times in the woods, sharing a hearty meal and good insults before dueling. Sometimes they chatted with each other through the duels. They appreciated each others skill and complimented each other on promotions, especially when it allowed them to try to kill one another (there is a comic movie like this — Mr and Mrs Smith?). During one encounter, DuPont stuck Fournier to the wall through the neck with his sword, and Fournier requested that he move closer so they could continue fighting this way. Now that’s dedication.
Eventually, DuPont got engaged and they decided to fight to the death, hunting each other in a woods with pistols (two each). As it happened, DuPont disarmed Fournier, and forced him to agree to fight no more. It was a happy ending suitable to a movie. Actually, a movie made about them, “The Dualists, 1967.” DuPont became minister for War for Louis XVIII (released for being too royalist), and wrote poetry including “the art of war”. Fournier helped write the French code of military conduct.
Dueling didn’t stop here, but continued in France well into the 20th century. The last dual between members of the government was in 1967, see photo below. René Ribière, Gaullist speaker of the National Assembly fought Gaston Differe, Mayor of Marseilles and Socialist candidate for the French presidency. They used epees, long, sharp swords. Differe wounded Ribiére twice, both times in the arm, and Jean de Lipkowskiin called an end to the duel “. Several French duels of the 20th century, are caught on film.
Le député maire socialiste de Marseille et bon escrimeur Gaston Defferre (C) et le député gaulliste du Val d’Oise René Ribière s’affrontent en duel le 21 avril 1967 dans le jardin d’une maison de Neuilly sous le regard d’un des témoins M. Cassagne (de dos). René Ribière avait demandé réparation par les armes à la suite d’un différend survenu à l’Assemblé nationale au cours duquel Defferre l’ayant traité d'”abruti” avait refusé de lui présenter des excuses. / AFP PHOTO
The point of this essay, assuming there is one, is the love of God for us. A less loving God would have had the comedy of the generals end after only two or three duals, or after one killed the other. Here, He allowed them to fight till friendship prevailed. Also of note is that that French are not surrender monkeys, as some claim. They are masters of honor and history, and we love them.
Robert E. Buxbaum, December 28, 2022. In the US, dueling is more like gang warfare, I include here pirates like William Kidd and John Lafitte, the Hamilton-Burr duel with trick pistols, the western shootouts of Jim Bowie, Wyatt Earp, etc., the Chicago rivalries of the 1930s and the drug wars of Detroit. At present, Detroit has four shootings per day, but only one death per day. The movie “8 Mile” includes fights, shooting, and several rap duels, fought with deadly words. If you won’t fight for something, there is a sense that it isn’t worth much.
It’s good to have hero, someone whose approach to life, family and business you admire that you might reasonably be able to follow. As an engineer, inventor, I came to regard Peter Cooper of New York as a hero. He made his own business and was a success, in business and with his family without being crooked. This is something that is not as common as you might think. When I was in 4th grade, we got weekly assignments to read a biography and write about it. I tended to read about scientists and inventors then and after. I quickly discovered that successful inventors tended to die broke, estranged from their family and friends. Edison, Tesla, Salk, Goodyear, and Ford are examples. Tesla didn’t marry. Henry Ford’s children were messed up. Salk had a miserable marriage. Almost everyone working on the Atom Bomb had issues with the government. Most didn’t benefit financially. They died hated by the press as mass-murderers, and pursued by the FBI as potential spies. It was a sad pattern for someone who hoped to be an inventor -engineer.
The one major exception I found was Peter Cooper, an inventor, industrialist, and New York politician who was honest, and who died wealthy and liked with a good family. One result of reading about him was to conclude that some engineering areas are better than others; generally making weapons is not a path to personal success.
Tom Thumb, the blower at right is the secret to its light weight per power.
Peter Cooper was different, both in operation and outcome. Though he made some weapons (gun barrels) and inverted a remote control torpedo, these were not weapons of mass killing. Besides he but thee for “the good side” of the Civil War. And, when Cooper made an invention or a product, he made sure to have the capital available to make a profit on it too. He worked hard to make sure his products were monopolies, using a combination of patents and publicity to secure their position.
Brand management helps.
Cooper was a strong family man who made sure to own his own business, and made sure to control the sources of key materials too. He liked to invest in other businesses, but only as the controlling share-holder, or as a bond holder, believing that minor share-holders tend to be cheated. He was pro monopoly, pro trusts, and a big proponet of detailed contracts, so everyone knew where they stood. A famous invention of Cooper’s was Jello, a flavored, light version of his hide-glue, see the patent here. Besides patenting it, he sold the product with his brand, thus helping to maintain the monopoly.
Cooper was generous with donations to the poor, but not to everyone, and not with loans. And he would not sign anyone’s note as a guarantor. Borrowers tended to renege, he found, and they resent you besides. You lose your money, and lost them as a friend. He founded two free colleges, Cooper Union, and the Cooper-Limestone Institute, plus an inventor’s institute. (I got my education, free from Cooper Union.) Cooper ran these institutions in his lifetime, not waiting till he was dead to part with his money. Many do this in the vain hope that others will run the institution as they would.
Peter Cooper always sought a monopoly, or a near monopoly, patenting his own inventions, or buying the rights to others’ patents to help make it so. He believed that monopolies were good, saying they were the only sort of business that made money while allowing him to treat his workers well. If an invention would not result in a monopoly, Peter Cooper gave the rights away.
The list of inventions he didn’t patent include the instruments to test the quality of glue and steel (quality control is important), and a tide-powered ferry in New York. Perhaps his most famous unpainted invention was a lightweight, high power steam locomotive, “The Tom Thumb”, made in 1840. Innovations included beveled wheels to center the carriage on its rails, and a blower on the boiler fire, see photo above. The blower meant he could generate high-power in a small space at light weight. These are significant innovations, but Cooper did not foresee having a monopoly, so he didn’t pursue these ideas. Instead, he focussed on making rails and wire rope; he patented the process to roll steel, and the process for making coke from coal. Also on his glue/jello business. Since he made these items from dead cows and horses, he found he could also sell “foot oil” and steam-pounded leather, “Chamois”. He also pursued a telephone/ telegraph business across the Atlantic, more on that below, but only after getting monopoly rights for 50 years.
Cooper managed to stay friends with those he competed with by paying license fees for any patents he used (he tried to negotiate low rates), or buying or selling the patent rights as seemed appropriate. He also licensed his patents, and rented out buildings he didn’t need. He rented at a rate of 7% of the sale price, a metric I’ve used myself, considering rental to be like buying on loan. There is a theory of stock-buying that matches this.
The story the telegraph cable across the Atlantic is instructive to seeing how the pieces fit together. The first significant underwater cable was not laid by Cooper, by a Canadian inventor, Frederick Gisborne. It was laid in 1852 between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Through personal connections, Gisborne’s company got exclusive rights for 30 years, for this and for a cable that would go to Newfoundland, but he didn’t have the money or baking to make it happen. The first cable failed, and Gisborne ran out of money and support. Only his exclusive rights remained. This is the typical story of an inventor/ engineer/businessman who has to rely on other peoples’ money and patience.
A few months after the failure, a friend of Cooper’s, Cyrus Field, convinced Cooper that good money could be made, and public good could be done, if Cooper could lay such a cable all the way to London. One thing that attracted Cooper to the project was that the cable could be made as an insulated iron-copper rope in Cooper’s own factory. Cooper, Field, and some partners (see painting below) bought Gisborne’s company, along with their exclusive rights, and formed a new company, The New York, Newfoundland & London Telegraph Company, see charter here. The founders are imagined* with a globe and a section of cable sitting on their table. Gisborne, though not shown in the painting, was a charter member, and made chief engineer. Cooper was president. He also traveled on the boat with Gisborne to lay the cable across the St. Lawrence – just to be sure he knew what was going on. This cable provided a trial for The Trans Atlantic cable.
The founding individuals to lay a transatlantic cable. Peter Cooper at left is the chairman, Cyrus Field is standing, Samuel Morse is at the back. Frederic Gisborne, a founder, does not appear in the paining. Typical.
Samuel Morse was hired as an electrician; he is pictured in the painting, but was not a charter member. Part of the problem with Morse was that he owned the patent on Morse-telegraphy, and Cooper didn’t want to pay his “exorbitant” fees. So Cooper and Field bought an alternative telegraph patent from David Hughes, a Kentucky school teacher. This telegraph system used tones instead of clicks and printed whole letters at a time. By hiring Morse, but not his patents, Cooper saved money, while retaining Morse’s friendship and expertise. The alternative could have been a nasty spat. Their telegraph company sub-licensed Hughes’s tone-method a group of western telegraph owners, “The Western Union,” who used it for many years, producing the distinctive Western Union Telegrams. With enough money in hand and credibility from the Canadian trial, the group secured 50 years monopoly rights for a telegraph line across the Atlantic. Laying the cable took many years, with semi-failed attempts in 1857, 1858, and 1865. When the eventual success came in 1866, the 50 years’ monopoly rights they’d secured meant that they made money from the start. They could treat workers fairly. Marconi would discover that Cooper wrote a good contract; his wireless telegraph required a widely different route.
I should also note that Peter Cooper was politically active: he started as a Democrat, helped form the Republican Party, bringing Lincoln to speak in NY for the first time, and ended up founding the Greenback-Labor Party, running for president as a Greenback. He was strongly for tariffs, and strongly against inflation. He said that the dollar should have the same value for all time for the same reason that the foot should have the same length and the pound the same weight. I have written in favor of tariffs off and on. They help keep manufacturing in America, and help insure that those who require French wine or German cars pay the majority of US taxes. They are also a non-violent vehicle for foreign policy.
Operating under these principles, through patents and taxed monopolies, Peter Cooper died wealthy, and liked. Liked by his workers, liked by much of the press, and by his family too, with children who turned out well. The children of rich people often turn out poorly. Carnegie’s children fought each other in court, Ford’s were miserable. Cooper’s children continued in business and politics, successfully and honorably, and in science/ engineering (Peter Coper Hewitt invented the power rectifier, sold to Westinghouse). The success of Peter Cooper’s free college, Cooper Union, influenced many of his friends to open similar institutions. Among his friends who did this were Carnegie, Pratt, Stevens, Rensselaer, and Vanderbilt. He stayed friends with them and with other inventors of the day, despite competing in business and politics. Most rich folks can not do this; they tend to develop big egos, and few principles.
Robert Buxbaum, November 30, 2022. I find the painting interesting. Why was it painted? Why is Gisborne not in it and Morse in the painting — sometimes described as vice President? The charter lists Morse as “electrician”, an employee. Chandler White, holding papers next to Cooper, was Vice President. My guess is that the painting was made to help promote the company and sell stock. They made special cigars with this image too. This essay started as a 5th grade project with my son. See a much earlier version here.
It is a particular skill of management to hog the glory and cast the blame; if a project succeeds, executives will make it understood that the groups’ success was based on their leadership (and their ability to get everyone to work hard for low pay). If the project fails, a executive will cast blame typically on those who spotted the problem some months early. These are the people most likely to blame the executive, so the executive discredits them first.
This being the dynamic of executive oversight, it becomes difficult to look over the work of a group and tell who is doing good and who is coasting. If someone’s got to be fired in the middle of a project, or after, who do you fire? My first thought is that, following a failure, you fire the manager and the guy at the top who drew the top salary. That’s what winning sports teams do. It seems to promote “rebuilding” it’s a warning to those who follow. After the top people are gone, you might get an honest appraisal of what went wrong and what to do next.
A related problem, if you’re looking to hire is who to pick or promote from within. In the revolutionary army, they allowed the conscripts to pick some of their commanders, and promoted others based on success. This may not be entirely fair, as there are many causes to success and failure, but it seemed to work better than the British system, where you picked by birth or education. Here’s a lovely song about the value of university education in a modern major general.
A form of this feedback about who knows what he’d doing and who does not, is to look at who is listened to by colleagues. When someone speaks, do people who know listen. It’s a method I’ve used to try to guess who knew things in a field outside my own. Bull-shitters tend to be ignored when they speak. The major general above is never listened to.
In basketball or hockey, the equivalent method is to see who the other players pass to the most, and who steals the most from the other side. It does not take much watching to get a general sense, but statistics help. With statistics, one can set up a hierarchical system based on who listens to whom, or who passes to whom with a logistic equation as used for chess and dating sites. A lower-paid person at the center-top is a gem who you might consider promoting.
In terms of overall group management, it was the opinion of W Edwards Deming, the name-sake of the Deming prize for quality, that overall group success was typically caused by luck or by some non-human cause. Thus that any manager would be as good as any other. Deming had a lovely experiment to show why this is likely the case– see it here. If one company or team did better year after year, it was common that they were in the right territory, or at the right time. As an example, the person who succeeded selling big computers in New York in the 1960s was not necessarily a good salesman or manager. Anyone could have managed that success. To the extent that this is true, you should not fire people readily, but neither worry that your highest paid manager or salesman is irreplaceable.
I’d written previously about Marcel Duchamp’s early work as a founder of the Dada school of modern art, a school that aims to say nothing about anything except about itself. Duchamp hung a urinal as art and called it “fountain.” It was comic, insulting, and engaging — an inspiration for many modern arts to follow , and much bad modern art, too — the collections of string and found objects and paintings of squares or squiggles. But the story of Duchamp is interesting. In 1925, M. Duchamp gave up on art, at least this type of art and became a chess player. As with art, he was very good at it, and became the French chess champion. Now that’s an unexpected turn.
What sort of chess did Marcel Duchamp play? Modern. Very modern. While tradition chess had focussed on the center. He developed at the sides, a strategy that was called an “Indian attack”, named (I assume) after American Indians attacking a stage-coach. Instead of attacking directly, the popular image of an Indian attack is attack from the sides, or behind trees. In chess, it involves typically a “fianchettoed bishop.” Other modern chess players of the time attacked from the side too (Réti, Alekhine) but they generally worked form one side or the other with some central presence. Duchamp worked from both, often with no center.
Position after white’s 13th move
Here is a dramatic example, a position from a game with an American great, GM George Koltanowski. It’s 13 moves in, with Duchamp, is black, generally considered the weaker side. He has fianchettoed both of his bishops, and given up the center to Koltanowski. It’s Duchamp’s turn to move/ He will win in three moves.
Notice that Koltanowsi’s bishops point outward, as a cowboys guns might point, or as from a British fighting square. Meanwhile, Duchamp’s bishops point inward, with his queen -bishop almost directly at the white king. The game proceeded as follows. 13…, Nxd5 14.Nxd7, Nxf4 15.Nxf8, Bd4, 0-1..
The full game, seen here,. It might prove instructive if you want to explore in Duchamp’s footsteps. While I play traditionally, I sometimes fianchetto, and do not find it racist that such side-attacks are called “Indian attacks.” Perhaps that’s because I’m old and used to such things, or because they very often work.
Please Touch. M. Duchamp 1947
Self-portrait, M. Duchamp, 1957 (torn paper on black velvet).
As M. Duchamp’s chess skills waned, he returned to the art world, going in the opposite direction of Dali. Duchamp’s last works are small, and simple. They are still arresting but more dream-like. Dali’s works grew bigger and busier as he got older.
Every now and again a book or movie includes a chess game. Generally, it’s in a story where death is on the line. It’s a literary device used to indicate high mental acumen of the people involved, particularly the one who wins. As an example, in “Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows”, 2011, Holmes plays Moriarty, each calling out moves far advanced for the 1800s. It emphasizes these individuals’ super-smarts. Holmes wins at the end, of course. The Ingrid Berman film, “The Seventh Seal” is similar, with the chess game played against death himself. The knight shows himself a more-than-worth opponent. And that brings us to Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, book 1 of the series, and movie, Ron Weasley is presented as a sort-of fool throughout the series. He’s mostly as source of background information about wizarding, but in one episode standout, he plays brilliantly with giant-size chess men against a magical intelligence, and wins. After the game, one that is described as one of the best ever, Ron goes back to being the goof-ball he was throughout. His chess skills don’t come up again, or do they. It’s a well written series, so what’s the point of including the game?
Position of pieces in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone (movie).
To see how brilliant Ron’s play is, recall that Ron is eleven years old in book 1. He, Harry, and Hermione enter a mysterious room filled with menacing statues. Ron immediately realizes it’s a chess board, and infers that they must win as black to pass through. He further infers that the piece representing Harry must make the checkmate. Two or three pieces are missing, and Ron infers that Harry’s character must replace one of these and become the mating piece. If you’ve ever played a decent computer, you know it’s very hard to win as white (in the 90s you could still win). This ghost intelligence plays quite well, and it’s almost impossible to win if you need to have a particular minor piece make the mate. In the movie, Ron plays as black and reaches the position shown with Harry as the king’s bishop and Hermione as a rook. He is down in material, but has laid a very good trap. The white queen captures the “free pawn” on d3, violently threatening the Harry-bishop. Ron interposes the rook to c3 forcing the white queen to take the rook. At this point, Ron could win by B-c5+, QxB, N-h3 mate, but that would sacrifice Harry and leave Ron as the winning piece. Both Ron and Hermione realize this, and Ron causes Harry to make the checkmate by N-h3+, QxN, B-c5+, Q-f3, BxQ mate. Ron is injured when QxN — a sacrifice in both senses of the word.
Death plays chess, painting by Albertus Pictor, 1480
It’s an impressive display of chess skill, and Dumbledore is right in saying it’s one of the best games. No normal player could manage a game like that, certainly no eleven year old. Normally such a display would be used to present Ron as the group brain, or at least as a very deep thinker. If so, why does the author have Ron revert to his care-free, stupid persona with chess never showing up.
We see that Voldemort, the arch villain, won his game too, and only lost a few pieces doing it. That Voldemort is good at chess is no surprise; it goes with his deep-thinking persona. We don’t see Voldemort’s game, but I can infer that he won via the Trailer gambit. It’s a fairly tricky win, but the only way that I know where you win as black losing only a kings bishop, a rook, and a knight, the pieces that Ron and his friends replaced. The Queen is the winning piece, though, and that’s a lot simpler than winning with a bishop. Ron’s win is far more sophisticated, a surprise given Ron’s behavior and how he is treated.
Perhaps it’s just bad writing, or an effort to show Ron is good at something, but I thought to do a quick re-read of Ron’s early appearance in book 2. Here I find that Ron is bright and motivated, but overshadowed. Early in the book, we find 12 year old Ron picking a lock using a hat pin, and driving a flying car reasonably well. We don’t think this is exceptional because his brothers do all this first, but it is exceptional: imagine tryin to drive a regular car with no instruction at 12. Later we find that Ron learns the fine points of Quidditch without native skill or a coach, just using a book, and we find that Dumbledore picks him to prefect, instead of Harry, a job he does well. Finally, we find that Hermione prefers Ron to Harry. It’s a somewhat surprising turn because she’s supposed to be the brains of the trio. How could she stand to be with Ron? Perhaps she is one of the few people who sees that Ron is bright. Dumbledore is too.
Viewed this way, the chess game becomes the first of the examples of Ron’s brainpower, and becomes an important foreshadowing to a surprise at the end of the last book/movie, to the final battle against Voldemort. In that battle, while everyone else is throwing hexes, Ron is the one who realizes that, to win the war, he must go to the basement chamber and collect basilisk teeth. It’s chess thinking: he’s focused on the king, on Voldemort, while everyone else is dealing with side threats. In a sense, it’s Ron who defeats Voldemort. The chess game is a foreshadowing, and fits with Hermione’s choice of Ron over Harry.
Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2022. If you like chess puzzles, find some here. And in “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey,” 1991, the brilliance idea is sort-of reversed. Bill and Ted play against death in battleship, twister, and clue, and win. It’s used to show that death is sort of random, and sort of stupid.
Inheritability of traits is one of the greatest of insights; it’s so significant and apparent, that one who does not accept it may safely be called a dullard. Personal variation exists, but most everyone accepts that if your parents are tall, you are likely to be tall; If they are dark, you too will likely be dark, etc., but when it comes to intelligence, or proclivities, or psychological leanings, it is more than a little impolite to acknowledge that genetics holds sway. This unwillingness is glaringly apparent in the voice-over narration of a popular movie about three identical triplets who were raised separately without knowing of one another. The movie is “Three identical strangers”, and it recounts their meeting, and their life afterwards.
Triplets, raised separately, came out near identical.
As one might expect, given my introduction, though raised separately, the three showed near identical intelligence, and near identical proclivities: two of them picked the same out-of-the way college. All of them liked the same sort of clothes and had the same taste in women. There were differences as well: one was a more outgoing, one was depressed, but in many ways, they were identical. Meanwhile, the voice-over kept saying things like, “isn’t it a shame that we never saw any results on nature/nurture from this study.” Let me clear this us: genetics applies to psychology too. It’s not all genetics, but it is at least as influential as upbringing/ nurture.
This movie also included pairs of identical twins, raised separately, they also showed strong personality similarities. It’s a finding that is well replicated in broader studies involving siblings raised separately, and unrelated adoptees raised together. Blood, it seems, is stronger than nurture. See for example the research survey paper, “Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits” Journal of the American Psychological Society 13-4, pp 148-151 (2004). A table from that paper appears below. Genetics plays a fairly strong role in all personal traits including intelligence, personality, self-control, mental illness, criminality, political views (even mobile phone use). The role is age-dependent, though so that intelligence (test determined) is strongly environment-dependent in 5 year olds, almost entirely genetic in 25-50 year olds. One area that is not strongly genetic, it seems, is religion.
In a sense, the only thing surprising about this result is that anyone is surprised. Genetics is accepted as crucial for all things physical, so why not mental and social. As an example of the genetic influence on sports, consider Jewish chess genius, Lazlo Polgar: he decided to prove that anyone could be great at chess, and decided to train his three daughters: he got two grand masters and an international master. By comparison, there are only 2 chess grand masters in all of Finland. Then consider that there are five all-star, baseball players named Alou, all from the same household, including the three brothers below. The household has seven pro baseball players in all.
Most people are uncomfortable with such evidence of genetic proclivity. The movie has been called “deeply disturbing” as any evidence of proclivity contradicts the promise of education: that all men are equal, blank slates at birth that can be fashioned into whatever you want through education. What we claim we want is leaders — lots of them, and we expect that education will produce equal ratios of woman and men, black and white and Hispanic, etc. and we expect to be able to get there without testing for skills, — especially without blind testing. I notice that the great universities have moved to have testing optional, instead relying on interviews and related measures of leadership. I think this is nonsense, but then I don’t run Harvard. As a professor, I’ve found that some kids have an aptitude and a burning interest, and others do not. You can tell a lot by testing, but the folks who run the universities disagree.
The All star Alou brothers share an outfield.
University heads claim that blind testing is racist. They find that some races score poorly on spacial sense, for example, or vocabulary suggesting that the tests are to blame. There is some truth to these concerns, but I find that the lack of blind testing is more racist. Once the test is eliminated, academia finds a way to elevate their friends, and the progeny of the powerful.
The variety of proclivities plays into an observation that you can be super intelligent in one area, and super stupid in others. That was the humor of some TV shows: “Big Bang Theory” and “Fraser”. That was also the tragedy of Bobby Fischer. He was brilliant in chess (and the child of brilliant parents), but was a blithering idiot in all other areas of life. Finland should not feel bad about their lack of great chess players. The country has produced two phone companies, two strong operating systems, and the all time top sniper.
Recently Putin claimed he was going into Ukraine to fight Nazis. Twitter makes fun of this, but also shows many pictures of these Nazis. Under the hashtag #AzovBattalion, you’ll see many pictures of white boys with swastikas and Ukraine flags (see below). Perhaps these pictures are just Russian propaganda: According to our media there are no Nazis to speak of, and besides, the president of Ukraine is a Jew. Still, the pictures look real, and based on Ukraine history, there is quite a bit reason to think they are not an aberration. Still, to the extent that they represent Ukraine, these individuals are a major basis of Ukraine’s claim for independence. They are also a good reason to leave Ukraine out of NATO, IMHO.
Let’s go back to the late days of the Tartars and the early days of the Cossacks, about 1600. There is a painting, below depicting Cossacks of those days writing a letter to The Sultan (original in the Kharkov museum). They do not seem the most savory of people, but they do seem independent and egalitarian. The letter is not written by a noble, but by a committee of pirates, and not everyone is happy about it.
Zaporozhian Cossacks write a letter to the sultan. These are the people who Putin claims should be loyal to Russia, but they have a long history of behaving otherwise. I like the scribe. A couple of people at left seem unhappy.
From 1250 to the mid 1700s, Southern Ukraine was ruled, to a greater or lesser extent, by the Crimean Tartars, a group of horse-riding Mongols who nominally served the great Khan. Moscow paid dues to them, and in 1571 the Tartar ruler, Devlet I Giray burnt Moscow to collect his dues. The early Cossacks were Black-sea pirates, and enemies of the Tartars. Around 1600, the Cossacks and Tartars realized they had a lot in common (alcoholism, pederasty…) and formed an alliance. Mainly this was against the Poles and Jews. A famous result of this alliance was the Khmelnytsky Uprising (about 1650). Khmelnytsky was the “Hetman” (Head man?), the elected, temporary ruler for the uprising. He has become a symbol of Ukrainian independence, but he was also a brutal murderer of virtually all the Jews and Catholics. Today, he graces Ukraine’s $5 bill, and sits atop a statue in Kyiv’s central square. This elevation of Khmelnytsky is no small insult to Jews, Catholics, and civilization.
Ukrainian Republic passport, 1919.
In 1654, via thePereyaslav Agreement, Khmelnytsky’s Tartar-Cossacks formed an allegiance with the Tsar while retaining autonomy in Ukraine. This autonomy eroded over the years, and ended with Bolshevik rule in the early 20th century. After WWI, Ukrainians briefly tried for independence, forming the Ukraine Peoples Republic and the Ukraine Democratic republic, from 1917 to 1921. The head of the Republic was called hetman, an elected leader but also a throwback to a mass-murderer.
Stalin punished the Cossack remnant before WWIi, and when the Germans invaded in 1939, many of the remaining Ukrainians supported the Nazi invasion, and provided some of the most brutal murders of Jews; the murderers of Baba Year, for example. Putin recalls this collaboration when he calls the Ukrainians Nazis, and I suspect that he’s more right than our press will admit. These #azovbattalion pictures don’t look faked. On the other hand, the autonomy of the Ukrainians and Cossacks, and their attempts at independence provide historical backing for Ukraine’s claim to independence. Putting this another way, the more you accept that Ukraine is full of Nazi sympathizers, the more you should accept them as a distinct society from Russia.
Ukrainians of the Azov Battalion with a statue of Khmelnytsky, or some other murderer.
As an idea of how the war might go, I should mention another group of Tartar-Cossacks. These were Moslems who operated between the Don and Volga Rivers in what is known as Chechnya. Chechnya fought Russia in a long, bloody, unsuccessful struggle, that is only recently ended. Russia may win in Ukraine, but it is not likely to win easily or cheaply if Chechnya is any model.
It is a common misunderstanding that Jews don’t believe in the afterlife. We do, both for good Jews and for good gentiles. While the talmud is clear on this, the Old Testament presentation is vague and poetic. As an example, the Talmud, Pirke Avos 4:16, says, “This world is like a corridor before the World-to-Come. Rectify yourself in the corridor in order to be able to enter the Banquet Hall.” The Talmud and Bible (OT) go to great detail of what to do in the corridor, but there are only poetic allusions about the afterlife banquet.
One Old-testament allusion is that death is described as going to sleep, or going to sleep with ones ancestors. Sleep here is understood as something that you generally wake up from. The added phrase, “with his ancestors” suggests a certain independence of person, even after death, so that we don’t all merge into a cosmic will. That this sleep is not burial is apparent, for example, with David, (1 Kings 2:10) , “Then David slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the city of David.” First David’s soul left to sleep with his ancestors, and then he was buried. It’s the same with Solomon, (1 Kings 11:43), “Then Solomon slept with his ancestors and was buried”. This phrase appears also for Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:20), for Reboham (1 Kings 14:31), and for many others including Ahab (1 Kings 15:24).
Now Ahab was an awful individual, and Jeroboam and Rechovoam weren’t exactly saints. According to Jewish tradition, you can be pretty bad and not lose your share in the world to come. The Talmud, (Sanhedrin 105a), says that, in general, “All Israel has a share in the world to come.” There are a few exceptions, Jews and gentiles who were so bad that they are no longer be part of God’s covenant, but those are rare. The Talmud says that Bilham was such an exceptional individual. He did his best to curse the Jews, and, as in (Gen. 12:3, and Deut 30:7), those who curse you are cursed. From the fact that Bilham lost his share we see that he originally had a share. All righteous gentiles do, according to Jewish tradition.
Another, Old Testament source that righteous gentiles have a share in the world to come is from the death of Abraham (Gen 25:8-9). “Abraham expired and died, an old man and full of years, and was was gathered to his people, and Isaac and Ishmael, his sons buried him…” Abraham being gathered to his people is understood to mean that he went to join his dead ancestors in heaven — but all of Abraham’s ancestors were gentiles. He’s gathered to the good gentiles in heaven, to Noah and the Noachides. Noah was not a Jew, but he is described as righteous and as walking with God (Gen 6:9). Walking with God is another allusion to being good in this world, and going to heaven afterwards. Apparently righteous gentiles not only go to heaven, but get to gather with Abraham and Noah.
We find that Ishmael was “gathered to his people” (Gen 25:17), as was Isaac (Gen 35:29), Jacob (Gen 49:33), Aaron (Num 20:24), and Moses (Num 27:13). Ishmael was not a Jew, nor particularly righteous, but there he is gathered with Abraham. There is allusion to him being a robber in his early days, “a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man” (Gen 16:12). Apparently he repented, and we find him in heaven with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, and Moses.
That we believe righteous gentiles go to heaven has been a problem for Jewish missionary work: if you can go to heaven without taking on the restrictions of becoming a Jew, why convert? For most non-Jews the right answer is, don’t convert, but live as a righteous gentile.
The details of heaven, and of the afterlife are not well spelled out in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, and not in the Talmud. Some Talmudic scholars took the sleep analogy literally to say that one awakens with the body one went down with, and even in the same clothes. One Talmudic rabbi wanted to be dressed nicely for his burial for that reason. Most rabbis do not expect their clothes to resurrect. In Jewish prayer (the Amida, 2nd section) we speak of revival of the dead in terms of plants coming back after a rain. This suggests a different body altogether. No one really knows.
The Jewish tradition takes heaven as a gathering, and this suggests you can speak to one another after death. There is also a concept of punishment for sin; perhaps the punishment is confronting the people you wronged. We don’t know. We presume that the experience of heaven is more pleasant for those who do good, but the details are hidden. “An eye has not seen, other than the L-rd’s, what He will do for those who hope in Him” (Isaiah 64:3). Bilham says he wants the death of the righteous (Num 23:10), but not the life.
Jewish tradition assumes that one’s marriage bond continues in heaven, by the way. In the Talmud (Taanis 25a), men are described as sitting with their wives, and this provides another bit of evidence that the Jewish belief in heaven goes way back. In the New Testament, in several places we find a story of some rabbis challenging JC to explain what would happen if a woman had seven husbands; (Matthew 22: 24-28, Luke 20: 33-37, Mark 12:18-25). Which husband would she sit with, they ask. JC’s answer is that marriage does not continue after death, and that we would be as angels. The Jewish traction disagrees and says that we’d be more like we are now, with our wives, but the fact that JC and the rabbis are arguing about the marriage bond in heaven indicates that both sides agree there is a heaven.
One reason we imagine our wives will be with us is the idea of becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24), another reason has to do with the fairness of reward. We want to enjoy heaven as ourselves, and not as some angelic version of myself that enjoys playing the harp for a billion years. As for the mechanics of heavenly marriage, one rabbi I knew said that it would be his divine punishment and his wife’s heaven. He imagined his she would want to go shopping all the time, and he’d have to go along*.
Robert Buxbaum, Feb. 8, 2022 *S. Kauffman, of blessed memory.
A review of some studies on the difficulty of sitting in one’s own thoughts.
There is a joke: what is the opposite of speaking?
It’s waiting to speak.
Most people find it uncomfortable to sit still and be quiet. Even listening is a pain. People sit brewing in their thoughts of what they are going to say. Silence is uncomfortable enough that solitary confinement for a few days is torture.
But what about a few minutes. Almost everyone can sit still and listen for 15 minutes as their friend drones on, especially if they are paid for it. Still, it’s uncomfortable, and a study set out to understand how uncomfortable. It turns out that a majority of men, 67% would rather give themselves electric shocks than sit and think or listen. Women, too find it unpleasant; some 25% of women preferred to give themselves electric shocks rather than sit and think. You’ll find a brief review of this and similar work copied above, or you can read the full study: Wilson et al 2014, “The challenge of the disengaged mind“.
The effect of the COVID-19 lockdowns was to remove virtually every bit of agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness, while fueling neuroticism. Data for 2020.
The effect of the COVID-19 lockdowns has been massive. Those involved in government discussions don’t seem to realize how massive, perhaps because they’re in constant contact with people, speaking and being spoken too. Most of us were not so lucky. We experienced partial isolation. A recent study suggests that almost every measure of happiness disappeared during the summer months of 2020: US agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness all declined dramatically, see data above. Decisiveness too; a lingering effect is an inability to make decisions. My hope is that government officials can resist the temptation for more lockdowns and mandates; mental health is health too.
If lockdowns do come, or if you are depressed for any other reason, you might consider exercise, or lithium, or counseling. At least decide to wake up at a fixed time every morning. Under COVID watch conditions, depression is the new normal. Here’s a joke on marriage counseling.
