Into the Idiocy

Into the Wild came on TV the other night. If you haven’t seen it, or read the book, it’s about Christopher McCandless, a twenty-four-year-old college graduate who gives up his $24,000 savings fund, his car, and pretty much everything else to go live alone in the woods of Alaska. So this is what he did and after just over 100 days, he died.

If that’s not one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.

I’m fine with giving away the money (he donated it to charity) and I’m fine with abandoning the car. I’m even fine with the desire to live alone*. But what the hell did he think was going to happen? The first thing that concerns me is that humans are social creatures. We weren’t meant to live alone (“Don’t eat that berry, Thag. Remember, Grok ate that berry and he dead.”). But more importantly, McCandless had a degree in History and Anthropology. Why the hell did he think he was capable of living in the Alaskan wilderness?

I can understand the love of Thoreau, but even ol’ Henry D. Thizzle had the common sense to go rough it less than two miles from town.

I suppose it doesn’t help to talk bad about McCandless now. And I suppose it makes me look like a dick (Surprise!). But people like McCandless shouldn’t be praised or revered. The movie alluded to how McCandless may have had emotional problems because of a bad childhood. If that’s the case, get some help. Don’t commit suicide by nature. If you want to get away from it all, if modern society makes you sick, go live in Africa. Or South America. Or rural China or Detroit. Or, chances are, down the street from wherever you are right now. Go help some people who have it worse than you do.**

Or at least bring a fucking compass.

*I fantasize about moving to Greenland and living alone in a shack with some yaks, which I can slaughter in the wintertime. Don’t ask me why I picked Greenland or a shack or yaks. My fantasy stretches only to the idea of living alone.

**If you’re a writer or movie maker, go write or make a movie about some of the people who have better reasons to hate society. (Warning: the stuff you will read in that link is really messed up. I’m just warning you. It’s not backed up with references, but this is. And so is this. And this. Don’t go looking for reasons to hate society. They will find you all on their own. But that ain’t what living is about.)

Twumping Bachmann

Michele, we need to talk. I’ve been hearing these crazy things about you. I mean really crazy things. At first, I said to myself everything’s cool because these crazy things match your crazy eyes. It’s what makes them sparkle.

But there’s something bigger at stake here.

The fact is, Michele, you’ve been ignoring me. How many times does a normal Joe like me need to tell a Member of Congress to tweet their Congress member? I thought that’s what Congress members Members of Congress were good for. I also thought we were off to a good start. I followed you, you followed me, things were looking up. But where have we followed each other to?

It’s the 11th hour now and you still haven’t thrown the Hail Mary. I’m afraid I’ve lost faith in you. I’m going to have to Twump™ you. It sounds cute, but in this day and age, being Twitter dumped is like being really dumped. Like for real for real.

I wish you the best of luck in your craziness and your gay conversions. Here’s hoping your program will work on your husband. I know there are lots of gay men out there just waiting to embrace Marcus Bachmann.

[Update – Jan. 4, 2011] See what happens when you don’t tweet your Congress member, Michele?

Canadian Snowclones, eh?

Speaking of snowclones, I’m surprised that none of the linguistic sites I read have made a note of The Onion‘s take on them. It’s OK. I’ll do it, you guys.

On the map of Canada in their book, Our Dumb World: Atlas of the Planet Earth, they make fun of the original snowclone by marking a spot on the map with, “Inuit community that has 20 words for having 50 words for snow.”

As with most things Onion, I like it. How many words do we have for having words for things? If anyone knows of any or of any sites that have already wrote about this Onion joke, please let me know in the comments.

Application for Writer Position at the Center for Marriage Policy [Updated]

Dear Mr. Usher,

I really like what you’ve done with your article (Why Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, 11/2011). In my mind, it’s perfect satire. I mean feminist lesbian conspiracies – where did you come up with that? It’s marvelous. And that’s not to mention the Constitutional Amendments that you threw in there (Seriously, I bet nobody checked if they were relevant).

But I must say that I feel like people still aren’t getting the point. Consider this article, in which the writer took you very seriously. It’s preposterous, I know, but there it is.

And that brings me to what I feel I can add. The Center for Marriage Policy is on the brink of being the best farce in the land – it just needs that extra push over the edge and into the abyss of reality. I am that extra push.

Allow me to demonstrate. I believe that all kids should play with legos, since legos teach them that homosexuality is wrong. Think about it. You build a lego home by placing the nub of one lego into the hole of another. You can’t build a sturdy lego home by poking two nubs together. It’s the same way with homosexuality. You can’t build a sturdy home without putting a man’s nub into a woman’s hole. That’s the way God intended it.

Or, have you ever rubbed the hole sides of two lego pieces together? That’s basically just like lesbianism. And it’s subverting America. Whenever I see my kids do that, I smack them. Also the way God intended it.

See? I just made that up right here on the spot! You see what I mean? I can be the force that ensures no one takes you seriously anymore. I mean heterosexual legos? It’s like feminist lesbian conspiracies but better. Also, since legos come in different colors, it could serve as a great example against interracial marriages if you wanted to go there.

The lego idea is a freebie – just know that there is plenty more where that came from. If you’re looking to really hit it big, get in touch. I think you and I would be great together (no homo). All I need is the opportunity to prove it to you.

Keep fighting the straight fight.

Regards,

Joe McVeigh

[UPDATE – Dec. 31, 2011] Here’s what Mr. Usher had to say to my application (via email; click to embiggen):

“Sorry but I’m not impressed by critical theory ridicule methods.  It is you that is out of touch with facts and reality.

This is your last email to me.  I have a filter on you now.”

Oh no! There’s a filter on me now! Get it off, get it off! David, I was just trying to help.

Wait a minute. If I’m out of touch with facts and reality, that means David’s article was serious. But… that means he believes… but how could anyone… *head explodes*

The South Philly Snowclone

I’d like to suggest an addition to the snowclone definition: X once did Y to Z. I call it the South Philly Snowclone.

A snowclone is a rhetorical trope, often used by journalists, which “conveys information by using a familiar verbal formula and the cultural knowledge of the audience.” The South Philly Snowclone’s template is:

X once did Y to Z

What the phrase has to do with South Philly is how often lazy sports journalists refer to the time Philly fans once threw snowballs at Santa Claus.

On the surface, it’s a phrase that’s technically true. Just like the Eskimos have more than one word for snow, Philly sports fans once threw snowballs at Santa Claus. But the devil is in the details.

Ray Didinger and John Pierron* explain the whole story better than I can, but here’s what you (linguists) need to know. On December 15, 1968, after a long and disappointing season, some Philadelphia Eagles fans threw snowballs at a guy in a Santa Claus costume who was not supposed to be on the field. Ever since then, sports journalists have been using this as proof of why Philly is home to sports fans from hell. They don’t use the more recent riots started by Canucks fans or Lakers fans or any of the incidents listed here (OK, except for two out of three here). They more often than not use the South Philly Snowclone.

What all this has to do with linguistics is that you have certainly heard or read the X once did Y to Z snowclone before. It’s usually followed with an implied “therefore” and “X can’t possibly be A.” Like other snowclones, it’s used across genres. Look out for it. The next time you see it, you’ll know that the writer is only as good as a run-of-the-mill lazy sports journalist.

In conclusion, Go Flyers!

*Hat tip Enrico Campitelli Jr. at The700Level.com.

Book Review: The Three Christs of Ypsilanti by Milton Rokeach

I was pretty sure that The Three Christs of Ypsilanti was going to be exciting. Here is the blurb on the back cover:

On July 1, 1959, at Ypsilanti State Hospital in Michigan, the social psychologist Milton Rokeach brought together three paranoid schizophranics […] The men had one thing in common: each believed himself to be Jesus Christ.

This is the type of crazy shit that was possible in the 1950s. But don’t worry, it’s all in the name of Science.

Rokeach’s investigation was “based on three simple assumptions: (1) Not all beliefs a person holds are of equal importance to him; beliefs range from central to peripheral. (2) The more central – or, in our terminology, the more primitive – a belief, the more it will resist change. (3) If a primitive belief is somehow changed, the repercussions in the rest of the system will be wide – far wider than those produced by change in a peripheral belief.”

The difference between primitive and peripheral beliefs is central to the book. Primitive beliefs, to Rokeach, “are taken for granted: a person’s primitive beliefs represent the basic truths he holds about physical reality, social reality, and himself and his own nature.” These can be backed up by other people or they can be simply based on a person’s own decisions about themselves and their world. Basically, a person’s belief in a physical object, such as a table, will be endorsed by society, while their belief in their own religious faith needs no endorsement.

Rokeach goes much deeper into the literature and research on belief systems, which was interesting to me, since I am not a psychologist. Even though Three Christs was written in the 1960s, it was all news to me. I can’t say how someone in psychology today would react to Rokeach’s descriptions, but he at least bases a lot of his assertions on the ideas of the time.

The belief system is also central to Three Christs because Rokeach’s experiment was essentially to see if he could get one or more of his three patients to change a primitive belief that they held, namely, that they were Jesus Christ. Since primitive beliefs are so resistant to change and so taken for granted, Rokeach wondered what would happen when the Christs were presented with two other people claiming the exact same identity, thereby giving each of them the ultimate contradiction to their primitive belief. Rokeach placed them together in the same ward of the same mental hospital and they had daily meetings for two years.

It’s an intriguing idea and one not without its problems. First, there is the ethical question of what Rokeach was doing. It may have been done with good intentions, but Rokeach himself admits that he “really had no right, even in the name of science, to play God and interfere round the clock with their daily lives.” Funny that a man studying three people who believe they are Christ would describe himself as God, isn’t it? No. To some people it represents what can go horribly wrong in psychology.

A related problem with Rokeach’s study is actually voiced by one of the Christs, Leon, who says Rokeach is casting out “negative psychology,” meaning he’s doing more harm than good. This is very possible and the ways that the Christs react to Rokeach interrupting their lives and beliefs can be seen as evidence of it. It’s especially poignant because of how Leon notes that Rokeach is someone who should know better.

I must point out that there are several ways to read this book. In a review of Three Christs, Slate.com wrote that “Rokeach’s book reflects a remarkably humane approach for its era,” but also noted that the book can be “starkly uncomfortable reading as it recounts how the researchers blithely and unethically manipulated the lives of [the three Christs] in the service of academic curiosity.”

For another set of contrasting views, Jenny Diski writes that Three Christs can explain “the terror of the human condition, and the astonishing fact that people battle for their rights and dignity in the face of that terror, in order to establish their place in the world, whatever they decide it has to be.” Thomas Szasz, on the other hand, disagrees and says “the book is about impersonation, not mental illness – patients impersonating Christ, Rokeach impersonating a scientist studying nature. The inmates at Ypsilanti were not ‘Christs’, and everyone, including the inmates, knew it.”

All of these readings are possible. Also, after reading the book, they all seem plausible. But instead of dwelling on these different readings and clicking through to the full reviews, I would suggest that you just read the thing and take away from it what you will. It’s an extreme case, for sure, so don’t make too many generalizations about schizophrenia, the mental health system, or psychologists based on Three Christs. But get a version of the book that has the afterword which Rokeach wrote twenty years after the book was first published. In a few short pages it manages to put the study into perspective.

Speaking of Christ, happy holidays everyone.

Up next: Stardust by Neil Gaiman

You Guys Heard That?

If animals have language, do they hear voices?

Or, at what point does language and/or a brain become complex enough to make up imaginary voices?

Anyone interested in animal communication can see a list of Language Log posts dedicated to the subject. It comes up on Edmund Blair Bolles’ site, Babel’s Dawn, which is about the origins of speech. Stan Carey also sometimes talks about animal communication on his site, Sentence First. Here he discusses the linguistic capabilities of dogs. I don’t remember the idea of animals hearing voices ever being discussed on these sites and I don’t always read the comments. How would we even know if animals were hearing voices?

I’ve been interested in reading Daniel B. Smith’s book, Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Hearing Voices and the Borders of Sanity (Amazon), since I first heard about it. I guess now I have another reason in case it says anything about how central hearing voices is the the human mind. You can see an interview with him on the Colbert Report here.

Guess What’s Wrong with US Schools

Marion Brady (via the Washington Post) has a story about his school board member friend who “took versions of his state’s standardized math and reading test scores for 10th graders.”

Even though his friend is a success “by any reasonable measure,” he was not too pleased with his results. In the friend’s own words, he knew the answers to none of the 60 math questions. Fucking none. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Brady’s story is supposed to make the reader think there is something wrong with the standardized test. Instead, by his own friend’s account, a competent reader will realize there is something wrong with his friend. He didn’t know the answers to any of the math questions? Seriously? Fucking none? What a shithead.

The idiot friend goes on the say that he got 62% of the reading questions correct and that he has “a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate degree.” But come on, fucking anybody can go to college.

Brady and his friend’s larger message is that we should not place too much emphasis on standardized tests. I can agree with that. When I was in tenth grade, I famously* drew a psychedelic mushroom on the essay part of my state standardized test. Brady’s friend has this to say about the problem with the emphasis on these tests:

If I’d been required to take those two tests when I was a 10th grader, my life would almost certainly have been very different. I’d have been told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would probably have believed it, and looked for work appropriate for the level of ability that the test said I had.

Judging by his own admission, one has to believe that the school board would be in better shape today if Brady’s friend had taken a standardized test in tenth grade. But I digress…

This friend has a range of questions about the test that he is in no way qualified to answer, including “Who decided the kind of questions and their level of difficulty? Using what criteria? To whom did they have to defend their decisions?” It’s a classic Rich White Man Predicament™ – (i) If he’s rich and (ii) if he can’t confidently answer a single math question on a tenth grade test, then (iii) there must be something wrong with the test.

Nice try, dipshit.

There is a problem with the education system in America. I know. I went through it. Now I live in Finland, where public education has been ranked the best in the world and the problems are obvious. But the problems can’t be boiled down to a fool and his inability to pass a test. If you really want to know what’s going on, I suggest poking around the PISA website. PISA is an international test performed by the OECD which rates students on reading, math, and science. Instead of also giving their test to incompetent adults, they make detailed and informed debates about why students from certain countries performed the way they did. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than Brady’s friend. You can see a Wikipedia summary of the PISA test and results here.

Brady says his friend concluded with this choice remark: “I can’t escape the conclusion that those of us who are expected to follow through on decisions that have been made for us are doing something ethically questionable.”

I can’t escape the conclusion that Brady’s friend is blind to his own idiocy. Wait, yes I can. That kind of thing is pretty common.

Brady himself says, “He’s wrong. What they’re being made to do isn’t ethically questionable. It’s ethically unacceptable. Ethically reprehensible. Ethically indefensible.” No, dummy. If dumbass can’t take a test designed for tenth graders, then there’s something wrong with him, not the test. It’s not ethically blah blah blah whatever. It’s a fucking test that your dipshit friend couldn’t pass. Perhaps the problem with US schools lies not with the tests, but with the school board members. Hmmm?

If you don’t believe me, take some sample questions for yourself. The reading questions are here and the math questions are here.

And they’re fucking easy.

*OK, so my action wasn’t so famous. But when I showed it to the girl sitting next to me, she freaked.

Warning! Assholes are Closer than they Appear!

Geoffrey Pullum and I have not always agreed on everything. I like to comment, and he hates comments. But in a recent language log post, Mr. Pullum mentioned talking to his son about “the ghastly crew of obnoxious multi-millionaires who dominate the newspapers, and how they keep threatening to achieve success even in the political arena.” And that’s when his son turned him on to the fact that we are living in “the age of the assholocracy.”

At first, I thought I agreed with Pullum. It really does seem like there are a ton of assholes in power these days. And it seems there are even more assholes vying to get into power. It’s easy to believe that the age of the assholocracy is upon us.

But then I realized that we’ve always been living in an assholocracy. Assholes in power has long been the rule, not the exception. Just open a history book. Those things are chock full of assholes. It’s a wonder there’s room for anyone else. Or, even better, go ask someone who’s not a white middle-class male. They’ll tell you all about the assholes in power.

Mr. Pullum uses Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi, and Vladimir Putin as examples of the assholocracy we’re living in. But these people are downright pussies (to continue the anatomical analogies) compared to previous media moguls and Italian or Russian leaders. Is it possible we’re at the end of the assholocracy and the start of the pussypublic? You wish. (Again, just following the anatomy metaphor.)

Instead, I think these assholes are starting to be assholes to their own kind – the other white middle-class males – at an equal rate that they historically were assholes to other kinds of people. The assholocracy has gone into self-destruct mode, or what political scholars refer to as a dicktatorship.