The public school system turned one of my sons against government. The system has perverse incentives. He was talking to me about bullying.
In my experience and my son's, teachers turn a blind eye to bullying. Now and then teachers and administrators work around the edges, but they are reluctant to get serious. Here are the incentives.
If little Aristotle bullies little Socrates and the school lets this happen, what is little Socrates' parents' recourse? They can demand the school do something. Suppose the school does nothing? Probably nothing happens. Socrates' parents can sue. To the parents' attorney, the school presents the paper trail they left that showed they were doing something to try to stop the problem. The paper trail may be two sided, since the bully, little Aristotle, denied and lied at every stage.
Suppose the school expels little Aristotle? Little Aristotle's parents have ironclad evidence that the school expelled their son. Yes, the school has a paper trail, which may be two sided. But there is clear evidence that the kid was expelled. And maybe there is some theory by which the school singled out Aristotle.
Little Aristotle's case for being expelled is much stronger than little Socretes' case that the school should have done more. Bad incentives guarantee that most of the time the bullies win.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Part Time Job
At sixteen I had a job as a night watchman at a funeral home. They would call me when they had a body and I would spend the night.
In the rear end of the building was a small living room with a television. Sometimes I had to bang on the side to get the picture right, but it had cable back in the days when cable did not cross the mill pond and go into the little community where I lived. I would invite friends over and we would play games and pop popcorn.
There was a bedroom, too. In the morning I would shower and drive to school. For that, I made $20.
When the heating or cooling system would kick on, it would make a few loud bumps, which would make me jump. Other than that, the job was sheer gravy.
At one point someone mentioned that I was there for insurance purposes. Other than that, nobody ever told me what I was watching for.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Entropy
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold -- William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming
Systems tend toward disorder. This is a casual paraphrase of the Second Law of Thermodynamics--the Law of Entropy.
Orson Scott Card's "Alvin Maker" books frame evil as the destructive force, which the world tends toward, like water flowing downhill. Whereas good, the constructive force, must work against the tide.
Things wear out, rocks erode away, the sun cools slowly.
Over a decade ago, I read something that Marilyn Vos Savant wrote. I paraphrase it, thus. Information is not subject to entropy. That which stores the information is subject to entropy--paper decays, your hard drive crashes.
Other than Card's "Alvin Maker," I have not read anything which makes entropy a character in a story. But now I am thinking about it. Right now my ideas are soup. I have to overcome my own entropy to make it into something solid.
Systems tend toward disorder. This is a casual paraphrase of the Second Law of Thermodynamics--the Law of Entropy.
Orson Scott Card's "Alvin Maker" books frame evil as the destructive force, which the world tends toward, like water flowing downhill. Whereas good, the constructive force, must work against the tide.
Things wear out, rocks erode away, the sun cools slowly.
Over a decade ago, I read something that Marilyn Vos Savant wrote. I paraphrase it, thus. Information is not subject to entropy. That which stores the information is subject to entropy--paper decays, your hard drive crashes.
Other than Card's "Alvin Maker," I have not read anything which makes entropy a character in a story. But now I am thinking about it. Right now my ideas are soup. I have to overcome my own entropy to make it into something solid.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
And the winner is!
What should we call him? The Nigerian terrorist? The Christmas Day terrorist?
Mark Steyn found the perfect name for him.
The Panty Bomber!
Mark Steyn found the perfect name for him.
The Panty Bomber!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Barn Door
I have published a bit of research on terrorism, beginning over twenty years ago. So I think a lot about the subject. The attempt by a Nigerian to blow up a plane enroute to Detroit has me musing again.
Enhanced security measures adopted after 9-11 exasperated me. Rude, low intelligence, bureaucratic TSA screeners at airports were doggedly searching for men's razors and throwing them in the trash (no, that never happened to me--I did lose a few bucks worth of bottled water once). I yelled at the television more than once, "Nobody will ever hijack a plane using box cutters again! Stop it!"
I did not hear anyone agree with me until I saw a CSPAN Booknotes interview with Tom Clancy. Clancy said exactly what I had been thinking. The reason that box cutter hijackings worked on 9-11 was that the passengers had no idea that their plane was being hijacked as a projectile. They thought that they would be taken to a remote location and held for ransom.
Even on 9-11, the passengers of United-93, once they had used their cell phones to find out that they would likely be flown directly into a large building, attacked the hijackers. If the United-93 passengers had known the truth an hour or so earlier, the hijackers would have never entered the cockpit.
After 9-11, any hijacker without an AK-47 would be subdued or killed by the passengers. Clancy's analysis was perfect.
We are always closing the barn door after the horse has escaped--searching for useless box cutters and razors. Now, after a Nigerian attempt to blow up a plan, we are going to require that passengers keep their seats for the last hour of flight. Uh . . . because the Nigerian chose this time . . . to prepare . . . uh . . .
If we had this rule in effect before the Nigerian attempt, he would have triggered the explosive earlier in the flight. The new policy is regulatory lunacy.
If we had taken the box cutters from the hijackers on 9-11 the incidents would not have happened. But afterward we closed the barn door, by preventing incidents that would never again be successfully launched.
But with the Nigerian, we are not even closing the barn door. If we had put a new policy in place on the morning of his attempt, he would have had the same measure of success (pants flambe). This time the horse has escaped and we are painting the barn door.
Enhanced security measures adopted after 9-11 exasperated me. Rude, low intelligence, bureaucratic TSA screeners at airports were doggedly searching for men's razors and throwing them in the trash (no, that never happened to me--I did lose a few bucks worth of bottled water once). I yelled at the television more than once, "Nobody will ever hijack a plane using box cutters again! Stop it!"
I did not hear anyone agree with me until I saw a CSPAN Booknotes interview with Tom Clancy. Clancy said exactly what I had been thinking. The reason that box cutter hijackings worked on 9-11 was that the passengers had no idea that their plane was being hijacked as a projectile. They thought that they would be taken to a remote location and held for ransom.
Even on 9-11, the passengers of United-93, once they had used their cell phones to find out that they would likely be flown directly into a large building, attacked the hijackers. If the United-93 passengers had known the truth an hour or so earlier, the hijackers would have never entered the cockpit.
After 9-11, any hijacker without an AK-47 would be subdued or killed by the passengers. Clancy's analysis was perfect.
We are always closing the barn door after the horse has escaped--searching for useless box cutters and razors. Now, after a Nigerian attempt to blow up a plan, we are going to require that passengers keep their seats for the last hour of flight. Uh . . . because the Nigerian chose this time . . . to prepare . . . uh . . .
If we had this rule in effect before the Nigerian attempt, he would have triggered the explosive earlier in the flight. The new policy is regulatory lunacy.
If we had taken the box cutters from the hijackers on 9-11 the incidents would not have happened. But afterward we closed the barn door, by preventing incidents that would never again be successfully launched.
But with the Nigerian, we are not even closing the barn door. If we had put a new policy in place on the morning of his attempt, he would have had the same measure of success (pants flambe). This time the horse has escaped and we are painting the barn door.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Morality
1. So if you are too moral to take bad gamblers' money
2. Shouldn't you be opposed to government programs that forcibly take your money and use it to take bad gamblers' money?
3. And shouldn't you be opposed to government programs that forcibly take your money and use it to give incentives to people to eschew productivity, the acquisition of human capital, and to create disfunctional family structures?
Cryptically yours,
John
2. Shouldn't you be opposed to government programs that forcibly take your money and use it to take bad gamblers' money?
3. And shouldn't you be opposed to government programs that forcibly take your money and use it to give incentives to people to eschew productivity, the acquisition of human capital, and to create disfunctional family structures?
Cryptically yours,
John
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Debate
We had to debate in my high school speech class. Tommy and I were assigned "Pro: Immigration should be limited." Two young ladies were assigned the "con."
Everyone did a week of research and got their arguments and notes together. My side went first with an opening statement.
Then a member of the other side said to the teacher. "That was our argument. We were supposed to have that side."
Ms. McCartney looked at her assignment book and said, "No. You had 'Con: Immigration should be limited.' That means you should argue that immigration should not be limited."
The student said, "But we prepared to show that immigration should be limited."
Tommy and I made an easy A. I think the teacher was so disgusted by the ladies that we looked good by contrast.
Everyone did a week of research and got their arguments and notes together. My side went first with an opening statement.
Then a member of the other side said to the teacher. "That was our argument. We were supposed to have that side."
Ms. McCartney looked at her assignment book and said, "No. You had 'Con: Immigration should be limited.' That means you should argue that immigration should not be limited."
The student said, "But we prepared to show that immigration should be limited."
Tommy and I made an easy A. I think the teacher was so disgusted by the ladies that we looked good by contrast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
