Slicer's Slivers of Being

The Formula for a Perfect Soul Mate.

Well then. Let's move from an explanation of science to a great novel showing the limitations of systematic methods of discovery. (But you arts folk, don't skip over the earlier post to get to this one - that's cheating). My wife pushed hard to get me to read this - but she almost put me off by suggesting more than once that I had Asperger's tendencies and would identify with the main character... (She thinks all men have, so at least there are a lot of us shouldering the same accusation).

 

It's not the sort of book I'd usually be drawn to read but alongside another she got me to read many years ago - John Irving's A Prayer For Owen Meany -  it will be a lasting favourite. Don Tillman is a Genetics Prof who's very direct, more than a little socially-challenged, and demonstrates autistic traits (eg lack of social awareness, focus on detail at the expense of people/relationships, & failure to pick up social cues). He has a small number of amazingly tolerant friends, but his relationships with women have been a disaster, for reasons that are self-evident to everyone but him. He's a bloke who values evidence base and systematic approaches above pretty much all else. 

This is a funny, gentle novel, rich with dramatic irony. Don's life is highly organised and predictable (something else he values a great deal). He realises that he's missing out on a life partner, so he embarks on what is dubbed The Wife Project.  He resorts to some common solutions eg speed dating. Trouble is, he finds traditional approaches very inefficient. Feelings are, after all, untrustworthy. So, he designs a lengthy questionnaire in order to sort 'the wheat from the chaff.' In the process he completely misses when he's being chatted up. Potential spouses are dismissed on the basis that they don't fit the predefined criteria that he's after. He realises some deficiencies with the early version of his questionnaire so, like a good scientist, he adapts it to make it even better at filtering out the 'unsuitable.' 

Then Rosie storms into his life. She's full of vitality, energy and passion and isn't put off by his odd traits. She doesn't seem constrained by rules. She is, however, clearly unsuitable by pretty much all of his predefined 'spouse criteria'. Still, he ends up spending time with her using his genetic skills to try to help her identify her biological father (who may well be trying his best to remain unidentified). She REALLY screws up his life tho. His carefully crafted routines are turned upside down, he discovers things he's never noticed before, he ends up in physical fights with restaurant staff and, against his usual nature, he breaks all sorts of rules (including ethical ones relating to testing genetic samples nicked at parties). He gets in serious bother with his longsuffering (female) University Dean. All the while he finds it deeply unsettling when he's away from Rosie...

Don really is a pain. His arrival at his friends' door at awkward times of the day or night could be real 'heartsink' moments. 

"I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you

Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you"

 

Here's a shot I took recently in New York. (Indulge me). Spent a while exploring sites in the Village and its evocative streets. Only noticed the street sign when someone pointed it out to me after I got back to Belfast.

The Village in NYC is synonymous with shaking off conventional restraint. You really want Don to throw caution to the wind. Go on Don, don't be afraid of your feelings. Show some passion. Lighten up. Play some Tubes... Don't be afraid of the parts she might reach.

"Your body gives me a thrill
as it leans against mine
I love how it feels 
with your jeans against mine

The smell of burning leather
as we hold each other tight
As our rivets rub together
flashing sparks into the night
At this moment of surrender darling
if you really care
Don't touch me there"

 

Gradually Rosie works some magic.

 

 
Rosie turns out to be what he wants, not what he thinks he needs. When it comes to his feelings, she'd ask him what the matter was, but she knows that he don't talk..

 

 

This is a humorous and touching story of self-discovery and the misapplication of systematic ways to find stuff out. Don discovers that the questionnaire said a great deal about himself. He thought he had constructed it to find a wife that would be suitable for him, but came to learn that it was better at selecting a wife to whom he would be suitable. 
Against his nature, Don learns by being in a growing relationship with someone. What's more, the changes brought about by that relationship then give him passion to help others who have their own problems (and equally may be unaware of them even if they're not well into the autistic spectrum).

It's a great book. Get it before the film's out. 

Would you go all the way?

One of the characteristics of punk rock was rebellion against authority - whether that was the then mainstream music style, or mocking of the British monarchy. Surely this has also been the appeal of a few Monty Python films we could name. Sometimes rebellion shocks our sensitivities; sometimes we're completely unaware of the need to have our sensitivities shocked.


It must be both right and healthy to question authority, or perceived authority, and also peer pressure. Many of us are taught as young kids to question peer pressure. "Would you put your head in the oven just because Pete told you to?" However at that time most parents are delivering this line or one of its variants, I'm pretty confident that they're not intending to teach their kids to question their parental authority (otherwise it would be self-refuting teaching). 

Today there is a substantial amount of challenging of old authorities, and often this has got to be a good thing - provided that we're not unthinkingly substituting one unchallenged authority for another. How much is our morality really ours, rather than the product of external influences? How much of what we think is 'thinking for ourselves' is actually not that at all? Whatever the source of our moral code, even if we do manage to think for ourselves, how often do we abdicate our responsibility when it comes to action?

I am not schooled in psychology but I found Milgram's Obedience Experiment intriguing. Having been actively involved in Research Ethics, I think it should be required study material for all those conducting scientific experiments on live subjects, and all those in the agencies which regulate such studies. This might seem ironic as it has been suggested that the original experiment was unethical, and would not be approved in more recent times.

Watch coverage of the 1963 experiment (provided of course that you don't find that too authoritarian a suggestion!):

As with most scientific experiments, some potential methodological flaws have been proposed - such as, in this case, uncertainty whether or not some participants continued because they suspected that the experiment was a hoax. Even if this were the case for some who continued, in my own view, I think it is significant that they continued without knowing this for certain. For some or many subjects, perhaps being designated 'teacher' was a positive reinforcement. Maybe those of us who have received knowledge in a variety of settings can be lured to behave in a particular way by this temptation too - a false hierarchy on the basis of 'owning' information which we are not in a position to verify for ourselves.

Once in that position, it seems a trait widespread in humanity to adopt the mantle of authority - whether that's as a preacher promoting the 20th Century heresy of creationism, or an advocate of scientism (rather than science), or judgmentalism regarding religious dogma, or using military force to advance political models which we think work in our setting but may not elsewhere. We can feel that we're in a privileged group, with a duty to convince others of the authority we (think we) possess. We would do better, I believe, to adopt the mantle of humility - of one beggar pointing another beggar to where he/she found bread; and having found the bread, to choose to serve rather than self-elevate. 

I try to avoid using the same music in different posts, but some of the pride theme songs are relevant, and one from my last post is equally pertinent in this:

"Well, the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
The law of the jungle and the sea are your only teachers..."

...Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame
Preacherman seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain 
Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas..."

In Northern Ireland, we are historically familiar with riots, tear gas and water cannons. With the recent failure of the Haass talks to deliver agreement on controversial political issues, where are the authorities? Are our political "leaders" looking over their shoulders regarding what a (small) proportion of their constituency thinks and having their behaviour constrained by it? You may say that this is the nature of politics - to be aware of and represent such a constituency - but as has been said "you can't please all the people all the time" (otherwise there would be no viable political opposition party) so perhaps more political courage and moral fibre is required to lead and 'do the right thing.' Of course Milgram's experiment doesn't allow us to blame our political leaders - we mustn't offload responsibility - we put them there, even if we say we're "a bit uncomfortable" with some of the stuff they say/do.

We also have ongoing individual and collective responsibility for the other authorities we sign off responsibility to. The reason we need some kind of independent Research Ethics process is because of the recognition that scientists, eager to advance knowledge, will sometimes not be in the best place to assess whether the price that research participants are being expected to pay is justified to deliver the answer it is hoped that the research will deliver.  

One interesting finding of related work by Milgram was when he looked at changes to the physical proximity of the teacher and learner: the more remote the person being 'punished,' the less reluctance there was to delivering the electric shocks. Could this not have something to say in the context of use of drone weapons?  

"They said what’s up is down, they said what isn’t is
They put ideas in his head he thought were his

 

He was a clean-cut kid
But they made a killer out of him
That’s what they did...

Well, everybody’s asking why he couldn’t adjust
All he ever wanted was somebody to trust

They took his head and turned it inside out
He never did know what it was all about."

 

Well of course we're so much more enlightened now than in the 1960's, aren't we? We're much more informed about holocaust, so perhaps more of us would have bailed out if we were the teachers in Milgram's experiment - and of course it can't be repeated because of our presumptions around research ethics. Except that it was. Several times, albeit with some modifications. The ethical concerns tend to centre around the "inflicted insight" in the experiment - that participants (teachers) were given insight into their potential to cause extreme suffering, and that this can be highly distressing to them subsequently. This is compounded by the fact that their "consent" to participate was compromised by deception as to the purpose of the study in which they were to participate. However, today Ethics Committees may still deem it appropriate in some circumstances for potential participants to be unaware of the detail and/or nature of a study when they consent, even regarding the main purposes - it would be a matter of weighing the perceived benefits against perceived risk/harm to participants. Some research questions are bigger than others...

So, what of Milgram revisited? In fairness #2 wasn't really a repeat of the original experiment. It replaced the human 'learner' with a computer avatar. This wasn't to deal with concerns about applying shocks, because of course none was delivered in the original experiment. It looked at whether the 'teachers' responded in a similar fashion to those in the original experiment, despite the fact that in this one the 'teachers' knew that neither the shocks nor the recipient were real. This 2006 version of the experiment found that teachers who saw & heard the avatar behaved and responded physiologically in the same way as if they were real ie like those in the original experiment. The authors claimed that this provides an alternative, ethically more acceptable, method for further studies in this territory of obedience. Also in 2006, TV illusionist Derren Brown did a partial repeat/re-enactment. Using subject selection, he felt that a gradual change in participants perceptions was more effective at getting them to do things which they previously would have resisted, than 'jarring' their initial values. In 2009, using a modified protocol which satisfied ethical review requirements, Jerry Burger (real name!) published a paper reporting that he found the same obedience rates as in the original experiment, despite adding a neat twist (see 'Contrary to expectation...' in the abstract).

[c/o American Psychologist, Jan 2009]

 

In 2009 BBC popular science programme Horizon also repeated the experiment, with consistent findings. She seems such a nice girl...
 
 
A variety of other TV shows (although some are likely to have been done in less robust experimental settings) have made the same observations too. One example is the Discovery Channel's apply the shock. In the Horizon documentary, psychologist Clifford Stott noted that idealism regarding scientific enquiry had a significant effect on the teachers. "The influence is ideological. It's about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there's that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good." Science has provided and continues to provide huge potential for good, but we have heard that language before in other contexts as a 'justification' for immoral action, on a huge scale. Science, when functioning properly, provides answers to mechanisms and equips us to improve things technologically, but its researchers and participants (just like those who fail to give it due credit) are not immune to the problems of "power, greed and corruptible seed."

 

Tongue-in-cheek kitsch, like most things Ramones. Still, let's keep questioning who we're investing authority in - politically, morally, in terms of the sources of our information, what we might be blind to, and what road it's taking us down. We really should work that out "in fear and trembling."

 

 

Raptor, Rapture and Reptiles.

Hope Street, Belfast. The site of the following tenants - a reptile shop, a Hi-Fi dealership where I spent a fair bit of time, and a popular restaurant. I did spend some money here, but confess to having never bought a reptile.

From previous posts such as this, you should know by now that I like examples of things being different than they first appear, and what constitutes being human. 

Well, this challenges your perceptions regarding what is a big scary reptile (not that mankind ever met one of these to be specifically programmed to be scared of it...) 

and naturally, it deserves some gratuitous reptilian rock:

"When the brink of ruin lies
Upon the world angels shall rise"

Did anyone mention Rapture? Or the Lizard King?

 

Snakes and general crawling back in the 80s:

"Another fight on the street below
They've got things to prove
Shouting threats and sending out a counter glow
All they do is walk, talk, knit socks, wind clocks
And crawl on their bellies like a reptile."

 
"This is the lion's den
I hope you knew that before you came in
This is where the angels and the devils fight
And their choosing up sides tonight

I'm part man (part man)
I'm part monkey (part monkey)
I'm part man, part monkey, part mystery
And the angels (and the angels) and the devils (and the devils)
Are play tug-of-war with my personality now

Snakedance - all over the world
(snake, snake, dance, dance, ah)
Snakedance - all you boys and girls
(snake, snake, dance, dance, ah)
Snakedance - you got to form a big line
(snake, snake, dance, dance, ah)
Snakedance - you got to have a good time
(snake, snake, dance, dance, ah)"

Gratuitous Dylan reptilian reference:

 

"Standing on the water, casting your bread
While the eyes of the idol with the iron head are glowing
Distant ships sailing into the mist
You were born with a snake in both of your fists while a hurricane was blowing
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with truth so far off, what good will it do...

So swiftly the sun sets in the sky
You rise up and say goodbye to no one
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread
Both of their futures, so full of dread, you don't show one
Shedding off one more layer of skin
Keeping one step ahead of the persecutor within..."


Slicer's wish for you in 2014 (or one of 'em anyway) - brought to you via Hope Street, an optical illusion, and a few old songs - is that you rise above your reptile brain, you shed whatever old skin you need to and, whatever/wherever your turbulent space, you keep one step ahead of the persecutor within. HAPPY NEW YEAR.

Are you a big boy yet?

I have to confess I'm not enjoying getting a bit older. It was fine up to 30 but since then, although I feel exactly the same inside, it bugs me every time I catch sight of myself that I don't look like the same person I feel inside. It's not (just) vanity, it's the shock that shouldn't be a shock - that the march of time seems to have become a quickstep. As Martin Stephenson put it - "eternity in an hour."

 

There have been posts before here touching on relativity, and on the mind-melting notion that there's no such thing as "before" the Big Bang, since physics suggests that time (as we know it) is just one of several dimensions which came into existence at that 'point.' So perhaps there is no better way to express things than 'in the beginning' (whether or not there were "previous" beginnings, or multiple beginnings). Things certainly get more complicated as time moves on. Things which seemed straightforward and pretty certain in the first flush of youth - whether in medicine, in politics, in faith, or in relationships - reveal more shades of grey (as do my follicles).

 

Little boys are made of the same elemental stuff as big boys, but their genes aren't finished with them yet. Transformation follows, with a period spent in adolescence. Furthermore, recent work suggests that adolescence goes on quite a bit longer than was previously thought.

 

Confession #2. I have selfish traits. Just as I believe my genes haven't finished with me yet (not least because they're prone to corruption too), I am regularly challenged by my faith to be less selfish, and I believe God has changed me from what I would have been, but isn't finished with me yet either. What's more, I share that experience in community.


It seems to me that many of us would like to change something about ourselves. Richard Dawkins is among those who have suggested that we can 'rise above our genes.' Does the opportunity exist for transformation, even radical transformation - and not just individually, but in community? A novel I reviewed recently suggested that a restart, a kind of erasure of the past, could afford that opportunity.

A song I have loved for many years imagines a notion of rebirth.
Have a listen here. There's also some background to the song there.

"O arrow straight and slender, with grey eyes unafraid 
You see the rose's splendour, nor wreck that they shall fade 
Youth in its flush and flower, bare a soul of whitest flame 
Eternity in an hour, all life and death in a game 
May youth forever weave you, his magic around your ways 
And time the robber leave you, the boy's heart all your days 

Lets free ourselves, break out of lifes weight and chains, go get a whiskey, forget the game 
Lets free ourselves, break out of lifes weight and chains, piss off to Texas, forget the game 
We'l be living out December, from morrow through to morrow 
An old belief to lead us, pencil birth to follow 
Surrounded by a new time, of new flesh and new life 
And so we'll weep December, and so we'll weep new life 
Come the all important morning 

O arrow straight and slender, with grey eyes unafraid 
You see the rose's splendour, nor wreck that they shall fade 
Youth in its flush and flower, bare a soul of whitest flame 
Eternity in an hour, all life and death in a game 
May youth forever weave you, his magic around your ways 
And time the robber leave you, the boy's heart all your days 
The boy's heart all your days 
A child will have blended, his birth will follow."

Stephenson cites Rimbaud, so he shares his taste and influence with other great songwriters, including one who immortalised "Times A-Changin'."


And so we'll weep new life
Come, the all-important morning... 

An Issue of Perspective & Available Information: underlying assumptions exposed

The assumptions upon which we make our assessments, deductions and decisions have been touched on before on the blog. Here's another example of Things Aren't Always What They Seem: