Dan Erwin

The Impeachment Process Is Worthwhile--Even If the Senate Refuses to Impeach

Though this historical review of the impeachment process won’t be published until the March edition of the Atlantic, all of its subscribers received a copy of Yoni Applebaum’s intriguing study a full month early. Applebaum, the senior editor for politics at the Atlantic, has all the right credentials—if that matters to you--including Columbia, a Brandeis PhD and teaching at Harvard. Obviously, an attempt to get the public thinking, I noticed a number of reviews of the study just a day after its publishing.

Because of the fiasco with Clinton, many legislators are wary of moving to impeachment. But the real worth of Applebaum’s review is to limit Trump’s power. From the initial pages of the review, Applebaum argues that the most serious charge is the attack upon the “bedrock of American democracy.”

Here then, are the five arguments Applebaum lays out in support of impeachment...

So the President is a MotherF**ker??

On several occasions I've written about swearing and rhetoric as well as about expletive naming. In a recent article, Emma Byrne adds to my ideas by writing about the "scientific case for calling the president a motherf*cker."   Byrne especially likes the Rep. Rashida Tlaib's remark, noting that she used the swear word in rhetorically correct fashion.  As Byrne writes, rhetoric reveals that this kind of language signals trust and a sense of belonging--and it also "fosters closeness and suggests a greater degree of authenticity."

Tlaib's swearing differs significantly from Trump's graphic description of sexual advances and his assault of women. While Trump's language intensifies feelings of disgust and revulsion, Tlaib's language has an instinct for the power of words and and the feelings of her colleagues and constituency. There's a sense of comeuppance in her language. It just feels good to say what she's saying about him.

One of the more intriguing insights that Byrne brings to her book on swearing is the distinction, the shit-fuck ratio, of these two swear words. "Shit" is inevitably negative, and  I'm aware of only one positive use of the term, a use that I've never heard except from my Methodist Grandmother Butterworth. She was born and raised in Arkansas and settled in Western Kentucky, spending most of her life as the widowed owner of a tobacco farm. Her world was late 19th and first half of the twentieth century. She used it to refer to me when I said or did something that was "smart alecky." In a positive, and humorous comment--and with a smile--she'd call me "a little shit." I understood it as a high compliment.

2018 Was a Banner Year for Algorithmic Prediction

Harvard’s Jill Lepore, one of the most fascinating and actually humorous historical writers, has superb explanatory insight on algorithmic prediction. That’s not a surprise. She approaches history from perspectives that have never crossed this historian’s mind--and does it with a lot of verve. She’s one of the few with a steady hand when the rest of us are lurching around with churning stomachs about artificial intelligence and moronic politicians.

With two algorithmic geniuses in my own family, a son-in-law and a recently minted CMU data-scientist grandson, with whom I spent an hour listening and trying to make sense of their conversation over Christmas, Lepore is an absolute delight at algorithmic explanation. 

She regularly seems to have the ability to...

Thomas Jefferson vs. Antonin Scalia: an Immaculate Misconception

When a case comes to me, I don't do whatever I feel like doing. I have a standard. That standard is what would the people at the time the Constitution was enacted have said.

    --Antonin Scalia, Speech at the University of Fribourg, March 8, 2008

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

The Codependency Myth

One of my young friends recently related to me that his girlfriend had left him because the relationship was "too codependent." He wondered whether he could reconcile. I rolled my eyes and commented "probably not." She had implied that he was toxic and that the relationship could not continue. I doubted the labeling because I knew him rather well and had worked with him on several projects. In addition, I knew he wasn't using drugs. Furthermore, I also knew that counselor misdiagnoses were at the 60-80% error level. Even the physician level of error, with blood tests and imaging is at least 40%. A med school faculty friend of mine was surprised. He thought  the medical level of error would be more than that. But anyway, knowing my extensive psychological background in personality theory and social psychology, my young friend asked about the codependency theory and therapy.

Codependency is one of those very popular self-help movements that, though providing enough support for people to feel good and try on a number of personas for a short time, is ultimately damaging and harmful. That statement won't go down well with thousands of people, but it's true anyway--and there's lots of research that comes up with the same conclusion. The thinking of some is that since it's a very popular approach, it must be good. Popularity is rarely a basis for validating much. Sugared cola drinks are very popular, as are cigarettes, but millions of people suffer horrible, physical diseases as a result of their use.

These codependency "experts" offer counseling that goes something like this: Your happiness is something that should come from within you and should not be dependent on your lover or mate. In effect, these "experts" pathologize love and caring. So your well-being is not your partner's responsibility and their well-being is not your responsibility. Furthermore, you should not let your inner peace be disturbed or undermined by the person you are close to. If you can't do that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too enmeshed with the other person, so you must learn to set better boundaries. You should be able to distance or, if necessary, separate yourself from the other person....

#MeToo, After One Year

The latest issue of The Economist  (9/29/2018) devotes its lead article to the #MeToo movement. A positive and constructive editorial, the authors drop fascinating tidbits of sociological and historical insight along the way. They argue that women's testimony is being taken more seriously--at last.

But they point out a clear possibility: if #MeToo becomes a Democrats only movement, it will be set back. The polling reveals its partisanship: 39% of Republican women think it's a problem  that men get away with. That compares to 66% of Democratic women. The inevitable consequence of these figures, they argue, is that some men will excuse their behavior on the grounds that it's all a Democratic ploy.

The closing paragraph offers the best insight: 

Fifty Years of Curiosity

For more than 50 years, I’ve been trying to understand why dealing with powerful people was initially so nerve-wracking and scary. When I told one of my daughters about these fears, she was shocked. “But dad,” she responded, “you’re a very powerful and intelligent guy yourself.” That’s not where I started out. Fact of the matter, in a piece of feedback at my 50^th high school anniversary, eight of my classmates said they didn’t really recognize me. When I asked why, they responded in unison that the guy they knew as “Dan” was “shy, quiet and withdrawn.” Not the Dan sitting in front of them in 2002.

What changed it all was that I understood that if I was to be successful in my vocation, I’d have to change my behaviors—drastically. I was very fortunate. With tons of education, mentoring and feedback, I was able to make the changes. Though obvious now, for a long time I failed to understand my shyness and withdrawal. I thought it was just a natural characteristic.

Where fear comes from
I grew up with a highly narcissistic mother. Going through the psychiatric classification of mental disorders, the DSM-5, I noted that she knocked seven of the nine defining narcissistic categories out of the ballpark. As my brother said over her grave, she was a “mean lady.” I learned early on that I’d have to work hard to please her, take care of her, defer to her opinions and agree with how she understood the world. Of course, I also learned that if I disagreed or didn’t do what she expected, she was liable to abuse me emotionally and withdraw any and all rewards. 

So, going away to college—far, far away, offered freedom at last...

When Analytical Expertise is Downright Overpowering

 I'm a bit left of center, politically. That means I can't stand crazy lefties or crazy righties. But I'm also open to intelligent lefties and intelligent righties. This is not the first time, but it was Bret Stephens, one of those really, really intelligent righties who outdid himself in today's Times. I expect his analytical skills to be superb because he's a grad of the UCHicago, especially since there are two of these analytical thinkers in my own family. That's a statement of bias.

So, I'll tease you, hoping that you follow the link to his commentary on Blasey vs. Kavanaugh...

The Better Decision is Unconscious

You’ve just moved out of state and are looking for a new house in the new location. The local real-estate broker informs you elaborately about several available houses and takes you on a tour. After a couple hours you find yourself completely lost.

The houses differ so many ways that you find yourself completely lost. You’re not certain you can actually make a sound choice. One house is bigger than the others, and also more expensive. You’ve been promoted to director, not vice-president. Another house has a beautiful garden, a great opportunity for you and your wife to unwind and also enjoy some fresh vegetables. Still a third house is a rickety old mansion. It has three bathrooms, one of them with Tuscany marble. A glorious room. . .

If you want to be great at something, who should you learn from?

In an absolutely fascinating opinion article, Adam Grant opined that "those who can do, can't teach." I laughed as soon as I saw the title. It was pretty clear to me where he was going. Grant argues rightly that the greatest experts in a subject are not necessarily the best teachers. My usual way of getting to this issue is to tell an entry-level person that the best coach will never be more than two levels above you. Beyond that, the expert will be highly abstract, assume the unassumable about you, and won't be able to put the skills in a concrete package.

But Grant's way of going at the issue is so very useful, it needs to be added to your toolkit for coach selection. 

First, pay attention to how long since the teacher studied the material. Ignore the top universities' boast about how most of their classes are taught by top faculty. The best teachers are probably grad students who just learned the material and know what it's like to be a beginner. In my post-doc work, I signed up for a course in adult learning and was initially disappointed that it was going to be taught by a teaching assistant, a grad student in his last year of PhD. From the start, he surprised me with his thoroughness. Later in the semester the top prof in the field subbed for his grad student when he had a bad case of the flu. Wow, was I glad the TA was teaching. The expert couldn't get the cookies on the bottom shelf for us no matter how many questions we asked...