The .Plan

Apparently the Somali pirates have a spokesperson:

In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”
–Jeffrey Gettleman, “Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re in It for the Money”, New York Times, September 30, 2008

This is some cold-blooded stuff.

The ponytailed girl in a red dress who sang “Ode to the Motherland” during Friday’s Opening Ceremonies for the Olympics was fit for the event, but apparently her voice was not.

A Chinese government official acknowledged Tuesday that the girl was actually lip-syncing at Beijing’s “Bird’s Nest” stadium; the real singer’s face was deemed “not suitable.”
–Ariana Cha, “Pretty Face and Voice Didn’t Belong to Same Girl”, Washington Post, August 13, 2008

More research on how choices overwhelm us, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. In brief, the researchers from the University of Minnesota had a series of mall shoppers randomized to two groups: one group that was asked to consider some options (about college courses, or consumer products) vs. another group that was asked to actually make some decisions about these options. Afterwards, they had to complete a series of tasks.

Making choices apparently depleted a precious self-resource because subsequent self-regulation was poorer among those who had made choices than it was among those who had not. This pattern was found in the laboratory, classroom, and shopping mall. It was found with assigned choices and spontaneously made choices. It was found with inconsequential and more consequential choices… The present findings suggest that self-regulation, active initiative, and effortful choosing draw on the same psychological resource. Making decisions depletes that resource, thereby weakening the subsequent capacity for self-control and active initiative. The impairment of self-control was shown on a variety of tasks, including physical stamina and pain tolerance, persistence in the face of failure, and quality and quantity of numerical calculations. It also led to greater passivity.
–Kathleen Vohs et al., “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-Control: A Limited-Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-Regulation, and Active Initiative”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, April 2008

A few months ago, Lori Gottlieb published an essay in the Atlantic Monthly (”Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough“) urging single women in their 30s to “settle” [*] rather than holding out for Mr. Right. She starts from the observation (which may or may not be true) that

every woman I know — no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure — feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.

and then proceeds with the exhortation:

Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)

At the time, her essay generated a very negative visceral response from me. I dislike Gottlieb’s essay not because of her controversial exhortation — because, as I will explain further, I find some degree of truth to it — but because I think her starting point is a disordered set of fundamentals. Her idea of “settling” has to do with lots of incredibly trivial things. She shows appropriate restraint in that she recognizes that these are in fact fairly trivial matters, but she is at the same time demonstrating a self-centeredness that bodes ill for her future marital bliss (should she ever decide to ’settle’). The marriage she desires (whether the romantic ideal or the realistic consolation) and describes is all about her, her child, her stability, and ultimately, her happiness. The Aquinian, however quaint, notion of love being “to will the good of the other, for the sake of the other” is largely absent.

In some ways, Gottlieb is nibbling around the edges of the truism that our preferences are naturally disordered and that marriage is not just about romance. Stanley Hauerwas is fond of teaching “you always marry the wrong person“. If you are able to get past the deliberate, obstreperous, Hauerwasian provocation in this statement, then you can see that there is a lot of truth to it. After all, how does an unattached person, reared in a culture that accepts and promotes the efficiency of short-term commitments, develop any kind of concept of what it means to form a covenental bond that gives you the practice of monogamous fidelity over a lifetime? Rod Dreher — a fellow Louisiana School alum — commenting on the Gottlieb article at his Crunchy Con blog, elaborates on this theme, accurately [emphasis mine]:

Julie and I, married 10 years now, talked about this last night. We didn’t reach any hard and fast conclusions, but we agreed that married-with-children life is way more difficult than single people realize, and that the things that make for an exciting boyfriend or girlfriend don’t always make for a good partner in a lifelong marriage with children — but that’s something that’s very, very hard for single people to understand. You couldn’t possibly have explained it to me as a single man before I lived it (nor could you have explained the intense joys of childraising).

This is consistent with what my married friends tell me. The daily process of observing the Markan call to die to your self sounds like it is fairly difficult, and somehow I don’t see Gottlieb advocating this.

If I accept Gottlieb’s foundations, I can see how it would make sense to sign up for Internet dating sites such as match.com and eHarmony.com to assist with my search for a spouse. All I have to do is pick a set of characteristics that I believe will maximize my happiness, fill in the checkboxes, see who fits my profile of Prince Charming or Princess Lucinda, and then it’s off to the races. Even if I don’t know myself well enough to complete such a task — or if I am afraid of the miserable choices I seem to make — then I can go to eHarmony.com, fill out an exhaustive battery of questions, and see who fits my personality profile.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether one should participate in these ventures (for more on this point, please see Brother Warren’s takedown), there is plenty of research to suggest that they don’t even really work.

But what bothers me most about these approaches is that they assume a very self-centered, pre-specified, and fixed personality or set of preferences, and they ignore the importance of attachment and commitment.

An analogy from my own life might be instructive here. When I was thinking about applying to medical school, I had no idea what being a physician would be like. Working in hospice provided me with the opportunity to obtain a very brief glimpse at only two or three aspects of doctoring. Yet I made a decision to apply. When choosing among medical schools, my only sources of data were a series of one-day interviews and incredibly over-hyped data from the U.S. News and World Report. A priori I think it would have been a stretch to characterize any one of my potential medical school choices as the best one for me. In truth, because I was sufficiently lacking in direction, and because I’m fairly open to new experiences, I’m quite certain that any one on my shortlist would have been a reasonably good match for me and could have provided me with a nurturing environment, intellectually, spiritually, and socially. In the end, I decided to pick one, but I had no accurate idea about whether the medical school I chose would make me a “better” doctor than any of the other schools on my shortlist.

In retrospect, I now see that I incorporated a great deal of faulty data into my decisionmaking process. Nonetheless, things turned out okay — better than okay, in fact, and now I can say without a doubt that I picked the right medical school. But I don’t know that the school I chose was necessarily a priori the best choice. Whatever preferences I had as a college junior have been completely remade in the years since then, and most of my misconceptions have been corrected — so much so that I probably couldn’t even accurately describe what my preferences were in the first place. Key to this outcome, aside from living under the shadow of God, was the process of growing into the commitment I made to become a physician. Because I created and participated in a particular history, because of the ways in which I grew into my decision — the experiences I had were such that I cannot imagine what my life would now be like had I gone somewhere else. Given this particular history, I’m left to conclude that the school I chose was “The One”.

The analogy can be carried too far, but my fundamental point stands: that love is a creature of history and commitment. In his book The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis elaborates his taxonomy of basic human loves. Affection — in contrast to friendship, erotic love, and love of God (and clearly the borders between the four are hazy and not impermeable) — he describes as “warm comfortableness”, “responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our natural lives”, a love that “can unite those who most emphatically , even comically, are not [made for each other]“. He continues:

In my experience it is Affection that creates this taste, teaching us first to notice, then to endure, then to smile at, then to enjoy, and finally to appreciate, the people who “happen to be there”. Made for us? Thank God, no. They are themselves, odder than you could have believed and worth far more than we guessed.

We don’t evaluate love in a vacuum. Though sometimes we contemplate it dizzily while fluttering home one evening — even when we are not so deeply entangled in it, we contemplate love in the context of history. It bothers me that we are being fashioned by the world into a people that defaults to thinking under consumeristic models of relationships. Doing so leads us to divorce characteristics of persons from the unfolding narrative of our lives together, and it — falsely, I think — makes sense to say things like, “I like her because she likes cats”, “I like him because he can lead me in the tango”, and so forth. My participation in an Internet dating site like match.com would only feed this deranged propensity by allowing me to specify all of the characteristics I want as well as those I am not willing to accept. But it seems to me that such characteristics cannot be contemplated abstractly, disembodied from the object of one’s love. Properly viewed from within the context of the intertwined lives we live in the Body of Christ, they simply cannot be bought and sold and traded off for one another.

I am not arguing that we should be rolling the dice, consulting magic 8-balls, and just picking spouses more or less at random and relying on commitment and fidelity to get us through the next 50 years. Marriage sounds difficult enough that we probably need every advantage we can get. For this reason, I do believe we should think carefully about what our dealbreakers are vs. what are our soft preferences that can be accommodated (perhaps with training) over time and eventually overcome. This sort of question extends naturally to guys who are widowers and women who have been widowed; alcoholism, drugs, and pornography; emotional baggage from prior relationships and/or sexual partners; infertility; and so forth. Thus, the “settling” I have in mind has very little to do with whether he appreciates Jane Austen or whether she likes beagles; it has to do with whether she and I can together have the love and commitment to sustain a marriage despite all of this stuff — or whether I am compelled to go chasing after the next shiny new make & model of car who has yet to accumulate such baggage (i.e., whose baggage accumulation process has simply been deferred to the future). But I don’t really think of this as “settling”.

In the end, I think Gottlieb is groping towards an adult concept of love, but she hasn’t quite made it all the way. She writes of “settling” as if it were an entirely negative concept, that we shouldn’t drop people we date from spousal consideration just because of minor differences that can likely be worked out in the long run. Realism does require this kind of understanding. We make the commitment to love despite trivial differences in compatibility because our feelings for the Other are deep and abiding. But Gottlieb isn’t writing about being realistic. She abandons the concept of love entirely and simply replaces it with a hard-nosed tolerance. Hers is a rather thin view of marriage. I’m a realistic idealist, and I’m not yet ready to give up on marriage and love. It should be about accepting the flaws in someone I have come to love — not simply dispensing with love for someone whom I grudgingly accept.

—

[*] There is a technical rewording of Gottlieb’s recommendation, derived from my better cousins the mathematicians. This problem is known as the “Secretary Problem“, or the “Fussy Suitor Problem”: suppose I want to find the best match out of a group of N  women. Assuming that applicants who were previously interviewed cannot be recalled, then the decision rule that maximizes the probability that I locate the best match is: after the first N  / e women (where e  is approximately equal to 2.71), I should just pick the next woman in line who is better than the first N  / e women I dated previously. For example: suppose there are 100 women in my dating pool. I can’t date them all, and if I did then that would eliminate them as spousal possibilities. I should then just date 100 / 2.71 = 37 of them, and then stick with the next woman I date who is better than all of the previous 37. In the limit, i.e., if the eligible dating pool is N  =1,000,000, say, then the probability that this decision rule yields the best match converges to 1/e  = 36.8%.

There are a few noteworthy observations to be made here. First, the secretary problem assumes away opportunity costs, when in reality the composition of the dating pool is not static — and the implications of this are asymmetric, gender-wise, as illustrated in the XKCD comic above. Second, the secretary problem assumes that every secretary applying for a job would accept the job if offered one. Third, because the composition of the dating pool is changing and because not every secretary would accept a job if offered one, by extension the pool of secretaries who would accept a position if offered one is also changing.

Using simple caffeine to raise alertness in conjunction with naps during a trip is a winning strategy, Dr. Rosekind said. Caffeine takes 15 to 30 minutes to work, and an effective nap should be less than 45 minutes, to avoid going into the kind of deep sleep that leaves people groggy. So drinking a cup of coffee just before a nap, he said, can ensure that you will awaken with a little extra zip. The caffeine and nap working together “can actually show a performance boost greater than either one alone,” he said. “It’s not rocket science.”
–John Schwartz, “A Cure-All for Jet Lag? Try Caffeine and Naps”, New York Times, April 30, 2008

Making a hard decision in the context of uncertainty is something that the uber-maximizing Democratic voters apparently cannot do at this point in time.

The question of the superdelegate count will become more and more important in the coming weeks, but what amuses me most about this process is that the superdelegates cannot recognize that their indecision is likely going to cost their party the election as McCain cruises on unmolested.

Dan Ariely describes this phenomenon in his book:

Choosing between two things that are similarly attractive is one of the most difficult decisions we can make. This is a situation not just of keeping options open for too long, but of being indecisive to the point of paying for our decision in the end. Let me use the following story to explain.

A hungry donkey approaches a barn one day looking for hay and discovers two haystacks of identical size at the two opposite ends of the barn. The donkey stands in the middle of the barn between the two haystacks, not knowing which to select. Hours go by, but he still can’t make up his mind. Unable to decide, the donkey eventually dies of starvation.
–Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

More about options here and here.

Stumbling on hope…

Few of us can accurately gauge how we will feel tomorrow or next week. That’s why when you go to the supermarket on an empty stomach, you’ll buy too much, and if you shop after a big meal, you’ll buy too little.

Another factor that makes it difficult to forecast our future happiness is that most of us are rationalizers. We expect to feel devastated if our spouse leaves us or if we get passed over for a big promotion at work.

But when things like that do happen, it’s soon, “She never was right for me,” or “I actually need more free time for my family.” People have remarkable talent for finding ways to soften the impact of negative events. Thus they mistakenly expect such blows to be much more devastating than they turn out to be.
–Claudia Dreifus, “The smiling professor”, New York Times, April 22, 2008

Stumped? Just cross your arms.

In this set of psychology experiments, one set of subjects was instructed to solve a puzzle with their hands on their thighs, while the other set was told to sit with their arms folded. The former group only lasted for about 30 seconds, while the arms-crossed students persevered for 55 seconds. In the second experiment, the arms-crossed students came up with more solutions.

Experiment 1 established that arm crossing in an achievement context led to greater persistence on an unsolvable anagram, demonstrating that proprioceptive cues can influence achievement behavior. Experiment 2 replicated this finding, and also revealed that the increased persistence elicited by arm crossing facilitated performance. A mediation analysis confirmed that this performance difference was due to greater persistence in the arms crossed condition… Future research may also seek to identify the precise mental constructs activated by arm crossing. Although the present work demonstrated a specific behavioral tendency elicited by arm crossing within achievement settings, the cognitive nature of this response has yet to be fully explored.
–Ron Friedman and Andrew Elliot, “The effect of arm crossing on persistence and performance”, European Journal of Social Psychology, April 2008

Mark Gimein attempts to solve the paradox of the eligible bachelor:

Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.

Evolutionary psychologists will remind us that there’s a long line of writing about “female choosiness” going back to Darwin and the male peacocks competing to get noticed by “choosy” mates with their splendid plumage. But you don’t have to buy that kind of reductive biological explanation (I don’t) to see the force of the “women choose” model. You only have to accept that for whatever socially constructed reason, the choice of getting married is one in which the woman is usually the key player. It might be the man who’s supposed to ask the official, down-on-the-knee question, but it usually comes after a woman has made the central decision. Of course, in this, as in all matters of love, your experience may vary.

There may be those who look at this and try to derive some sort of prescription, about when to “bid,” when to hold out, and when (as this Atlantic story urges) to “settle.” If you’re inclined to do that, approach with care. Game theory deals with how best to win the prize, but it works only when you can decide what’s worth winning.
–Mark Gimein, “The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox: how economics and game theory explain the shortage of available, appealing men”, Slate, April 9, 2008

(My response to Gottlieb’s article is still forthcoming.)

“Lessons in Prayer, from a Dog”

He assumes his still posture
two feet from the table.
He is not grabby,
his tongue is not hanging out,
he is quiet.

He wants to leap,
he wants to snap up
meat and blood.
You can tell.
But what he does is sit
as the gods
his masters and mistresses
fork steak and potatoes
into their mouths.

He is expectant
but not presumptuous.
He can wait.
He can live with disappointment.
He can abide frustration
and suffer suspense.

He watches
for signals,
he listens for calls
of his name from above.

At hints that
he may be gifted
with a morsel,
he intensifies his
already rapt concentration,
he looks his god
in the eye,
but humbly
sure of his innocence
in his need,
if his need only.

On the (often rare) occasions
when gifts are laid on his tongue,
he takes them whole,
then instantly resumes
the posture of attention,
beseeching, listening, alert,
the posture of hard-worn faith
that will take no for an answer,
yet ever and again hopefully
returns to the questioning.

–Rodney Clapp