Observations, words words words

Words About Immaturity

pollywannamath

I generally dislike the word immature. Not when used in a scientific sense or to describe a stage of development. But in normal conversation, I find few words more grating.

The problem is that the word immature has a number of definitions and connotations that come with each. Oxford identifies two definitions:

  • Not fully developed. (neutral connotation)
  • Having or showing an emotional or intellectual development appropriate to someone younger. (negative connotation)

Mariam-Webster rephrases the second definition as:

  • exhibiting less than an expected degree of maturity

This definition begins to embody the issue I generally have with the word. Circular definitions are definitionally terrible, but what is meant by the word maturity in the Mariam-Webster definition? Fully developed, or a desired end state?

Generally when I hear that someone is “immature,” I take it to mean that they don’t handle responsibility well, lack judgement, or love sophomoric humor. At worst, I may think the person being described, is just not a good person.

Bojack Horseman continually hurts those around him with narcissistic actions of self-loathing; is he immature? When a 70-year-old man makes an inappropriate joke is it a sign of immaturity? In both examples the person obviously completed maturation through adulthood. It is exceedingly unlikely that additional development as a part of the aging process will lead to positive character development.

Using the word immature to describe bad behavior leads to two harms:

  • It removes agency from bad actors. “Oh, he’s just immature”–No, he is probably a jerk and time won’t change that.
  • It imparts a negative connotation to a helpful descriptor, especially for children through young adults.

Immaturity is not necessary bad. A 70 year old with an adaptable mind that tries to learn new schools of thought might be immature. A 13 year old that is struggling to keep up with classmates physically and emotionally is immature.

Similarly the word “mature” has been bastardized with a positive connotation when describing people. I won’t spend time reviewing this, because the harms aren’t as bad. But, I feel bad for children that are trying to be “mature” because adults tell them it is something to strive for.

For my part, I hope to mature at a normal rate until I am middle aged and spend my latter years in immaturity.

Observations

Rational Actors, Iranian Strike Explanation

pollywannamath

On January 8, Iran launched a missile strike against US airbases in Iraq. The attack followed escalatory behavior from both sides.  Much of the early commentary that I’ve seen from from US sources seems to fear both imminent retaliation and a declaration of war from President Trump and increasingly damaging attacks from or sponsored by Iran.

If the bombing of a US base in Iraq did not result in any US casualties, I argue that the strike by Iran should be viewed as a rational de-escalatory move. The US killed Iranian Major General Soleimani; Iran’s Supreme Leader was faced with a crises of sovereignty and public relations. Doing nothing would have resulted in a major loss of face for an authoritarian regime that is currently dealing with political unrest.

Striking a base that houses US troops without causing casualties provides Iran the ability to show striking propaganda film of a burning US airbase as retaliation for General Soleimani’s death without provoking the US in to further action. The Supreme Leader will tell his citizens that  President Trump will be able to use this event to distance himself from past Republicans by not furthering action in the Middle East after an attack; he should focus on the lack of casualties as a reason to prove his commitment to reduce US troops in the Middle East.

Politically the strike on a US airbase serves both Iran and the US, as long as their leaders perform as rational actors. I expect to see cooler minds prevail and for no further warlike action between either leader.

Observations, Prediction, Technology

Posts I wish I had the vocabulary to write

pollywannamath

I’ve had a few recurring thoughts this year that I haven’t been able to materialize into ideas and write about. I’m posting introductions to each in the hopes that I will be able to write more concretely about each in the coming year.

  • A societal need for religion— I firmly believe it is important for a society to have a number of anchors that oppose each other to maintain the right amount of societal tension necessary for growth and to hedge against extreme thoughts. In this worldview, organizations that no longer appear beneficial to society perform key functions and are necessary to hold the collective together. We should hold unions, children’s clubs, and organized religions in far greater esteem than we do. Once an anchor is dislodged, it is much harder to reestablish and crucial elements of society will be destabilized.
    • What’s holding me back:
      • I can’t identify the production function that argues for trade unions and organized religion at the expense of secular neoliberal policies and improves outcomes.
      • Viewing organized religion as a pacifying and necessary force is a hard position to defend currently. I have true ideas on how a move toward spiritualism destabilized the religious anchor, but those deserve their own post.
      • What are the links and harms? Destabilization captures the essence of my concern, but it isn’t a tangible fear. How do we get to the bad place?

        The Bad Place

 

  • Data Privacy falls far too low on the societal priority stack–We lost the war for our data with big corporations; trying to live without Google or Amazon would be lunacy. However, we are lucky that the corporations currently mining data have been relatively responsible to date. Even the instances where companies have faced public outcry for data privacy violations (e.g.Cambridge Analytica) have been relatively minor compared to the potential data privacy violations that are possible. A mix of policy updates, public behavior changes, corporate incentive shifts, and technological advancements are needed to usher in a safer connected world.
    • What’s holding me back:
      • Links to harms. It’s really easy to look at health data companies like 23andMe and identify risks that come from selling health and consumer data. I can imagine a snake oil company targeting populations at increased risk of cancer with high mortality rates based on data purchased from a company like 23andMe. It’s much harder to identify a likely harm to the average healthy 25-year-old that could come from her Facebook data without inventing a terrible conspiracy.
      • Policies have too many unintended consequences. Sound policies like GDPR might not be so sound in practice. Without a good sense for a better path forward, its hard to formulate an idea for why the status quo isn’t good.

 

  • We shouldn’t conflate self-driving and alternative fuel cars– Okay, so this one has an idea, but I can’ t vocalize why it matters. There are a few items that are clear:
    • Alternative fuels are a net benefit and should be pursued.
      • It isn’t clear that electricity will be the best source, but it is probably the most flexible alternative source.
      • Combustion engines will be the most flexible fuel option for a long time to come.
      • There is probably a link between alternative fuel and aggressive copywrite legislation that prevents home and mechanic repair (similar to the farming industry’s relationship with new tech).
    • Self-driving cars will benefit society when adoption is high. Self driving technology should be pursued.
      • The link between self-driving cars and car ownership rates is not obvious (deserves its own post).
      • Self-driving technology will see widespread adoption much faster in commercial fleets than with the public-at-large.
      • The implementation requires as much policy change as it does technological change. Not enough attention is paid to the policy implications.
      •  Self-driving cars may increase congestion and urban sprawl in the short to medium term. Self-driving technology is not, at its core, green technology.
    • Wide adoption of self-driving technology in new cars that use internal combustion energy presents a worse ecological future.
    • What’s holding me back:
      • Too many competing thoughts–There is, somewhere in my thoughts, a unifying theory of the suburbs, automotive advancement, and societal good. I haven’t found it.
      • Competing visions of self-driving cars–In a world where every car is self-driving are there a greater or fewer number of cars on the road? If there are many more, do the efficiency gains outweigh the additional cars? Are parking lots an orderly place? What is the role of public transit? What do the cars do during the workday?
      • Timeline–If pervasive green technology is 25 years away, and self-driving tech is 5 years away, then its likely that green tech and self-driving policy will be in sync. It isn’t clear to me where we are in the development of either technology; it is clear that we have not started on the necessary policy changes.
Innovation, Prediction, Uncategorized

Perfectly Flawed Whiskey (or Whisky)

pollywannamath

Vox recently released an article that describes the culture and money surrounding the whiskey collection industry. I predict that 50 years from now the most expensive whiskeys will be original unopened bottles of rarified whiskeys from past eras (no change), but the second tier of whiskeys will be unopened bottles of whiskeys from deeply flawed vintages of respected houses (change).

Supply and demand laws traditional work well to raise the cost of aged spirits. The supply of 20 year aged Pappy is not going to increase any time soon (it takes 20 years…). Increases to the supply of aged spirits tend to outrage consumers. Remember the Maker’s Mark debacle? Almost every year, one of the major whiskey houses are shocked by a natural disaster, such as a breakage or flood. Given the supply constraints, even whiskeys released in a year are sometimes rare.

What will happen to the industry when all of the supply constraints are removed? “Lab grown” whiskeys present the promise of an alternative world where whiskey created last night can mirror the flavor profile of a 1923 Macallan for less than a bottle of your father’s Cutty Sark. Although I expect the lab grown whiskey industry to face strong resistance in its nascent years, the promise of a perfect spirit without perfect spirit cost is too appealing to remain niche. The first lab grown whiskey is already commercially available for $40, although reviews are divided.

Why will flawed spirits garner high values? Because in this alternative world of perfect spirits, the only flavors that will be hard to obtain are flawed whiskeys made in the traditional ways. Connoisseurs will seek hard-to-find flavor profiles. A 1946 that smells of formaldehyde and tastes of stinky cheese will never be recreated for mass-production. Have a toast to our brave new world!