Efficacy Software, P. 1: The Context

Something occurred to me while reading an article recently on Autism Spectrum Disorders - specifically the characteristic difficulty in interpreting body language (the article was discussing the discovery that ASD was also correlated with low levels of oxytocin, a chemical linked with emotion and communication). I wondered whether or not there had been much in the way of software development using a computer interface as a form of ASD rehabilitation . It seems that as body language has to do with visual processing, there could be much to gain from developing software that allows the ASD user to interact with visual stimulus. The goal would be to address specific skills that could then be transferred to real world situations.

But it then occurred to me that this format could have much broader applications. I recalled a previous blog entry in which I tried to quantify individual modes of personal efficacy, the degree to which one possessed each would contribute to positive personal and inter-personal outcomes. I called them Human Capital (HC). We are all familiar with computer-based learning systems. Their development in early childhood education has been remarkable, especially with the advent of relatively cheap, flash-based applications widely available online. But so far much of the content has been driven by classic, knowledge-based content standards. Yet personal efficacy requires much more, for instance looking at interpersonal skills like communication & listening skills, situational awareness, social norms and psychological refection.

We know that individual success is largely dependent on the skill set of the individual, and in the event of misfortune, certain skills are key to resiliency. These skills are not always taught to the degree that they could be in the home, peer circle or neighborhood. Some individuals will come to them spontaneously via innate inheritance, others by good fortune or chance. Others will never learn them at all, but having come into good fortune in other areas, will never be forced to rely upon their attainment.

Social statistics tell us that behind the conviction that everyone can succeed lies a fatal caveat: those who possess the skills to succeed, will succeed. Implicit in this statement is the necessity for one to possess something. Things can either be known innately, or learned. The skills we are referring to here are not what are commonly thought of as skills, per say, but the personal traits, or Human Capital, that lead one to success. In my previous post on this topic I outlined them thus:

Emotional: happiness, satisfaction, compassion, generosity, self-control, ethics, integrity, confidence, courage, self-awareness

Knowledge Skills: reading, writing, math, music, art, dance, technology, mechanics, athletics, discipline, diet, hygiene, exercise

Knowledge Information: humanities, sciences, traditions, institutions, "perspective" Social: language, protocols, empathy, self-awareness (perception of self by others)

Monetary: family income, family resources, neighborhood resources, Biological: mental, physical, health

These are rough draft estimations, and in need of revision. But the fundamental premise is the quantification of those assets which reward the individual both external and internal success and fulfillment. Some skills will be unattainable for purely physical or logistical reasons, and no one will likely ever fulfill all of them. But if HC is what success is made of, then if one is to be free to succeed in life one must be free to attain it. If our society is to truly desire freedom for each of its citizens, then it must seek to enable for them access to this capital.

Some of this is already acknowledged by the presence of our public education system. But it was never tasked with what social research has told us its purpose now serves: to provide a level playing field of personal skill-development that guarantees freedom of success for all citizens. Public schooling was thought of as a healthy benefit to a modern society - a project supplemental to the family and other social forces conspiring to shape a person's full expression, not the least of which was supposed to be the individual's own "free will" and judgment of action. Yet now, as social trends have been studied and successful outcomes have been tied to reliable indicators, education has become ever-more the final frontier of humankind's goal of social justice and freedom.

And of course it is failing. Those students who succeed do so because of two things: either good fortune or because they have at some point (including before birth) acquired sufficient levels of HC. Many children are fortunate in that they are able to acquire it outside of school. But for many children, school has become society's sole means to provide this HC. Yet the time spent at school is simply not enough to provide sufficient supply. For a variety of reasons, including funding & resources, socio-economic geographic logistics, and degree of parent HC, schools are forced to watch asthmatically as generation after generation of students is respired through their doors.

If that HC is required is not in dispute, then the problem simply becomes how to best ensure that every American achieves their maximum, and at the very least a guaranteed minimum. A corollary structure to this argument is the implication that those who have succeeded have done so due to a relative privilege of HC, and thus hold moral claim to the fruits of such success only to a degree over and above what society deems a base equitable distribution of HC resources. That is to say, only once sufficient policies have been put into place that guarantee a reasonable distribution of Human Capital may individuals be allowed to enjoy greater HC privilege benefits, being as they are circumstantially derived.

There is of course great leeway in how strictly this would be implemented. As comprehensive metrics on both how to measure individual HC attainment as well as its impact on success becomes more and more difficult moving from macro to micro level. Depending on the degree to which one is comfortable establishing arbitrary policy determinations based on certain metrics, a redistributive structure could be arranged via various progressive taxation structures, or some other methods of equitabilitization.

This has been the incision point for traditional arguments against any sort of interventionist, progressive economic policy. These have fundamentally revolved around an appeal to the concept of individual freedom of will, and that its existence renders unjust any attempt to limit the individual's right to enjoy the benefits of one's success, based as it is not on the HC model, but on the assumption of a theoretically infinite capacity for creative control over one's destiny, unencumbered by biological or social privilege. In addition - according to these arguments - any attempt to rectify an imbalance in HC by the government would only make matters worse, due to the inefficiency inherent in government action. Far better be it to allow the invisible hand of the free market to provide sufficient lubrication for individual success.

But the HC model denies such claims. Its inherent assumption is that success is created solely from HC, as is any possible definition of something one could call free will. So any society interested in the promotion of freedom must answer first to how it promotes HC. Second, many elements of HC acquisition are not only not commodities, and thus untradeable on a free market, but in cases where they might be, like any market items their purchase requires capital to begin with. And due to the nature of HC's relationship with wealth creation and success, the degree to which one lacks HC will limit one's ability to bargain! And so while government action, with its guarantee of access, may not necessarily enjoy the benefits in efficiency and innovation that come from a competitive free market, if one considers the principle of individual freedom paramount, and human freedom predicated upon the equitable attainment of HC, then it must have a significant role in its provision.

Response from State Senator Benoit on Marijuana Taxation & Taxes

I sent Senator Benoit a suggestion that, especially considering California's desperate need for tax revenue, he ought to vote to legalize marijuana and then tax it. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response from either him or one of his staffers, although it seems pretty well addressed to my original letter. My response to his argument is that A, I'm not sure it really is a gateway drug. And that even were it to be, the real gateway drug is social inequity that allows kids to turn to drugs in the first place instead of more successful endeavors. Which, ironically, my vision for social programs (such as education, counseling or teen centers) paid for by a marijuana tax would end up paying for. If marijuana was the real cause of teen failure to succeed, it would be a zero sum game. But it obviously isn't.

-------------------------
Thank you for your correspondence expressing support for Assembly Bill 390 (Ammiano), which would legalize the possession, sale, and cultivation of marijuana by persons 21 years of age and older and would set up a wholesale and retail marijuana sales regulation program.

While I appreciate your point of view, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation because I do not believe in the decriminalization of marijuana. It is a gateway drug and encouraging its use would only lead to more people trying and abusing harder and more dangerous drugs.

Additionally, your argument that there would be tax revenue generated from the sale of marijuana may be true but the amount of revenue raised would not necessarily offset the cost to society. Indeed, the same argument could be made about many currently illegal activities, but legalizing them would not mean those activities would be good for society as a whole.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. While we do not agree on the merits of this bill, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other legislative issues of concern to you. It is an honor to serve you in the California State Senate.


Sincerely,

JOHN J. BENOIT

Senator, 37th District

Political Divide

We're all familiar with the basic liberal and conservative positions: liberals = government programs & equality, conservatives = business & individual responsibility. But there are nuances to these basic ideas, and they have definitely evolved over time.

I've been struck lately at how seemingly stubborn and dogmatic conservatism has become, especially since Obama took office. If you look at what this diagram says about what each ideology emphasizes, and compare it with the political rhetoric we've been hearing, it's notable that conservatism has taken a much harder tack to the right, while liberalism has moved considerably towards the center.

The diagram offers 3 political position emphases: philosophical emphasis , emphasized mechanism for obtaining it, and its emphasized threat. The extreme version of right and left would accept little or no cross-over, while the moderate would accept a good deal, while retaining the original emphasis.

Notice how the modern, mainstream liberal position is one of great moderation. The extreme position would be entirely opposed to business, with government running the economy, i..e communism. But most liberals today are indeed very opposed to the government running any sector of the economy. Theirs is a mixed economy, or "an economy of the gaps", where business is sometimes regulated, but allowed to prosper, while the government fills in needed services the market is unable to provide adequately. Much of this position is due to the recognition of the massive failures of communism, and the many benefits of responsible business.

Yet modern, mainstream conservatism is very extreme. Government is constantly railed against, and would preferably stay out of the economy all together. The common good is something of an afterthought, as a sort of social darwinism places the fate of the individual squarely at his own feet. It is in many ways utopian, as it consistently posits an "if only" situation in which society would reach a state of grace in the absence of social planning, and at the whim of the individual. In other words, any problems we see today are the fault of government or the individual's lack of merit.

Strangely, much is made of future scenarios of government dominance - "socialism" - yet the multitude of accepted government programs in existence today are never mentioned. This sentiment is supremely expressed in the recent news item in which an angry man stood up at a town hall meeting and declared "Don't let the government get its hands on my medicare!" Other "socialist" programs such as public schools, mental health clinics, parks or libraries would seem to be logical enemies as well but they are never mentioned.

In short the biggest difference between modern liberalism and conservatism today seems that conservative fear of government is extreme, while liberal fear of business is not.

Relativism vs. "Relativism"

I had a deja-epiphany today. At one point I had had it sorted out, but then something just disappeared. Well, anyway.

I first understood the term "relativism" to be a simple statement of scientific fact: that morality is based on whomever chooses it (i.e. morality is relative to human construction). Ahah, but not so! To those among us who decry "relativism", it means two things: A) Morals are absolute (i.e. not created by man) & B) "Relativists" do not believe it is proper to force others to accept their morals. In this way they are able to conflate two very different positions and use one to bat the other.

What this generally takes the form of is, "Oh, so you think being gay is OK just because you feel like it? You probably think its OK to steal then too, right? Because it's anything goes!".

(Quick aside: Conflation is an interestingly common logical fallacy. One also sees it with objection to abortion as "murder". If abortion is murder, then people who have or support abortions are "murderers". But murder implies intent. Just because one person says squashing ants is murder, does not squashing ants a murder of me make.)

So, one can surely believe that morals are relative, and take a firm position on things. For all I know, we may one day find evidence of some moral absolute written down somewhere (although the problem will then be who wrote it, but let's leave it there for now). But as it stands there is no evidence for an particular moral. But we think and feel in pretty much the same ways. And that's basically persuasive enough for most people.

For instance, I seriously doubt there is any "moral" law about farting next to your wife. But she doesn't like it. So we don't do it. (OK, I often do but I accept that it is immoral.) There we go: moral defined by man (woman?). Is it proper for me to force my morality on others? Well, if you and your wife are "into" that sort of thing - then by all means, right? That's the beauty of creating your own morals. As long as you are a consenting adult then universal human rights begin to apply. But no need to get the UN involved in this, is there?

Human Capital

I realized recently that I don't think I'd ever come across a description of what a "great" person looks like. From a determinist perspective, individuals operate according to their conscious state at any given moment. That is, every decision we make is determined by what drives us, and what drives us is in turn driven by what has driven us up until that point. So as individuals, we can be thought of as nodes of the larger evolution of our species, both through generational genetic inheritance and situational cultural transformation. Each individual is born into this swirling soup of ideas and circumstances, with the expectation that one will add to, not subtract from, the larger human enterprise of happiness and understanding.

So starting from that premise, could we not find some simple template for what a "great" person might look like, and further, what would go into creating that individual? This template would be composed of a core set of generalized areas, each extending into specific qualities. Each would be a form of capital that adds to the fulfillment of both the happiness and completeness of the individual, and also of the larger society in general. These traits should be universal enough to transcend political, religious or social ideology. In any given situation, the relative importance of one or another trait might differ, but in a general sense each trait should add to the individual's fulfillment as well as that of society.

It's not a new idea. The concept of a role-model is well established. One's mother and father are the most obvious influences. Peers and peripheral social members soon begin to play a role. But as larger fulcrums of group behavior, those from which social identity and behavioral trajectory are derived, might be deeper expressions of historical archetypes such as religious, political, military, scientific or business leaders. Of these, no single archetype might suffice. In a scientific figure we might exemplary performance in reason and inquiry, hard work and dedication, but a lacking in moral integrity or compassion. Or in a religious figure, whose compassion and depth of human understanding is unparalleled, we may not find much in the way of innovation or skeptical inquiry. Yet in all of these characters we derive a sense of what every individual should aspire towards.

Not every one is capable of fulfilling each and every requirement of this template for greatness. Some will fulfill little, if any at all, of some traits. This could be for genetic reasons, or due to physical accident. It may be life circumstances, such as geographic location or particular social events. Nor will any one individual will ever fulfill them all. But each trait will be cooperative: the attainment of any one will aid the attainment of any other. In correlation, the lack of any one skill may (but not necessarily) detract from the attainment of any other.

Most of the attributes will be acquired over a lifetime. Each individual will be born with certain advantages and disadvantages toward their acquisition. At the group level, social organization will attempt to maximize the attainment of these attributes by all. Some efforts will be more effective than others, and some will actively discourage or prevent this goal. The promotion of attainment by some will necessarily limit the attainment of others. As these attributes are mostly learned, they require the right social systems in place to be effected. These systems require a balance of resources, and distribution will always be somewhat unequal. But in the long term, just as each attribute cooperates to improve the acquisition of any other in the individual, so will the acquisition of attributes in any one member contribute to the acquisition of each member of the group.

The following is a rough list of general attribute areas, each followed by more specific list of examples that area's characteristic traits.

Human Capital

Emotional: happiness, satisfaction, compassion, generosity, self-control, ethics, integrity, confidence, courage, self-awareness

Knowledge Skills: reading, writing, math, music, art, dance, technology, mechanics, athletics, discipline, diet, hygiene, exercise

Knowledge Information: humanities, sciences, traditions, institutions, "perspective"

Social: language, protocols, empathy, self-awareness (perception of self by others)

Monetary: family income, family resources, neighborhood resources,

Biological: mental, physical, health

The list is certainly not exhaustive, and could have a more organized structure. For instance, many of the attributes apply only within one's consciousness, while others are the physical actualization, or application of specific skills. Some attributes are directed from the self, while others depend upon social or environmental resources.

If we are to recognize that humans are not the ultimate directors of their own fate, and are mere expressors of biological and environmental conditions, operating as fulcrums of a larger social "mind", then it would serve us well to define precisely what we want this "mind" to produce. We will then be able to draft political and social institutions that effectively achieve this.

Letter to Representative Benoit (R), CA Senate District 37

As a Republican, there are a large number of basic premises that we disagree on, and I will not of course be able to touch on them all here. But I would like to simply voice my support for tax increases and continued, if not increased, government spending, and give you a brief explanation for why.

I have no illusions about the enormous benefits we all get from choosing to base our economic system on free markets, as well as the many pitfalls in having the government provide services for us that might be done better in private hands.

But I do strongly believe that there are basic inequalities that are either events of misfortune or stem from past inequalities. For example, catastrophic events that put families over the edge, or the historical effects of undereducation and poverty that cripple generations.

In these situations the free market is not capable of, nor should it be required to provide the needed correction. There's generally not a whole lot of money in teaching poor kids or providing free health care! Where possible, the market should be able to step in. But we must realize that ultimately it is larger society that will be bearing the burden.

As for the stimulus, well, that comes down to an embrace of Keynsianism that is beyond my pay grade. But economists tend to believe that stimulus is effective. And I've yet to hear a rational explanation for how simply cutting services and taxes is going to pull us back from the cliff. Especially as the honest misfortune I just spoke of is going to require a shared burden.

I believe in helping my fellow man as best I can. Whether it is the private market or the government that guarantees health care, libraries, low-income reading groups, mental health clinics, etc. then that's what I want.

Thank you for your time,
Eli Rector

It deserves to be said

Health care is a right.

Now, one could easily say - sure, so is a cold beer. Why should anyone deserve to see a doctor to get his blood checked. We don't have the right to food or water. We don't have the right to shelter.

But we actually do - when it threatens our health. Sure, we let bums rot under bridges. But if they are lucky enough to have someone notice them and call 911, then they are certainly guaranteed to have their condition stabilized at the nearest hospital. So yes, health care is a right.

Everyone is guaranteed health care access. The only difference is when and how it gets paid for. People with insurance get preventative treatment. People without it get expensive interventions. No one is turned away from the hospital and no one will likely ever be. People are, however, denied treatments that will either save their lives in the long run (and without costly yet futile emergency procedures), or denied preventative measures that prevent illnesses from ever developing.

How it is paid for is tricky. Depending on the hospital, city and state, uninsured patients are subject to different levels of accountability for payment. I'm not sure how much of the cost of the uninsured is absorbed by the system and how much is recouped from the patient. Certainly families often bear the brunt of expensive treatments the patient is unable to afford.

But should they be required to pay for their own care outright, especially if it is something that could have been prevented had they the means to access care earlier?

As a society, we can sort out who pays for what, via taxes, monthly payments, co-payments, etc. But everyone will get care.

My last thought on moral accountability: if our neighbor lies dying in his home, we are not responsible to save him. But if he lies dying on the sidewalk before us, we are required to do everything we can to save him.