The Art of the Date

I have just posted a column for the younger generation. I entitled it, "The Art of the Date." It is generally addressed to young women, so I posted it on the Your Tango site. Link here. 

"Inflation Explained"

Here's one to brighten up your day. Omid Malekan of Xtra normal offers an explanation for inflation.

Anger Mismanagement

Outside of the worlds of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics most of what passes for conventional wisdom in the therapy world is little more than diluted and distorted ethics.

Since these precepts pretend to be scientifically valid, journalists often pick them up and present them as objective facts.

As I occasionally mention, David Hume famously showed that science does not contain an ethical dimension. It can describe what you did, not what you should do.

Today Elizabeth Bernstein tackles an intriguing issue: how best to express anger; as the saying goes, she punts. Link here.

I was somewhat hopeful when I started reading the article. Bernstein is correct to say that we learn to express anger by watching the way our family members express theirs. My hopes were dashed when she gratuitously added that the way to overcome parental influence is to have lots of therapy.

If it happens that your parents did not present a very good example of how to express anger, then the solution is to find someone better to emulate.

From there Bernstein presents the therapeutically correct way to express anger.

It makes you-- or, I should say, me-- want to rush to open a volume of Aristotle’s ethics.

Where the therapists are clearly in over their head, the philosopher did, literally, write the book on ethics.

When he addressed the question of how to express anger, Aristotle did not think in terms of what a person who had been therapied to within an inch of his life would do. He described how a virtuous person should do it.

Given that therapeutic correctness is enmeshed in a gauzy empathy, it sees the expression of anger as a productive moment in a relationship.

Given that anger, almost by definition, is hostile and aggressive, you have to wonder how the therapists could have decided that it is going to restore loving affinity to your relationship.

According to Bernstein the therapeutically correct expression of anger should lead to a hug. I would say that if it leads to a hug you have not expressed anger effectively… if at all.

We get angry because someone has offended, insulted, or demeaned us. Having been knocked down we want to get up, to assert our dignity, and that can only be done forcefully.

Do it nicely and you are not expressing anger. You are accepting the diminished status you have just been assigned.

Aristotle would have said that the failure to respond to an offense with the right kind of anger makes you subservient, even servile.

For now, let’s examine the therapeutically correct way to express anger, as Bernstein, relying on her “experts,” presents it.

First, she says, when you feel a rush of anger, you should take a deep breath.

Here, I concur, in part. It is often a good idea to reflect on what has happened, whether you are right to feel anger, and how best to express it.

Yet, the larger issue is when and how to express your anger. If the moment is right, you would do well to get angry. As the old saying goes: carpe diem. Procrastination is not always your friend.

It is not always right to get angry on the spot, but it is also not always right to sit back and think it over.

Second, Bernstein says that you should make an appointment to express your anger. She wants you to say that you need some time to calm down, and would like to find a convenient time to discuss the matter.

This is obviously wrong. If someone has disrespected you, you should not respond with a gesture of respect. That would feel like a reward. And why would you want to telegraph your punch, thus to put him on guard? This is beginning to sound like: Anger for Eunuchs.

If you make an appointment to tell someone something that he does not want to hear, will make him more or less likely to show up?

Third, the experts believe that your first move should be to excuse and explain yourself.

By that they mean that you should begin by saying that while you would normally shut the person out or get angry, this time you are trying to do things differently.

So, now we learn that the best way to express anger is to declare, from the top, that you are not going to get angry.

When you say that you are trying out a new technique, you are saying that your anger is less serious, more theatrical… even a rehearsal.

If you follow this step, you will have told the other person not to take your anger very seriously. This means that you are afraid of his reaction, and thus, are willing to accept subservience.

Fourth, you are supposed to tell the person that it takes courage to express your anger and you already feel badly because you know that it is hard to hear that someone is angry with you.

This tells you to open with an apology, accompanied by lots of ego massage. Again, we are in the realm of subservience.

So far, not a single angry word has passed your lips. You have shown yourself to be weak and pusillanimous, afraid of your own shadow.

If the other person has not yet started to laugh at you, the only reason must be that he is having too much fun watching your squirm.

Fifth, you can now express your personal feelings. Not your angry feelings... Heaven forfend. No, you must open up about your hurt feelings, thus continuing to place yourself in a feeling of weakness.

If the insult that has occasioned your anger was intended to weaken you, then, by expressing your weakness, you are embracing the lower status that the insult was conferring on you.

Besides, when you say your feelings have been hurt, you are appealing to sympathy and pity.

Still, no anger.

Sixth, you are now supposed to excuse the other person. Therapists recommend that you say that you know that the other person did not mean to hurt your feelings, and that you would like to give him the opportunity to explain himself.

But, what gives you the right to occupy both sides of the conversation? And how can you presume to speak for someone else? Are you that afraid of hearing what he might say?

Keep in mind that if you are not acting like someone who has been insulted, then your friend will be thinking that he did not do anything wrong. He treated you as servile because you are servile.

Besides, the last thing you want to hear is an explanation. You want to hear a sincere apology.

If the apology is accompanied by an explanation-- the Devil made me do it; I was having a bad hair day-- it is, by definition, insincere.

If you get the expression right, your antagonist will apologize, accept responsibility for what he said, not try to explain it away, withdraw it, and vow not to say it again.

At that point, you do not shower him with hugs and kisses. You forgive him.

The therapeutically correct way to express anger expresses no anger. Score one for the therapy culture.

In order not to wallow in despair, let’s turn to Aristotle’s view.

The philosopher makes two essential points. These concern the way a virtuous person can express anger.

First, like all emotions, anger can be excessive, deficient, or tempered. Not too much means that the anger should be directed toward the person who caused offense, and should not, in degree, exceed the severity of the offense. Not too little means that you there are times when you cannot and should not ignore offensive behavior.

Some people are irascible; they get angry too often for reasons that do not seem to pertain to the situation at hand. Others are diffident, they do not seem to know when they are being abused, so they absorb it and wonder why they feel like they lack self-respect.

In Aristotle there is no one-size-fits-all view of anger, and there is no single formula that tells us how to express it.

How should one express anger? Aristotle’s statement is classic: “The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised. For the good-tempered man tends to be unperturbed and not to be led by passion, but to be angry in the manner, at the things, and for the length of time, that the rule dictates; but he is thought to err rather in the direction of deficiency; for the good-tempered man is not revengeful, but rather tends to make allowances.”

But how do you know what is right here? That, after all, is the fundamental question.

In my view, you have gotten it wrong if you have made yourself and your emotion the center of attention. You have gotten it right when you have directed attention toward the person who has offended you.

When anger is expressed effectively it will shame the other person, causes him to apologize, quickly, directly, and sincerely.

If he fails to apologize, that can only then mean that the offense was intentional, and that he will continue to treat you as subservient.

In that case, expressing anger is fruitless. It’s best to cease contact with the person.

Thomas Sowell on Bullying

Unlike many public intellectuals, Thomas Sowell rarely disappoints.

Today, he has written a column about bullying in schools. To more precise, he explains how everyone is getting lathered up about bullying, while, at the same time, doing nothing to stop it. Link here.

After all, the schools and the courts can’t really crack down on bullying. Their liberal pieties, translated into school policy, have produced a culture in which it has grown and prospered.

In  Sowell’s words: “When educators are going to do nothing, they express great concern and make pious public pronouncements. They may even hold conferences, write op-ed pieces, or declare a ‘no tolerance‘ policy. But they are still not going to do anything that is likely to stop bullying.

“In some rough schools, they can’t even stop the bullying of teachers by the hooligans in their classes, much less stop the bullying of students.

“Not all of this is the educators’ fault. The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits. The net results are indecision, half-hearted gestures, and pious public pronouncements by school officials, none of which is going to stop bullies.

“When judges create new ‘rights‘ for bullies out of thin air, just as they do for criminals, and prescribe “due process” for school discipline, just as if schools were little courtrooms, then nothing is likely to happen promptly or decisively.

“If there is anything worse than doing nothing, it is doing nothing spiced with empty rhetoric about what behavior is ‘unacceptable‘ — while in fact accepting it.”

Who Killed Sex?

Was it a Eureka moment , or wasn’t it?

Meg Wolitzer regales us with the story of a woman at a New York gathering who blurted out one evening: “I would pay someone to have sex with my husband.” Link here.

Wolitzer adds that the remark provoked “snorts and yips of laughter.”

And yet, whatever did the woman mean? Has she given voice to a real trend or is she simply one woman speaking from her own experience? Is this yet another manufactured trend, concocted to sell newspapers?

To her great credit Wolitzer asks the right questions. She does not presume to have identified a trend, and does not even presume to know the experience that lay behind the outburst.

She does find it intriguing that in our post-Freudian age, some, if not many women are finding sex to a burden that they would just as soon live without.

Not only that, but these women, who are post-thirtysomethings, seem to feel that they are not allowed to turn down their husband’s entreaties.

Somewhere along the line, Wolitzer suggests, women have lost the right to say No to sex.

Naturally, biology must enter the mix. The women who heard echoes of their thoughts in the outburst had already had their children and were not interested in having more.

Could it be that female sexual desire is inextricably linked to procreative possibility? Perhaps it has something to do with “the change.” About that Wolitzer has nothing to say.

How should we interpret the remark? Wolitzer astutely offers a number of different interpretations.

Lacking a more extensive interview, we do not know what the woman is fed up with her husband or turned off by sex altogether. Could it be that she has had it with her inattentive husband but would happily give herself to her trainer or the cute young man at the coffee shop?

We only know that she has lost interest in her husband and has been going through the motions, building up resentment and anger.

How does a couple arrive at such an impasse? Let us count the ways. Some men want what they want when they want it, have no real interest in whether their wives want it, and feel that they have a divine right to it. If she is not an active participant in the experience, after a while she might well imagine that, from her husband’s perspective, any female will do.

There are other possibilities. Wolitzer analyzes them well: “I have no idea of what goes on inside the marriage of the woman who made the crack about her husband. All relationships are mysteries. When no one else is there to watch, a couple might put on wigs and prance around, or engage in Santeria rituals. The woman’s husband might have been a lout. She might have been one, too. Perhaps they had never been well matched. Or maybe it was the fatigue of familiarity, and she was simply bored. Regardless, it seems to me that the woman who made the comment about her husband was most likely taking a defeatist position that degrades both of them.”

Without knowing which of these possibilities, is closest to the truth, we do not know whether she is being defeatist or not. And we do not know whether she would be happy with some sex, but not as much as he insists on.

But, why does she do something that she clearly does not want to do? Given that this comment occurred in a Manhattan salon, we can exclude the possibility that these women have been acting out of conjugal duty.

Women who were brought up on feminism strongly reject the idea of doing anything out of conjugal duty. The very concept is abhorrent to their liberated sensibilities.

I do not, however, agree when Wolitzer claims that the remark degrades both the woman and her husband.

In her own way, the woman is taking a step toward saying No. Since Wolitzer is going to use half of her column to explain that it can be a good thing to say No to sex,  why not consider that the woman wishes to farm out her husband’s lust in order to take possession of her own.

As Wolitzer points out we are all fascinated by this turning away from sex. Having suffered the influence of Freud and having lived through the sexual revolution, we have all learned that sex is an unalloyed good.

In her words: “But because we’re all post-Freudians, it’s as if we still believe sex equals strength, health and life; and therefore, not-sex equals weakness, illness and death.”

It also happens that those who wanted to cure civilization of its discontents by promoting more and better sex have encouraged more free and open conversation about sex. They have made it the key to lifting societal repression.

It is, truth be told, a rather dumb idea. Sexual desire does not thrive in the light of day; it needs darkness, it needs to be somewhat and suggestively covered up, it needs to be veiled by euphemisms. The last thing sex needs is to be called by its name.

Examine this sentence by Wolitzer: “Even if these women weren’t planning to fob their own husbands off on helpful neighbors or prostitutes, they were in agreement that at a certain point in a long relationship, a woman might very well just want less of ‘that part‘ of her life (’that part‘ being the linguistic first cousin to ‘down there‘).”

Adult women using euphemisms, doesn’t this suggest that in order for women to regain possession of their sexuality they need to stop talking about it in grossly explicit terms.

I would note, with Wolitzer, that wanting less is not the same as wanting none at all.

Wolitzer explains the value of saying No to sex? But she does not use the word abstinence. There is a veritable industry, especially in the public school system, indoctrinating children with the idea that abstinence is bad, or, if not bad, futile.

If we are wondering where women learned that they did not have the right to say No, perhaps they learned it in sex education classes.

How many women are fed up with sex because they feel that they have to say Yes, even when they want to say No.

Even though educated New York women are often impervious to the opinions of men, they are not impervious to the siren song of feminism.

And, let us recall that feminists have been promoting the dogmatic belief that women want it just as much as men, that men and women are sexually equal.

Some feminists even believed that women were more sexual than men. They argued that civilization was not built on the repression of libido, as Freud argued, but on the repression of the female orgasm.

Nowadays sex positive feminists are out promoting hookups as the road to sexual liberation.

Where does that put women who would rather say No. They are in an ideological bind. They have been inculcated with a system of beliefs that makes them feel obligated to try to match their husbands’ sexual desire, to sacrifice themselves for the cause, whether they like it or not.

Who killed sex?

There isn’t just one killer. Those who have tried to impose their ideology on sexual experience, whether through the sexual revolution, through post-Freudian theory, or through feminist efforts to liberate female sexuality, have killed sex.

Their earnest attempts to enhance sexual pleasure, artificially, as a recruiting tool to entice people to join their cause, has finally, for many people, wrung the enjoyment out of sex, and has made it into an unwelcome chore. Especially for women.

Now, to paraphrase the poet, sex is dying, “not with a bang, but a whimper.”

Why Do People Cheat?

In the world of psycho journalism two names stand out: Jonah Lehrer of the Wall Street Journal and Benedict Carey of the New York Times.

When I talk about psycho journalism I am referring to articles reporting the latest research in cognitive psychology.

Yesterday, I posted about Lehrer’s recent article on how the mind makes decisions. Today it’s Carey’s turn, for an excellent piece about why people cheat. Link here.

Studying cheaters contains its own difficulties. Why would you assume that cheaters are telling the truth about their motives? How do you know that they are not cheating on the tests or surveys or interviews you perform?

As it happens, cheaters do not to see themselves as cheaters. They see themselves as victims of injustice or unfairness. By cheating they are leveling the playing field.

Neurologist Dr. Anjan Chatterjee takes up this point, with a twist. He says: “Cheating is especially easy to justify when you frame situations to cast yourself as a victim of some kind of unfairness. Then it becomes a matter of evening the score; you’re not cheating, you’re restoring fairness.”

Dr. Chatterjee is suggesting that some cheaters rationalize their behavior by casting themselves as victims. The more you feel that the game is rigged the less you feel that you need to play by the rules.

As Carey notes, you may end up feeling that only chumps play by the rules. If you think that the rules are not the rules, and that everyone else is playing by a different set of rules, you might cheat in order to feel just like everyone else. In your mind this does not make you a bad person.

When politicians try to persuade people that all of life’s inequalities are proof of social injustice they are casting large numbers of people as victims of unfairness.

If so, they are encouraging them to cheat.

As everyone knows, and as the old saying goes, life isn’t fair. Some people have advantages over others. Some children have parents who place more value on education or on football. Some children have parents who spend more time tutoring them. Some children have parents who can hire better tutors or send the children to tennis camp. And some children are naturally more athletic or are born with higher IQs or greater musical aptitude.

Success and failure in life usually has something to do with the advantages and disadvantages you have. Often these advantages have not been earned. Sometimes they have been earned, but not by the beneficiary.

No two people really start in the same place. If that is your definition of justice, then you are in the business of creating grievances. And grievances are a great excuse for cheating.

This does not obviate the fact that some games really are rigged, that some people are treated unfairly, and that some bosses are abusive.

Then, it makes sense that people try to bend the rules, but the situations Carey describes do not seem to me to be cheating.

In his words: “In studies of workplace behavior, psychologists have found that in situations where bosses are abusive, many employees withhold the unpaid extras that help an organization, like being courteous to customers or helping co-workers with problems.”

If a boss treats his staff badly, they are more likely to work less, to feel less motivated, to do the minimum required. To my mind this is not the same as stealing money from the cash drawer or lying about one’s time or arrival or departure.

Similarly, when people feel that the tax code is unfair, they sometimes decide to work less. They are not cheating, but making a rational decision.

Working less because it is not worth the effort is not the same thing as cheating on your taxes.

Explanations have their utility, but no one is trying to rationalize bad behavior. When you come down to it, cheaters have bad character.

But how does bad character develop?

Carey explains that it is not a slippery-slope. Their movement to the dark side begins with “small infractions” but eventually leads to a decision to self-identify as a cheat.

In Carey’s words: “The boilerplate tale of a good soul gone wrong is well known. It begins with small infractions — illegally downloading a few songs, skimming small amounts from the register, lies of omission on taxes — and grows by increments. The experiment becomes a hobby that becomes a way of life.

“This slippery-slope story obscures the process of moving to the dark side; namely, that people subconsciously seek shortcuts more than they realize — and make a deliberate decision when they begin to cheat in earnest.”

Carey is describing a journey. A moral individual cuts a corner or two at first, but finally ends up selling his soul. He identifies himself as a cheater, an immoral individual.

Why should this be so? Perhaps he reaches a tipping point, where the preponderance of his cheating behavior makes it impossible for him to cling to the illusion that he is an honest man.

Carey also reports that the best way to discourage cheating is to be clear about the rules and to hold people accountable for following them.

Business executives would do well to heed this advice. Your staff functions best when they know what is required of them, when they understand your policies and mission, when they know what the rules are, and when they know that they will be held accountable for their failures.

"Fight Like a Girl"

Say what you will, but Sarah Palin gives great concept.

Speaking yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin Palin laid down the gauntlet to Congressional Republicans. She challenged them to emulate the example of the University of Wisconsin women’s hockey team, national champions that they are, and “fight like a girl.”

With a single concept Palin rebuked and shamed male Republicans, presented herself as a fighter, and challenged the feminist left. She took what is generally used as a term of derision and made it into a sign of pride. If you want to draw women voters to the Republican line, you can’t do much better.

For all the feminist insistence on making women strong,  movement feminists are so viscerally opposed to anything military, or to anything that has to do with guns, that they are  constantly projecting weakness.

While Donald Trump is sucking up political oxygen with his quixotic thrust at the presidency, Sarah Palin did what Trump has not done. She gave voice and gave intellectual coherence to the GOP critique of the Obama administration. She also formulated a strong and coherent Republican message.

Think what you will but Scott Walker did not have the rhetorical or conceptual skills to frame the issue as Palin did.

Sarah Palin is clearly a great speaker. Everyone with any discernment noted it when she gave her 2008 convention speech.

Can she win the presidency? That is more iffy.

Palin had been in something of an eclipse lately, largely because she decided to star in a reality show that highlighted her everyday life with her family.

Given that the media has focused a harsh spotlight on Palin‘s family, the better to make her look unpresidential, it did not help her to focus the spotlight on her family life.

I also suspect that a Palin candidacy would be more likely to elicit an independent run from everyone’s favorite vainglorious billionaire, Donald Trump.

Thus, I still favor Chris Christie. The governor of New Jersey has the same genius for forming concepts, framing a message, clarifying the issues, and communicating with the public.

For all the talk about how stupid Palin is supposed to be, how many national Republican leaders have spoken as clearly and as forcefully about the issues? For now, none.

However, if you want an example of true stupidity, how about shining a little scrutiny on a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years and did not understand what Wright was preaching.

Or else, imagine that this same man was listening to Wright, understanding the message, and thinking that it made good sense.

That, my friends, is true stupidity.