The first question one must ask is, what does “corrupt” mean in this context?  My American Heritage dictionary tells me that the verb, “to corrupt” means “to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.” Presumably, if the line means anything at all, it means that power or authority destroys or subverts the honesty or integrity of the person who holds it.

But, with this definition, it is obvious that it is far from universal. History abounds with examples of individuals in power who were not corrupted in any meaningful way.  The USA in particular is rich in examples: George Washington, who stepped down from his position of authority; Abraham Lincoln, who invariably put his duty as he saw it ahead of his personal desires; Malcom X, who, whatever his political limitations, attempted to convince with ideas rather than use his personal authority.  Other cases that come to mind for me include Lenin, who never made any attempt to circumvent the soviets or the Central Committee, but instead always worked to convince others of the correctness of his policies; and Trotsky, who, at the time of Lenin’s death, was perfectly positioned to simply use the Red Army to take power.  I’m sure most of you can find other examples without looking very hard.

No one who has expressed this idea has ever given the least hint of a scientific explanation for it.  Is it something in the biological make-up of the human being?  If so, what exactly?  Where did it come from, how does it operate?  Is it social?  If so, again, what is the mechanism; what social forces cause this?  Instead of an explanation, we get a truism, and one that doesn’t hold up empirically, much less theoretically.

So–why is it so ubiquitous?  Any idea that persists, whether it is right or wrong, serves a social function.  I think the function of this idea is the one that Orwell so skillfully used it for: to avoid dealing with difficult questions.  That is, the tough question is not, “why is the individual holding power being evil,” but, “how did we find ourselves in a situation where a single individual HAS such power?”  This latter question cannot, alas, be answered by a truism, but requires careful investigation of the circumstances: In Hitler’s case, for example, we have to look at the failure of the German revolutions of 1919 and 1923, the financial backing of the Nazis, &c.  In the case of Stalin, we look at the condition of the Soviet Union after WWI, at the wars of intervention,  at the failures of the revolutions in England, France, Hungary, and Poland.  It is difficult, complicated, and can’t be expressed in a simple formula.  However, if one can skip all of this by simply reciting a clever-sounding phrase, then one can simply avoid the hard work.

It’s so much easier that way.  Provided one cares nothing for truth.

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

Truisms rot brains; absolute truisms rot brains absolutely

©2012 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.

Wasse Halum at the Geroginska Institute in Bucharest, Romania, and colleagues looked at the various forms of the gene coding for verbopressin receptor in 3 Romanian people, who were all bad writers. The researchers also investigated their spelling. They found that variation in a section of the gene called “IMl33t” were more likely to use insufficiently large samples, confuse their research, and make uncalled-for generalizations.

Not only that, men with two copies of IMl33t were more likely to pull random facts out of actual research and completely misinterpret them.

Given that everyone surveyed had been writing about science for at least a week, the team suggests that having multiple copies somehow contributes to writing problems anywhere near the Black Sea. Because the results were collected for a different study, the team couldn’t quiz the writers on whether they were actually familiar with their native language, says Halum.

It is not clear exactly how multiple copies of IMl33t affect expression of the verbopressin receptor, and our most confused syntax. And yet that’s the most interesting question, says someone I spoke with near the Xerox machine.

In some writers, the theory is that the brain has two “sensational” systems: one for writing for the mass media, and one for grant applications. In neocons and fundamentalists, receptors for the two systems sit at adjacent desks, so grant applications get a lot of attention, leading to government funded research into why the government shouldn’t fund research. To see if the same mechanism is at work in liberals will mean using deleted passages from editorials, to see if variations are linked to the number of copies of IMl33t.

IMl33t’s writing effects extend beyond writing about science. Earlier this year, the same gene section was shown to affect Fox News Broadcasts, linked to income from commercials. Another study found people with tin ears, linked to media tie-in novels, often have multiple copies of IMl33t.

Halum’s colleague Lich Paulenstein says the team’s next task is to test how a verbopressin suppository effects writer’s desires for long lunch breaks.

References: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

Bad Science Writing Gene found in people

©2012 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

Brust’s Law of Mathematical Formulations

©2012 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.

Usually, I would enjoy this quietly, let my ego be stroked, and leave it at that.  There are a couple of disturbing elements, however which incline me to write about it: The first is that he identifies Kit and refers to Kit and me being involved with “a woman.”  “A woman?”  What, she doesn’t get a name?  Is he “protecting” her out of what must be the sickest example of chivalry in the last decade?  Or is it that, as is implied, she doesn’t matter, because, well, she’s just “a woman?”   Think about that.  On my list of Issues To Campaign On, subtle examples of sexism don’t usually appear; but this one is just especially icky.

The other disturbing element is that he identifies me as a “Trot.”  Now, let’s be clear, if you want to make a Trotskyist twitch, or if you’re just ignorant, you refer to him as a “Trotskyite.”  The word “Trot” has a very specific history–it is the word of choice of the Stalinist thugs.  Even the rank-and-file Stalinists used “Trotskyite” in order to imply it was just a little sect of no importance–”Trot” is used by the ones with the brass knuckles outside the meetings, the ones who killed the families of any Soviet worker who even sounded like a Trotskyist, of the ones who murdered the entire generation of Bolsheviks who made the revolution.  That word, “Trot,” moves this all the way from silly to, well, a little creepy.

But, still, it is kind of nifty to think of myself as worth that sort of attention.  Where are the paparazzi?

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

Ye Ha! We done been exposéd!

©2012 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.

When printed, italicized passages should be in, well, italics. Why? It makes it easier for people to read.

Editors are not people. QED.

Copyright 2008 The Dream Cafe.

At last, proof of what we all knew

©2012 Words Words Words. All Rights Reserved.