Regarding Overheard: Physicians Heal Thy Image

I recently overheard a doctor( or nurse?) complain/worry about a patient( high-strung, rigid, & social anxiety, from the sound of it) who was refusing to reschedule a surgery after the surgeon had to cancel the initial date 36 hours prior: “I'm at my wits' end with this patient: she'll die if nothing is done, and he's the only surgeon within a thousand miles who can perform the operation.” The person the doctor was talking to first asked whether [name] “had to cancel because of his mother's funeral?”, and, after confirmation thereof, “Did anyone tell her[ the patient, I presume] that?”, to which the doctor's response, so immediate it sounded as though he was conditioned, was “He doesn't owe her an explanation. He's the expert.” as if that should have been obvious. The other person chose not to press that point, and pivoted to discussing other options; thereafter it was mostly the doctor wondering if he should order a mandatory psychiatric evaluation to force the patient into the hospital, and trying to justify it while the other recommended against it with increasing distress.

I wanted to say something, but I didn't know what yet and they got off the train before I could spin that thought out into something comprehensible. But I did eventually, and since I wrote it out in a Reddit comment tonight, here it is:

I get where the idea came from: it's a little bit of worrying about liability, combined with a massively maladroit attempt to address the troubling trend that recent generations have been less willing to trust experts, both in medical practice and in other science-based professions( and lately, even in history). The notion of countering it that way seems to have originally come from out-of-touch former researchers and practitioners who became lecturers and hospital administrators, mostly Boomers who were disgruntled about what they saw as disrespect from Generation X and Millennials, compared to the awe they felt of their own lionized forerunners that were seen as pioneers of human understanding, uniformly celebrated by the media in their day. They conflated the 'problem' of unquestioning belief fading away with the genuine issue regarding the modern lack of confidence in expertise, and something figured the solution was a return to seeing scientists as larger-than-life figures.

But the truth is that those things were never really linked; instead, shocking revelations about environmental and ethical disasters shook the foundationsm of expert ‘giant-hood’ in the 1970s, with the subsequent end of the Cold War propaganda about how ‘our scientists are the best', every generation after X has been raised to be cautious and open-minded, which has unfortunately become ‘doubtful of whether any academic question is ever really settled'; and a college or even post-graduate education just isn't as rare these days, especially when you compare educational content from the past and present—frankly, I learned science concepts in 1990s elementary school that my parents, born in the 1940s, had never even heard of until college, if at all. By middle school, ALL of my social studies and science homework was, without exaggeration, completely beyond the scope of their entire education—except for anatomy, that my mother knew as an R.N.( and frankly she learned a lot about revisions in medical understanding that had come to pass after she transitioned to a clinical nurse specialty in psychotherapy).

So what I'm saying is, I'm aware that the modern standard in many fields is that you should never say anything about your personal life to patients(/clients/investors) because “anything that humanizes you in their eyes undermines your credibility”; ignoring the hard reality that most people in the Western world younger than 35–40 never saw scientists, doctors, or other experts as superhuman in the first place. I also know that lots of highly-educated people get told in college nowadays that “Professionals shouldn't make excuses.”, but you know what?

1. The latter is NOT supposed to mean you don't say anything when you let someone down, it's supposed to mean you tell the truth and help other people set more realistic expectations of you; and

2. the former is just total bull crap, at least for healthcare workers: if you have a death in the family or your kid breaks a limb at school, you should say so, otherwise people are naturally going to feel disrespected. Why? Because when you don't say anything, it seems like whatever you were prioritizing that caused you to cancel or be late( at their expense) isn't even important enough to mention, or they're not important enough to mention it to—either notion belittles the patient, thus doing far more damage than you're preventing. So

3. thinking that, taken together, those ‘standards’ mean that offering no explanation for failure is better than admitting it's your fault( or even just acknowledging that you're equally susceptible to the whims of fate) is just absolute, gross, nasty, bull DIARRHEA, especially for those working in healthcare.

So no matter what your professor or grad school advisor said about so-called "oversharing", a 'clinical'/'professional' distance is NOT a workable solution to the ‘expert credibility crisis’—especially not for doctors, nor any scientific consultant interacting one-on-one with a layperson. Because society is different now, and people are more educated overall, in the present day what you leave unsaid & unknown doesn't create nor maintain any kind of awe-inspiring mystique about you—it just makes you look unreliable for no clear reason at best, and inflames a generalized suspicion( in the vein of "What is it [you]'re not saying and why are [you] hiding it?") of experts at worst.

Three Wishes

Did I ever tell you that I solved the three wishes problem? As far as I can tell, this issue has vexed mankind at least since magical wish-granting first appeared in folklore. There is exactly one, single way, at least in languages which have a definite article, to use three wishes incorruptibly:

"I wish¹ that this wish² I am making is, always has been, and always shall be, theᵈᵉᶠⁱⁿⁱᵗᵉ ᵃʳᵗⁱᶜˡᵉ correct wish³."

Note that this doesn't prevent other wishes from being granted, it only means that they are/were not, strictly speaking, correct when they were made, and they are/were granted only by coincidence or as an extended consequence of the correct wish being made at least once by some wisher.

It partially reflects the nature of wishing as an expression of desire, and desire, being an emotion, cannot have a moral value of either right or wrong, nor A correctness—at worst, emotions can be inappropriate for the circumstance, but because they are not something that can be controlled directly, they do not constitute choices and are therefore ineligible for judgment. It's our reactions to our emotions, which we do have control over and bear responsibility for, that are right or wrong, correct or incorrect.

It's also impossible for any djinni or other wish-granters to refuse it, or rather, it's irrelevant if they do; they don't actually have to do anything, since it already actually is the correct wish—and the only one, at that. It always has been.

Proof: Tea 4 2

Douglas Adams fans, prepare for a shock so big it'll knock you over and so interesting/engrossing you'll forget to hit the ground:

The answer to life, the universe and everything isn't the numerical value forty-two, but rather the digits 42, which, in every numerical base for which they are valid, represent a multiple of two which is not a multiple of four. Or put another way, those digits ALWAYS represent a multiple of two which is NEVER a multiple of any power of two, starting with base 5( the ordinally-primate base to have a digit representing the value four), in which 42 denotes 4 fives( equal to twenty) and 2 ones, for a minimum value of 22. Counting up or down by fours from there shows us the pattern that explains why 42 is such an important digit combination:

In base 2, binary, the value 6 is written 110( 1 four, 1 two, and 0 ones) and 10 is represented as 1010( 1 eight, 0 fours, 1 two, and 0 ones).

In base 3, 14 is 112( 1 nine, 1 three, 2 ones).

In base 4, 18 is 102.

In base 5, 22 is 42.

In base 6, 26 is 42.

In base 7, 30 is 42.

In base 8, 34 is 42.

In base 9, 38 is 42.

In base 10, 42 is 42.

In base 13, 54( "What do you get when you multiply 6 times 9?") is 42.

And so on...

Essentially, when seen this way, the series represents a new type of interesting number( multiples of two that AREN'T multiples of any power of two) which are much more predictable but equally as infinite and potentially as important as the primes, especially in geometry and computing; and maybe also in the identification of mathematical structures that constitute rings.

Because the prime factors of each of these numbers include only a single 2, and all non-quantum computing is binary, they might be useful in computing, either for the blockchain or security encryption, as they're essentially binary incompressible beyond that initial halving.

I hereby propose calling the series Adams's Numbers, a name which doesn't seem to be taken( not to be confused with Addams's Numbers.)( If it is taken, call 'em Serkey's Numbers. 😜)[ Or just say Douglas Adams's explicitly.]

And here's a proof I wrote for one interesting correlation within the series, that when you double a prime you get an Adams's number( although not all half-Adams's numbers are primes, obviously):

For n ≥ 1, 4n ± 2 is the formula identifying and defining the series "[Douglas ]Adams's Numbers", the nth member of which can be written as "42" in base_n, provided n ≥ 5.

Let 'p' represent any prime number greater than 2.

Let p - 1 = 2n

2p - 2 = 4n

2p = 4n + 2

so in any baseₙ, where n ≥ 5, 2p will be expressed as “42”. Next:

Let p + 1 = 2n

2p + 2 = 4n

2p = 4n - 2

ergo:

Let p ± 1 = 2n

2p ± 2 = 4n

2p = 4n ± 2

The double of any odd prime is an Adams's Number.

From Reddit: Boston School Committee: Racist and Adultist

You know, adultism: when adults indulge in immature behavior favoring their own comfort and preferences in making decisions for children and teens without even consulting said children and teens, even though the children and teens will feel the effects of the decisions in question MUCH more than the know-it-all adults ever will.

Adultism is so much more insidious than other toxic -isms, because its proponents can convince themselves they're a diverse coalition, when diversity is supposed to mean inclusion. Then they go and DON'T include young people in SO many processes *about* young people.

As a practice it's just so fucking stupid, since young folks tend to have a pretty good perspective on what might actually be helpful for them, their peers, or even kids just a year or two behind them—since they *were* those kids much more recently than we were. But in many situations that perspective never even gets heard, let alone considered.

When I was a kid, Linda Ellerbe told my entire generation of Americans to stand up and fight for our rights too, Kids' Rights was an actual thing and we took to the hallways of our schools and our city council chambers, and we tried to make a stand for planet Earth and justice in the world AND in the home. But now what the hell is my generation doing to our successors?

When we were their age, we knew better on some things. *Not* just thought we did, we *proved* we did, with the help of Ellerbe and other adult heroes from Gen X. There's no reason to think that, as we become our parents, we still know better, even though—the same way we learned tech as an extension of ourselves—they're now programming in preschool and will probably be building and augmenting their entire phenotype by the time they get here.

Where the hell is Viacom now? What the hell happened? Is Greta Thunberg the end of seeing tomorrow campaign to make tomorrow better than today?

How the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. can win against Trump's ballot eligibility

It's not REALLY a question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to include the Presidency; one may safely presume that the amenders simply did not envision an unredeemed insurrectionist having such an opportunity, not that they wished to avoid impeding such ascendance.

But clearly, there is a reasonable concern that agitated, disenfranchised-feeling MAGAans might riot and flatten half the country. So what to do?

I say, remove Biden simultaneously. Despite him not being indicted nor charged, the justice department still technically found both men had violated the State Secrets Act, if only slightly, and I believe that act deflares any violation of itself to be treason, right?

So… let Harris take over. Elevate House Speaker Mike Johnson( ugh) to V.P.; he's on his way out of the speakership anyway. And maybe, if Harris being the Democratic incumbent allows Haley to bounce back a bit, with Dr. Stein on the Green Party ticket, We could aee ballots with women simultaneously heading THREE possible executive comvos. Now that'd be refreshing!

The Good, the Nice, & the People-pleasers

As I often do, I answered a question on Quora: “What is the difference between being a nice person and being a people pleaser?” which eventually got merged into “What is the difference between a people pleaser and a genuinely good person?”

People-pleasers will offer/agree/promise to give of themselves, even to the point of exhaustion, whatever those around them want, in order to avoid anyone around them feeling( or more accurately, expressing) any kind of negativity. This behavior often leads the People-Pleasing to overcommit themselves and others, resulting in half-assed attempts to keep all their promises, and it may cause them to overlook long-term outcomes and unintentionally cause serious harm due to things they didn’t think about and didn’t know. When they see injustice they often unintentionally perpetuate it by trying to make up for it themselves to the injured parties( sometimes attempting to guilt-trip bystanders into helping), rather than risk confrontation and negativity by helping the victim(s) hold those actually responsible to account. In a worst-case scenario, people-pleasers may lie just to keep others around them smiling in the moment, and may neglect their own responsibilities or families in trying to meet their excessive obligations. Some people-pleasers are deliberately attempting to deceive others and garner support for questionable causes and future plans, but many are just exhibiting a maladaptive emotional response to some past trauma in which many people around them were upset and they suffered a great loss of some kind( not necessarily in that order, if they were very young). People-pleasers are often confused about why not everyone likes them. When confronted with their failures, they may become depressed and defensive, may be overly apologetic while not actually changing, may make excuses and try to avoid talking about the past, or may choose to label the person who brings it up as ungrateful and make that person an exception to their “helpful” attitude.

Nice people do nice things, i.e., things that make other people happy, or attempt to improve others’ lives when they have an opportunity; but typically, even though they’ll go out of their way to do something nice, regardless of whether anyone appreciates it, those who aren’t people-pleasing know their limits and draw the line. For some of them, the line is whether or not any conflict arises, and even if conflict doesn’t endanger them personally, they’ll often react to it by withdrawing( in contrast to people-pleasers’ attempts to assuage it). Some will instead take whichever side wants to settle things in the simplest or ‘nicest’ way, even if this ignores or perpetuates injustice. Nice people are frequently well-liked, but when those who hold them in high esteem have a serious crisis, especially one which paints them unflatteringly in the public eye, the Nice often are suddenly unavailable or have no help to offer. This doesn’t make their other contributions false, but it’s important to keep in mind—appreciate but don’t depend on them. The motivation of nice-to-a-point people potentially comes down to idolizing someone else’s good deeds as a child, but being criticized, mocked, or taken advantage of during an early attempt to emulate that, or subsequently seeing their hero brought low by some event. Sometimes nice people who are stressed out or in crisis will fall into people-pleasing in an attempt to maintain their self-image as helpful and effective.

Good people also frequently do nice things, but being nice is not the same thing as being good. Good people try to do the right thing whenever they are able, whilst being mindful of their own capacity. When they offer to help or accept a request, they let the person know what other obligations might limit their contributions, and if they find themselves unable to meet their commitments, they let others involved know right away, rather than trying to implement some sort of complicated backup plan without the input of the folks they’re letting down( as a people-pleaser might do). Good people think carefully and realistically about their options and about what matters to them, then they do for others whatever they can manage while still being good to themselves, even if their actions go unnoticed. When they decide to do something, good people stick to it even if their actions make other people unhappy( provided the offended party suffers no actual detriment). However, good people will muster a robust, even shocking, defense if someone with unreasonable expectations or malicious intent attempts to unfairly criticize or victimize them, or in their presence does so to others. Good people, when faced with a conflict, take the challenge head-on; they keep an open mind and never invalidate anyone’s feelings, but are stubbornly committed to a truly just resolution, insisting that solutions be genuinely reasonable, rather than easy or palatable. This means they can always be reasoned with by someone who is willing to tell them the whole truth and accept fairness, but never bought or bribed by those trying to gain an advantage, and they may even become aggressive if pressed; accordingly, the Good frequently have enemies( people-pleasers are especially prone to be uncomfortable or hostile around them), and good folks often treat these enemies with the same consideration shown to everyone else. Eventually, some of these enemies may become their closest friends, or become inspired to change their own lives and attitudes for the better; while other enemies may endlessly seek to drive them away, or may even successfully destroy their reputation & well-being by capitalizing on conflict. Sad as it is, this shouldn’t be surprising; good people support truly worthy causes, and thus won’t back down until they are thoroughly defeated.

My advice to you is to learn to distinguish these behaviors, don’t people-please( for your own sake and others’), and if you can’t bring yourself to consistently be good, at least be nice and have good judgement. Don’t form or repeat opinions based on secondhand information, and commit yourself to not supporting the angry mobs or vicious rumors that enemies of good people often try to start.

Abortion as Euthanasia

I consider a) preventing someone from getting an abortion b) forcing an abortion on someone*, c) misleading people to think a pre-birth human is not yet a person, AND d) misleading people to think that abortion is inherently wrong, to ALL be heinous acts that are unequivocally as bad as second-degree murder( or worse), morally, and if I had my druthers the law would treat them as such.

Abortion IS, and should ALWAYS be regarded and referred to as, a choice between whatever the pregnant person's personal cost of carrying to term is, and the cost to that person of choosing to end another human life. And since both of those things are entirely relative to that person's experience and NO ONE ELSE's, either choice should be sacrosanct.( The fertilized egg/blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus IS a human person, just as much as severely disabled individuals are, but does not yet have a perspective and thus need not be consulted; and in this matter said person ought only be considered at all by the bearer on whom it is dependent, NOT by those who aren't subject to _direct_ *biological* effects of the pregnancy in question.)

Seeing as I was given up for adoption shortly after birth, I think my perspective on this carries more weight than most men's: because in order to take this stance, I have to acknowledge that my own existence may be a consequence of an atrocity. And as someone living in the 21st century, when AI may attain consciousness, and as a person on the autism spectrum( albeit relatively high-functioning), it's important to me to say that personhood should not be biologically determined, nor wholly on capacity. It's a matter of known potential, and realistically also a matter of relationships. It can't exist in a vacuum and can be inferred in the absence of evidence.

I do accept and acknowledge that my views, while logically unimpeachable, can only make sense to those who accept that other forms of euthanasia are killing but not wrong( e.g., assisted suicide, removing life support, etc.). Anyone working from a conflicting axiom, such as the belief that life or the duration thereof is always more important than quality of life, cannot comprehend my premise.

*and yes; being a company that can afford to offer paid parental leave but prioritizes other investments ABSOLUTELY counts as forcing an abortion on someone; so does impregnating a person without consent; as also does being a medical qualified and choosing to selectively provide information or ultimately refusing to perform abortion( unless the doctor has a close personal or familial relationship to the pregnant person or impregnator); so too does being a government entity which collects taxes but fails to provide full support for abortion or neglects to facilitate adoption for those who do not wish to be parents but cannot bear to abort, unless said government has proactively provided/offered free birth control( including post-coital) & relevant education to a pregnant person who became impregnated during consensual activities; among many other circumstances.

Proof: Got a Problem? No Big Deal, Monty Hall

I recently listened to a podcast on which they talked about the Monty Hall problem, in which legendary game show host Monty Hall lets you choose between 3 doors, one of which has a car behind it, while the other two each conceal a goat. He then opens one of the two doors you haven't chosen, and lets you stick with your original choice, or change to the remaining unselected door. After your 2nd choice, the door you've now picked is opened and if the car is behind it, you win( presumably, the car). In the standard version of the problem, he always shows you a goat( because if he revealed the car behind a door you didn't choose, you'd know you lost since your first choice was a goat and your 2nd choice would be moot as picking). So after the reveal, what's the probability that you win by switching in your second round?

Most people learn about the problem, note that two doors remain, one of which is a winner and one a loser, and so they rashly assume that there are two possibilities with one winner, OR they see it as two of four chances to win—two scenarios, each with two possible outcomes: if you picked right the first time, you win sticking to your choice and lose by switching; if you picked a goat, you lose by sticking and win by switching; 1/2 = 2/4 = 50% chance of victory with either strategy( stick vs. switch). Both of those constitute serious oversimplification of the problem, however, which to a mathematician means they're wrong, because of regardless of whether you arrived at the correct solution, you didn't prove anything because your methodology was invalid.

Mathematicians and noted intellectuals frequently recognize three possible scenarios, rather than two, and thus six possible outcomes rather than four; and they count it as 2/6 = ⅓ outcomes in which sticking wins, ⅔ in which switching wins. They note that the opening of a losing door adds NO relevant information for the contestant, it only tells you that you would NOT have won by initially choosing that door, AFTER the possibility of your doing so has already been precluded. So they focus on the relationship of the initial choice( between 3 doors, with 1 being correct) to the second choice( stick or switch before learning whether first choice was correct). Because there are 2 goats and only 1 car, they recognize the 6 possibilities as:

• Stick( to car); outcome: win. (×1)

• Stick( to goat); outcome: lose. (×2)

• Switch( from car to goat); outcome: lose. (×1)

• Switch( from goat to car); outcome: win. (×2)

...but here's a twist: that's actually wrong, despite some of the smartest people in the world insisting on it. I call this, “The ‘Monty Hall Problem’ Problem”, and I have both a simple solution and some possible explanations for how so many geniuses keep getting it wrong.

It's true, as the mathematicians say, that there are 3 initial possibilities for the condition of the system after the first choice: 2 in which the contestant chose a goat door and 1 in which the contestant chose the door hiding the car. It's ALSO true that Monty showing a goat between the contestant's choices doesn't change the winning strategy, which is based on whether the initial choice was correct. What they should have known better is that it DOES still matter that Monty shows a goat, because it adds a conditional variable to the sequence of events when the contestant's first choice is correct, meaning that the overall state of the system is NOT still limited to 3 possibilities immediately before the final choice.

It took me a minute to figure it out, but I realized the correct answer by imagining the 2 goats as different colors, grey vs. brown; I think that's also the easiest way to explain the truth. The mathematician-accepted answer makes the same type of reductive mistake as those mathematicians criticize, and my differently-pigmented goats lay it bare: there are three possibilities immediately after the first choice, but actually FOUR possible scenarios immediately before the second choice, meaning EIGHT possible outcomes depending on the final decision, i.e.:

Scenario A: Chose grey goat door, Monty reveals brown goat:

• Choice 1: Stick( to grey goat); outcome: lose.

• Choice 2: Switch( to car); outcome: win.

Scenario B: Chose brown goat door, Monty reveals grey goat:

• Choice 3: Stick( to brown goat); outcome: lose.

• Choice 4: Switch( to car); outcome: win.

Scenario C: Chose car door, Monty reveals brown goat:

• Choice 5: Stick( to car); outcome: win.

• Choice 6: Switch( to grey goat); outcome: lose.

Scenario D: Chose car door, Monty reveals grey goat:

• Choice 7: Stick( to car); outcome: win.

• Choice 8: Switch( to brown goat); outcome: lose.

…all of which still preserves the direct, unchanging relationship between the first choice and the correct final answer. So why would so many smart people make this mistake? That question actually needs to be broken down further:

• Why do they bypass the right answer?

As to WHY they have trouble seeing/accepting the correct answer, I think it's because so many people arrive at the right answer( equal probability) in a way that is obviously wrong to some people( including mathematicians). Those who think it's a question of two possibilities with one being a win are wrong, as are those who think it's a question of two chances to win out of four possible scenarios. Those people calculate a 50/50 chance of winning regardless of strategy, but they’re basing it on an incomplete mathematical model of the system described in the word problem.

So when educated people who know better subsequently calculate the same answer correctly, they likely experience an unpleasant sensation known as cognitive dissonance, which arises from trying to believe two conflicting things simultaneously. So they then fall victim to a nigh-uncontrollable neuro-cognitive phenomenon which drives most humans suffering cognitive dissonance to misapply logic, misremember facts, and essentially make any excuse to justify resolving the related issue in a way that seems emotionally acceptable, as quickly as possible—then never think of or reconsider it ever again. I've been unable to find an official medical/scientific term differentiating the sensation of cognitive dissonance from the reaction, so I've taken to calling the latter “the reflexive reaction to cognitive dissonance”, or r.r.c.d.. Because of r.r.c.d., when they get the same answer as the people who did the problem in a way they knew to be wrong, smart, well-educated people find a way to twist the problem so they get a different answer. Even Marilyn vos Savant( her real name!), who held the Guinness record for highest IQ ever recorded( before the category was retired), correctly identified a common mistake that people answering the problem make—but failed to correctly apply her own observation.

• Why do they come up with the same wrong answer?

As for why they got the SAME wrong answer, perhaps it comes down to the existence of valid math describing the scenario incorrectly. The easiest way to illustrate this is to strip the values of 'win' and 'lose' from the outcomes, and the identities 'car' and 'goat(s)' from the door contents. Instead, we'll call the objects behind the doors x, y, and z; and from there we can lay out all possible versions of what was behind the first door chosen, what Monty revealed behind one of the 2 remaining doors, and whether the contestant chose to stick or switch; plus what was subsequently revealed behind their final choice( the outcome).

Sequence: 1st chosen, revealed, 2nd choice; outcome

• A: x, y, stick; x

• B: x, y, switch; z

• C: x, z, stick; x

• D: x, z, switch; y

• E: y, x, stick; y

• F: y, x, switch; z

• G: y, z, stick; y

• H: y, z, switch; x

• I: z, x, stick; z

• J: z, x, switch; y

• K: z, y, stick; z

• L: z, y, switch; x

As we can see, there are 12 possible sequences of events, out of which the final door opens on any particular contents in 4 of them, or ⅓ of the time. So, if only one possibility is a winner, that's the chance of winning and the chance of losing is ⅔. However, as Marilyn vos Savant pointed out, in the real-world scenario, Monty Hall knew which door the car was behind, and reasonably would never open that door, thus the four possibilities wherein Monty's reveal is the designated winning choice don't actually come into play.*

Here's where the simplified table above is handy, because it allows us to quickly see that, for example, if x is the winning outcome, Monty's insider info will preclude four sequences: half of those in which the initial choice concealed y( E & F) and half in which the initial choice concealed z( I & J). When the initial choice by the contestant is wrong, only possibilities in which Monty opens the other wrong door( G, H, K, & L) are valid, BUT all of the sequences in which the initial choice concealed x( A, B, C, & D) will remain, because in that case Monty might open either of the other two doors. Thus we can see that eight sequences remain, half win, half lose; and half of the wins are stick( as are half of the losses), while the other half are switch.

The tricky thing here is understanding that the loss outcomes are non-fungible and must always be counted separately( e.g., by thinking of them as grey goat vs. brown goat instead of just a goat and another goat), not because losing over a particular goat makes any difference to the contestant or to the impact of their second-round choice( it doesn't), but rather because, despite being irrelevant to the final answer, giving Monty a choice when the contestant's first door is correct, that he doesn't have if it's incorrect, doubles the incidence of the former within the set of possible event sequences leading up to the second choice.

So the experts are wrong, there really is an equal chance regardless of strategy; BUT you were also wrong if you arrived at that 50% value via 1/2 doors winning or 2/4 sequences in which the final answer is right, because it's actually 4/8 sequences( since 4 of the 12 total permutations would include Monty opening the winning door and are thus not actual possibilities).( Props to vos Savant for recognizing where the error arises, despite committing a very similar one there herself.)

—D.R.T.Y. whiz E.M.

*this might be where MvS made her mistake: since Monty always has a choice of 2 doors to open, and never opens the door with the car, her r.r.c.d.-stricken brain may've fudged that that as eliminating half of the 12 permutations—in fact, it only eliminates half of the possibilities in which the door with the car wasn't initially chosen, but since the car was chosen in one-third of them, only half of the other two-thirds are eliminated, NOT half of all permutations… then she could have combined her misunderstanding of this fact with her determination that 50% was a wrong answer and focused on the 3 initial choices to work out a way in which ⅔ vs. ⅓ seemed to be correct, all because of r.r.c.d.

National Coming Out Day: Make It Better

It’s National Coming Out Day, so as usual, here’s the essay I wrote in 2010( slightly edited). Take time today to embrace honesty & stand in solidarity. You CAN make a difference for yourself, someone you know – or maybe someone you've never met who needs it most of all. Many of us know now that it gets better, but we must never forget the times before that; and it’s now up to us to MAKE it better for those who come next.

NATIONAL COMING OUT DAY: MAKE IT BETTER

By Ethan Miguel S.

I’m gay, i.e., a homosexual; from a Greek root prefix meaning “like” or “same”, it indicates that I am primarily attracted to people of my own sex & gender( in my case, a male attracted to other males). I suspect you knew this( otherwise, please go to the service center & get your gaydar checked out), but in honor of National Coming Out Day, I thought I’d say it again today.

In light of the recent rise of gender issues in the media & public discourse, I will also state that I am cisgender, even though this state( from a prefix meaning “on the near side of” & indicating a psychological gender consistent with one’s biological sex as seen physically at birth or evident genetically) is the assumed default and does not require a ‘coming out’ per se.

As long as transgender( from a prefix meaning “across” and denoting discord between one's biological sex & gender identity) people are treated as secondary or as “not really” the men/women they know themselves to be, to highlight the absurdity of not accepting them as such( or not accepting the uncertainty of those who question) I will happily also take the time to be explicit regarding the relationship between my biological sex & my gender identity, despite that such information is generally not a legitimate concern of anyone other than oneself, one's sexual partners, and medical personnel treating one.

I also encourage everyone, from not queer to completely out, to take a step today:

If you are mostly or completely closeted, come out to at least one new person, or a whole social circle; step into the light & breathe the sweet air of freedom.

If you are already largely out, but maybe not entirely, I challenge you to make it official & complete, to set an example for those who will come after you—“But,” you say, “it’s just a part of who I am, and besides, it’s not most people’s business.”—well, maybe it SHOULD be: if you think it’s not important, consider how your reluctance looks to those living in fear; after all, if it’s really as unimportant as you claim, if you honestly are not just afraid, then why not mention it? and do so even to those distant coworkers, today[ or this week], when you have an excuse, no, an important REASON to come out, instead of continuing to let it fall by the wayside? You may give one of them the courage to join you in the light.

If you are totally out & self-accepting( or just a cis, hetero, GLBTQ ally), remind those you know who are closeted that wherever & whenever they come out, be it today, this week, or in 20 years, there are people like you who have( seen or) been through it before, and will be there to support them & show them unconditional love.

Finally, to those really stuck in a situation that requires you to remain closeted for reasons of physical safety, unable to tell anyone or live as your true self yet today, but at least somehow seeing this… I promise, it gets better. Hang in there. Someday, you will find the place where you can be you, and know you & show your truth to others, and I know you will be amazing. *hugs*

Know that I am here for all of you, as much as I can be. If you have a problem, you can ask for my assistance, always. I will do what I reasonably can, and in return I only require that you be willing to pay it forward.

♥

Verbatim

I have a large vocabulary, and I tend to use a lot of carefully chosen words. This isn't about “looking smart” or “looking educated” and it certainly not about how I, as a person, compare to anyone else in any way. It's about trying to express myself very specifically to reduce the chances of being understood. Especially in today's world when a growing portion of the population seems to suffer from alexithymia. I believe imprecise words selection is part of the signal conflict that has led to some common confusion over certain feelings. I'd like to clear up a few of those, if I could, by explaining various concepts and suggesting the precise terminology that could help to keep them clear:

Love is NOT indemnity, nor is it obedience, nor is it obligation; and it's certainly not permission nor any kind of blank cheque.

Gratitude is also not obedience, nor is it a debt incurred, nor any other transaction.

Just as apology is not restitution, forgiveness is not absolution.

Resentment is the opposite of gratitude, and hatred the opposite of respect; neither constitutes an opposite to love.

Modesty is bullshit, humility is essential.

We all have to make sacrifices, but no one should ever be sacrificed.

Needs of many outweigh needs of few or of one; but a need, even of only one, outweighs even unanimous desire.

THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS AL[L]TOGETHER.

Can People Change? Here's My 2¢

Talking with a friend about Greta Thunberg( the teenage girl who took the United Nations General Assembly to task for betraying the environment while only “talk[ing about…] fairytales of eternal economic growth”), he indicated that the problem is getting people to change and opined that the key is getting them to want to. I responded: “It's definitely a component but I don't think it's the key, because it's really not a tricky thing at all. If you think it through, it's relatively straightforward that most people do want to change, or at least they're completely willing to change themselves in order to change the things they don't like about their lives; look at the prevalence of[…] goal-setting techniques and apps, New Year's resolutions...”.

I've been reflecting lately on one of the most profound examples of a change I've personally witnessed, and the role I played in it:

When I was a little boy, my mother, in addition to her in-home psychotherapy practice, worked one day a week in a clinical setting some 20–30 miles from home, close to the city. So on Tuesdays, because my father shouldn't be trusted to prepare items intended for human consumption, the three of us always ate out. As a result, despite that I don't easily make eye contact, "please" and "thank you" to people I don't know for the services they perform became ingrained, and this was reinforced by the discussion around tipping and constant open acknowledgement by my white-collar parents( both from blue-collar childhood backgrounds) of how hard people work in service industries.

So when I wound up in drug rehab, despite my distress over the completely inappropriate situation( I wasn't actually using drugs at all by that time), from the first time I went up to the cafeteria counter to get a plate of food added to my lunch tray, I naturally said "thank you" to the workers behind it. I was slightly taken aback by the lack of a response, but knowing I mumble sometimes, I decided to use my trained ability to project my voice and make sure that I was heard the next time. At dinner that same day, I was definitely heard—a row of heads jerked up from looking down at the food and stared at me like I had three. So I smiled at them and went to sit down. Over the next several meals they got used to me saying it. Maybe they even talked about it after the lunchroom cleared, who knows? Sometimes, there was no response, sometimes they mumbled without looking up.

Finally, about three or four days after I arrived, they were serving something with a choice of side, so when they asked me “[A] or [B]?” I said “[B] please.”, and a hearty thank you after the worker scooped what I suspected was an extra-large helping onto my plate. And she looked me full in the face, smiled back and said "You're welcome. Enjoy!". You could almost hear the dam breaking, and never again did silence meet my thanks.

On any given day, at least 85% of the people eating in that cafeteria don't want to be there. I can understand that a lot of them have trouble feeling or expressing gratitude in a situation like that, and some of them are petty or serious criminals, so I also get why staff are wary. There are always staff members st the entrances and exit of the cafeteria keeping an eye on the "clients", including next to the kitchen entryway by the counter window. The one guarding that door that day and helping to hand out dessert also smiled and put an extra cookie in my bowl, and later I heard him talking to a clinician about how strange and encouraging it was to see the invisible wall breaking down between the kitchen and the dining room since I had come. Even though I didn't need to be there for the given reasons, it's one reason to be grateful for the experience.

I was stuck at the Men's Addiction Treatment Center for 3 weeks, I was on the "good" ward, the one with the least behavior problems, and I commented on these cafeteria happenings to some of my friends, who started to emulate me. We were paired with the detox unit for meals, so as people in my unit left and people on the detox rotated out to other units, newcomers that I befriended over meals started coming to stand in line by me and picked up the habit. By the time I left, while not everybody was engaging, I can say for sure that the counter and window was a lot less of a quiet, get-your-meal-and-find-your-seat area than when I arrived. Clients were looking at the workers and workers were looking them in the face, exchanging thank you and you're welcome and sometimes smiles in a place that needed more smiles.

It's not something I set out to do, and it's not something that those workers or the other commited men were looking for from me. But change happened, and it grew, and that tells me that people in hard situations are willing and even happy to adapt, they just need a way to believe that the world around them can be better and they can be a part of that.

Riddle Me This

What can someone else have for you, and give to you, without it ever becoming yours?

Something that many of us can name long before we know the first thing about its nature. Something you can receive constantly for years, yet you may never have any, nor really even know what it is, until you find you have some that's not for you—but instead for someone else; often for someone whose you've never expected yourself to have, and still might not. When you have it for anyone else, it's always yours, that you still have no matter whom you give it to.

What can go unseen by those to whom it is shown, and often remains unknown to they whom it is made for?

It's the most difficult thing in the world to show to those who don't know what it looks like( but think they do), even though they most need to see it; most difficult to give to those who don't have it and most need it, even though you won't lose it and most people want to receive it.

The thing most important to keep showing & giving; even to those who might never see it nor have any for themselves, let alone have any to show or give to you & others.

(Hints in the comments.)

Happy Pride

Frankly, this "straight pride" hullabaloo here in Boston is a blessing in disguise, especially happening now, on the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots! As the millennial generation rises and post-millenial Gen Z comes of age, what Pride is and isn't is really unclear to a lot of baby gays—let alone their straight, cisgender classmates and other contemporaries. This is a chance to help understanding blossom, for them and everyone who's too young to remember things older generations can never forget—not only Stonewall, but Matthew Shepard. A chance to clue in those born into a world where Pulse made major news as a mass shooting but not by forcing a taboo subject to every front page & making us understand why we can't afford to be silent, about what Pride means.

A chance to explain: that the Gay Pride celebration tradition is VERY gay, but it's not at all about being gay. It's about being a diverse, vibrant community of good folks, that for 50 years now, has stood up and fought back against an age-old prejudice that has no basis in reality now that humanity has gone from small dwindling tribes to nearly overloading the carrying capacity of Earth.

Being gay isn't an achievement, but being a community of individuals thriving in the face of persecution is.

If you want to have your own pride, how about poor people pride? Poor people go through a lot of shit too and don't really get recognition or time to celebrate what makes the economic working-class so special in constant endurance and rising triumph. Unlike this prospective Straight Pride, Poor People Pride would actually be a worthwhile event/recognition festival.

Cracks in the Ice

About 9 months after my friend Sean passed away, I started to watch the videos I took at his memorial service... I watched Susan, and was a little taken aback to find the story she'd told was different from my vivid memory of what she'd said that day( the type of Mexican facility in question and mode of boarding the truck in which he crossed the border stand out as drastic changes); then I skipped forward to watch myself, and had to stop, feeling suddenly ill at what I heard.

 I had never realized that, because of the particular wording, all the things I said( link) in trying to convey that I was in awe of him, *could* be read in another, self-aggrandizing way to belittle him. But that pompous, mocking interpretation is undeniably what I watched “myself” doing in the video... for about 20 seconds. Over the course of a few more tries, I was too overwhelmed to get through it, but I did comfort myself remembering how afterwards, his friends treated me with a level of kindness I very much doubt they'd have been able to muster if I'd really sounded like that on that day.

  But what, then, is this video? It’s real. It's here on my hard drive; if you know me in person, just ask and I'll show you. It's like a funhouse mirror nightmare. To start out, the “me” on camera snaps at the woman standing next to him to hold the device with a vague, rude imperative bark of the noun, followed by an annoyed re-iteration at her confusion. Actual me had asked her ahead of time between two prior speakers, since I was the only one recording it.

  He… I… then proceed(s) to make myself sound like I think I'm the best thing that ever happened to Sean, which I doubt anyone except Sean himself ever said, nor do I think anyone ever believed it( he said it in a spirit of something akin to affectionate exaggeration). “My” reading in the video almost comes across more like an audition monologue to play Mitt Romney or Donald Trump than as any kind of heartfelt personal remembrance.

  It was another 4 years before I finally managed to MAKE myself power through the whole thing. I did so whilst rereading it aloud as intended, in counterpoint to that somehow-parodized delivery—to prevent myself from crying in horror & shame & a sense of failing my friend; instead my tears were hot and angry. I had to pause the video and breathe a few times because, as much as I didn't want it to sink in, I couldn't sustain letting it all pile up.

  I don't understand how or why this was done, but although my two mutual acquaintances with him( one who'd joined us on a particularly lazy afternoon, the other being the one who alerted me to his passing & got me into the habit of referring to him by his surname) both flaked on the day of the memorial, I'm confident that the available recording could not, as I mentioned earlier, be a representation of the actual events: it would have never even permitted the sympathy & warmth shown to me after, much less encouraged the lovely conversations. But... where did this version come from, then? How?

I Use

New poem. As with most of my non-musical verse, it's screaming uselessly for my father to hear me, as even that cursory regard seems to fade. See if you can spot allusions to the other two I have up in this blog.

I Use[ sic]

I used to think a lot of things, I guess I know better now;

I used to think you'd always hold the sky up; wondered how

you stood with all that weight.

I used to think a lot of things, knew/was so little then;

I used to think the world & I could live as honest men,

but who even believes?

I used to think I'd never see from a vantage good as you'd;

I used to think that'd be worth it, that you held what was true.

You had never even found it.

I used to think we could punctuate to bring about proper ends;

I never thought I'd be destroyed by all my oldest friends.

Just so you know: I didn't[/don't]

IDEA: S.H.E.L.T.E.R.

…a Society for Helping to Enhance Lives via Temperature Equilibrium Retention.

“Until everyone gets to go home somewhere, we all need to have S.H.E.L.T.E.R. in our lives.”

  Shelter is one of the basic needs for human survival. Why is that exactly? I got to thinking about this recently( I’ll tell you why in a bit). Well, we need some place where we can stay warm and dry, or cool and dry, but not so dry as to become dehydrated. So what shelter really represents for us, in essence, is the ability to regulate & stably maintain the temperature of our bodies and possibly the relative humidity in the immediate surroundings, so that we don’t lose too much moisture, nor get wind-whipped and lose too much heat, nor be baked alive by the sun, or waterlogged from precipitation which changes nervous system response to prioritize balance & tactile sensitivity & thus interfes with autonomic reactions such as immune function at the same time as it provides a favorable environment for microorganisms we don't encounter otherwise.

Shelter is our means to avoid exposure to extremes of temperature, humidity, and atmospheric disturbance; the more we mitigate those extremes the less we feel the want of shelter when denied such by circumstances.

  Thursday night I got stuck out close to midnight. I’d forgotten my wallet and my phone died. It was a long way home. A much longer way than I ever anticipated going on foot, and the cold so much deeper than it seemed at first; although my nice leather jacket and just a pair of cargo pants were sufficient to keep my legs and torso warm, my double-gloved hands & bare face, slashed by the winds tearing down every long straight road, felt cold like I’ve never experienced before. My toes too, when three layers of socks were finally soaked through; and the cold infiltrated to my core as I tried to warm my extremities and chilled blood flooded back towards my heart. I shivered harder than I ever had, and I would say the pain just from the cold was probably at 6. I typically don’t rate pain higher than that, and reserve 7 for bad sprains, the kind that mean possible hairline fractures. When I had a stomach ulcer, that was my only 9.

  Some people have to live in that environment. I was very aware of them as I made the long trek home—a couple miles in weather that when I got home, Google Home told me was 11°F. The last half-mile was hardest, sobbing aloud and struggling at every street corner to push myself past the wind and to another moment of shelter in a doorway. I had minor frostbite, and the heat after I got inside bardly seemed to touch me. I just curled up in bed, half-dressed still, and cried from the pain for another half hour until I fell asleep. I woke up Friday still a little cold all through my body. While it’s true that I feel a sensation a hell of a lot more acutely and deeply than most, that’s not even the coldest New England gets in winter, and even for those who become acclimated, it’s still not healthy, let alone comfortable. I almost cried again thinking of them, and I wondered, “What can I do about this? What can WE do about this, those of us who are lucky enough to have four walls and a roof and maybe heating & air conditioning?”

  S.H.E.L.T.E.R. is what I came up with mulling it over for about an hour or so Friday morning. At first I was thinking, “What I WANT to do is run—brrr, well maybe take an Uber—right out and buy scarves & hats & lightweight gloves or glove liners—the kind that work with touch screens, because I know that my homeless friends rely on their phones to coordinate where they might be able to go, but taking off winter gloves and exposing skin is how my hands got cold despite layers.” I figured, “I’ll put them in my bag and distribute them to panhandlers and others who look cold and clearly have nowhere to go. …why just me? This is way too big for one person alone.

  “What about a group? An organization, something people can volunteer for, yeah. What do I call it? Shelter, because that’s what I needed with the wind clawing at my skin; can I make a good backronym? Starts with an S, so probably Society, it’s got a t so that’s going to be Temperature, Temperature E.R.... Equilibrium Retention! S.H. Society for Helping E.L., Helping to... Enhance Lives. So easy and perfect it’s almost like fate; the Society for Helping to Enhance Lives via Temperature Equilibrium Retention, S.H.E.L.T.E.R..

  “Yeah: collect donations, buy & give to each participant the things we’ll carry to distribute and help keep the needy warm—O.K., warm’s great in the winter, but, it’s February; winter might get fierce for a little while, but then will be gone. So what about summer? Well, personal cooling? O.K., sun visors, personal electric fans, those neck cooling things you fill with cold water. For the fans, maybe rechargeable batteries so they don’t have to buy new ones and aren’t constantly adding significant volume to landfills—but also interchangeable; volunteers could charge them at home on charging bases then take them out and swap them with people who already had the fans but with batteries run down and no place to plug in. So maybe instead of working out of our own normal bags, distribute bags with a logo to help spread the word and to be identifiable to people who need us. Yeah, but just a lightweight bag that can be folded up and put in a pocket or a regular bag after running out so that people won’t be disappointed or harass volunteers who need to restock.”

  “So, what else to do to spread the word? And how to prevent abuse? That is, prevent people from, say, trying to pose as homeless so they can collect and resell the items. O.K., so what if the price of getting something from a S.H.E.L.T.E.R. volunteer is a geotagged-&-time/datestamped selfie together for our website? We can post them on a photo-map thingy like panoramio. Smiles of people whose lives are improved by S.H.E.L.T.E.R. makes a great visual aid for potential donors; at the same time, this allows us to keep track and make sure somebody isn’t getting dozens of handouts over the course of a single day or week, and socially it’s very unlikely that people who don’t actually need it would want to be seen online taking handouts, let alone publicly outed as defrauding a charity.

  “This also prevents our volunteers from abusing the same way; by requiring any reported giveaway that isn’t matched to a photo to be reimbursed before they are afforded more supplies, and in the digital age the photo can be tagged. If we commission a smartphone app, a computer system could even automatically keep track of their supply and when they need to restock, and maybe if the photos are auto-uploaded, if anything happens to a volunteer, we have some idea of where he or she last distributed items.”

  That’s where I stopped. I’m an idea guy, but the nitty-gritty of organizing anything is something I can only manage in short bursts, which I currently have to devote mostly to scrambling for some kind of personal individual future; after suffering a long string of failure, augmented by massive losses beyond my control, my life right now is more of a mess than ever, and my resources are less than ever.

  My source of funds is gone, my retirement/backup plan is gone, most of the links to the better part of my social life are gone, the people I love most are distant and falling away( old, or sick, or in jail, or status unknown), and my stable home & sole investment is going( since returning in June I've burned through around 17–18% of my equity, and barely replaced what I’d guess to be 40% of essentials, 10% of all lost).

  Still, it’s a nice idea, S.H.E.L.T.E.R., one of those “If I had a million dollars...” things, and I thought I’d share.