Reading Great Books: Absorb, Align or Awaken?

That Good-Books-Are-Good-For-You Study

A recent Huffington Post article summarizing a study published in Science suggests that reading literary fiction improves our ability to 'read minds' and so better navigate our inter-personal worlds.

The authors of the study "designed five related experiments.  In each...subjects...read 10-15 pages of either literary or popular writing" (Chekhov or Danielle Steel)  Then, "when participants finished their excerpts, they took tests designed to measure" mind reading.  "in one test...(readers) looked at a face for 2 seconds and decided whether the person appeared happy, angry, afraid, or sad."  In another, "they saw only a small slice of a face and picked from four complex emotions such as "contemplative" and "skeptical"."

"Those who read "literary" works scored significantly higher...than those who read popular selections."

But what are the tests measuring?  The absorbing of goodness, a mental realignment or the awakening of mindfulness?

One of the study's authors is quoted as believing the results "show that fiction's power doesn't hinge on exposing readers to foreign viewpoints or offering a persuasive, empathetic message. "For us, it's not about the content.  It was about the process.""  In other words, the ability to fathom or figure out an ambiguously sketched description or relationship.

But couldn't the study be proving something else?  That our minds are temporarily realigned by stories imbued with wonder and power.  And that this heightened mental state makes it easier to do well on just about anything, including tests that gauge our ability to 'mind-read'.  If this is the case, literary fiction's effect is generated by both process and content.

I'm reminded of a poorly designed piece of 'modern art' that reaches for the ambiguity sauce and comes away with a recipe devoid of the savory.

Which is why this study, and others that might be imagined, are at the mercy of well-chosen, powerful content.

As for whether literary fiction has a temporary or lasting effect on our minds, like everything else in life, the effect is probably most intense initially, wanes over time, but can be compounded.

Victuals For All

Nutrition Saves $$

If we all agree that everyone-getting-enough-to-eat is worth taxpayer dollars, what's the best way forward?  As it is now, SNAP provides 48 million Americans with free food.  And Republicans in congress want to reduce that number.  They say recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on what used to be called 'food stamps'--in 2000, the number was only 17 million.

A recent blog post by the economist Paul Krugman shows that this increase is nearly all related to the declining fortunes of the poor.  As the economy skewed in favor of the rich during the Bush years, and then collapsed, the increased use of SNAP benefits became a major part of society's safety net.  While there was an additional expansion beyond this, it was due to a legislative change that saw government agencies seek out those eligible for assistance, **  rather than wait for the needy to discover they qualified.
** Making sure kids get enough to eat reduces the need for future spending many times over.

The case for reduced spending now, on the other hand, points to a small loophole that could be tightened, and to the need to tie benefits to work requirements for able-bodied and childless working-age adults.

A slight tightening of eligibility, to screen out those with ample assets but little income, might be a legitimate point for congressional give-and-take, but without a strong economy, work requirements are simply cruel.

Another Republican plan to fix SNAP, proposed by Tennessee congressman Phil Roe, an MD, would be to limit recipients to healthier foods, using guidelines devised for the WIC (women, infants and children) program.  The thinking here is that healthier eating will reduce the need for spending on Medicaid, not to mention healthier lives led.

Under the Roe proposal, the list of excluded groceries under SNAP (alcohol, tobacco, pet food and other non-food items) would be expanded so that only the healthiest basics are covered: juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits, veggies, whole wheat bread, grains, tortillas, canned fish, legumes, soy products and peanut butter.

There are several potential problems with this 'fix':
   * higher quality foods can often be more expensive
   * cooking can be near-impossible for someone who works several jobs
   * many poor live in 'food deserts' where mainly low quality, processed foods are available

Yet another approach that seeks similar, healthier results is to reward recipients for buying fruits and veggies (a 30% rebate) rather than prohibiting the purchase of unhealthy foods. ** 
** see HIP article, below

All these ideas require buy-in from store checkout clerks.  This can be especially difficult for smaller stores whose inventory is not automated.  One way around this problem would be to use the existing label requirement for organic foods, so that any product with an organic icon would qualify.

My own take:
   * don't scale back benefits now, as the poor need all the help they can get
   * do limit SNAP benefits to WIC categories and foods labeled 'organic'
           * high quality food = more expensive -- sorry, a bag of rice and one of beans along with fresh fruits and veggies is going to be fairly cheap
           * grant waivers for those working more than 40-hour weeks
           * grant waivers for low-mobility recipients 
   * implement the 30% rebate for fresh fruits and veggies

Politically, there might actually be room for agreement on a package like this.  Democrats would succeed in retaining near-current funding levels and a new 30% off for produce.  Republicans would claim victory too; their expectation, most likely, would be that once eligible food is limited to the nutritious, there's sure to be a decrease in program participation.

The Problem
Background information
HIP article

In The Public Eye

Snoopsters Ahoy!

As I've mentioned previously, I work for the Post Office, and so handle other people's personal information on a daily basis.  This means I avoid looking at or telling others about the information I'm exposed to.  For example:

   * I don't read postcards

   * I avoid talking about what little information I do know; if a letter from the IRS requires a signature, for instance, I like to skate around the obvious when handling the transaction

   * If I leave a package at the door of an apartment building, I turn the label toward the wall so the neighbors aren't unnecessarily informed of a person's name

This all surfaced in my mind as the nation came to grips with government spying on our communications, both foreign and domestic.  We've recently learned that a record of all telephone calls, for example, is kept, that can be accessed, if needed, for national security purposes.

Which raises the question of what's more important, privacy and a faith in the direction history will take, or security and the likelihood of less violence--especially terrorism?

Actually, there is little choice, politically, since there are many in the public realm who choose to focus on security and in a way that willfully overplays the risk involved.  Which often results in voters who are afraid for their safety more than they are concerned about their privacy.

And yet the dialectic of history would suggest that gradually, as fewer terrorists acts flow from increased security, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction.  We shall see.

Robot-istan

Where's My Robot Taking Me?

Kevin Drum, an unusually able blogger at Mother Jones, has written about the likelihood of artificial intelligence soon outperforming the human brain.

The article's first page suggests that this may be but several decades away.  In the second, Drum deals with the implications.

If robots of the future can do the work that humans can, faster and more accurately and just as easily, what becomes of a society organized around the idea that everyone works for a living?

Drum suggests that we can head in two different directions as super-smart robots do more and more of our work for us: either we ramp up the redistribution of wealth, so that even if only a few of us actually work, we still all enjoy the ride, or, all but the few who own robots will be unemployed.

Ah, but isn't their a third possibility?  That the economy bifurcates into two parts: the super-efficient, robot-run, money-making machine that pays for national security, the welfare state, etc., and a secondary, artisanal, more locally-sourced economy that crafts and creates, as opposed to mass produces.

This secondary scene would likely center around the arts in their broadest sense: in areas where the primary focus is on relaxation, entertainment, the natural world and artistic expression.  Much of the initial support for these areas might have to be from visitors, although wealthy patrons, foundations and inherited wealth would also likely play a part.  

Any takers?

Good For The Goose Is A Fattened Gander

Subsidized Elbow Grease

The Republican-controlled House recently passed a Farm Bill that expanded government assistance for most farmers (those that grow corn, soy, wheat, sugar, cotton, for the most part) and there have been fingers pointing at lobbying by corporate agriculture as the cause.

Several writers, including Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, wonder how farmers, who represent 1% or 2% of the population, can have such a large impact on public policy.  Here are a few reasons why, aside from corporate lobbying:

  * the farm economy is much larger than the total number of farmers; think workers for John Deere, ADM and Monsanto, not to mention the small-town stores and service providers whose customers are often farmers

  * if you live away from metropolitan areas, chances are you transit through agricultural areas, and the intuitive effect is to subconsciously judge farmland as taking up many times more geographical area than developed land, so that the importance of the farm economy is likewise seen as larger than it in fact is

  * there is something in our social fabric that identifies with the farmer and makes his case easier to make: not so long ago--maybe 100 years, maybe a little more--a majority of our ancestors were making a living based on what thet could grow and what thet could make from the things that were grown in their community

All of which happen to zero in on the Republican party's sweet spot: rural voters, especially those who own land or a business as a sole proprietor.  Little wonder, then.

Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise in Game Design

Progressivism Comes To TV Bills

I looked at my satellite TV bill recently and was surprised to see it had climbed another few rungs on its way to $100-a-month.

Like everyone else who pays for TV (cable or satellite), I'm essentially offered three or four levels of programming, with the cheapest not including one particularly watched channel and the most expensive shoveling every last unwatchable offering at me.

Lately, there's been talk in Congress of forcing pay TV to offer customers a la carte programming where consumers pick and pay for only those channels they watch.  This has seemed like a sensible change to most, until they hear about the consequences.  Only a few sadsacks would pay for channels like the Home Shopping Network, for example, meaning less revenue for channel bundlers and so, higher rates.  In other words, we'd likely lose the smaller, less mainstream channels and end up paying about the same price, but for less content.

So, why is this an exercise in game design?  Because both sides to the question assume it's either / or; that there's no middle ground.

And yet additional alternatives are possible.  For example, if subscribers were offered either 3/6/9/12, 15 or 'all', channels of their choosing, let's say, and at those levels cable / satellite companies were able to add in, say, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 channels of their choosing (essentially, these extras would be "Look at what you're missing."), everyone would get most of what they wanted.

Most importantly, consumers would feel like they were picking and choosing.

Perhaps just as important, the basic rate for picking just three channels would likely be lower than it is now for a basic package.  This would be a great boon for families that can't afford to pay for more.

And the cable and satellite companies would be able to offer channel companies they bargain with access to what would become the much desired 10, 20, 30... temporary, free slots.  These would then be juggled periodically, giving providers bargaining chips.

Ideally, a bite would be taken out of corporate profits, while those who can afford all the channels would pay more and those who are economizing would pay less.

Update: A contrarian take from the Atlantic

2nd Book Read

2nd In A Series: Citizenville, by Gavin Newsom

Here's another book I ordered--this time new--and have read with some interest.

The author, former mayor of San Francisco and present Lt. Governor of California, identifies a desired transparency in government and the eventual public participation this will engender, as a new way forward for politics.

For example, if a city posts online all the information it gathers, citizens can then make use of the elements that interest them, and like app developers, the most popular compilations and uses rise to the top (a list of the oldest trees in the city, for instance, would be big with me).  All without a top-down approach that does the compilation and distribution on the taxpayer dime.

An approach that should appeal to Republicans (Newsom is a Democrat)!

The book's title is a reference to the online game Farmville that sees players caring for their imaginary rural spreads.  The author reasons that such a popular game suggests citizens would be happy to do something of the same thing in their own neighborhoods if given the chance at stewardship.

Excellent, except that if you've read my take on the eventual hook-up of public and polling, you'll know that rewarding the best new idea to be generated by a given neighborhood doesn't come close to the potential behind the thinking public mind, which is what I propose.