A few mornings ago, on my way to work, I was thinking about just how far the Internet has come. I was one of the early users of the Internet, not when it was still brand new, but just before it started to become popular. In the United States, home Internet access started being proliferated around 1995/'96, but it was still a few years before most homes had it (I think my family got connected in early 1997). When I got to college, the Internet had become pretty mainstream, but the available resources were a tiny fraction of what we enjoy today, and you didn't have the sort of quality control that we now sort of take for granted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00
Anyway, I did a lot of my research on the Internet, even back when most professors (particularly my history professors) were still pushing students to use books and articles from "scholarly journals", the former of which were difficult to get a hold of, and the latter of which were nearly impossible to identify and procure. I remember writing a research paper for one particular course, and being gently hounded by the good-natured but skeptical professor. Ironically, he's been one of the department members who's come to embrace the online format for his curricula, but at the time he was very reticent to accept work that relied on Internet resources. In particular, I remember him being extremely suspicious of an article I'd used as a source (Roman Ireland: What did the Romans ever do for us?, Damien DeBarra, 27th July 2002) because it was "from a site called 'Blather net'". It actually ended up being a pretty critical resource, particularly because it pointed me to other articles by distinguished scholars whom the author, having worked at the archaeology museum of the National Museum of Ireland, had been intimately acquainted with.
Fast forward to 2013, and very nearly all of my postgraduate research was conducted online. I read a few traditional textbooks, particularly before leaving the States for Aberdeen; and I got a handful of hard copy books that were out of print and unavailable online to use as sources in my dissertation; but aside from that, the vast majority of my research for my four courses and my dissertation was done online. I used some of these techniques to achieve great success. I got news and journal articles online, I raided multiple document repositories for (publicly available) official and academic sources, I incorporated tons of news stories. And, of course, my advisor didn't bat an eye.
I don't suppose I have a real point, aside from reminiscing about how revolutionary the information revolution actually is.
Sunday 22 February 2015
Thursday 19 February 2015
Thoughts on "Non-Monogamy" and Improving Marriage
So, there's this guy named Chris Messina. He's some sort of tech entrepeneur - Wikipedia describes him as an "open source advocate" - and he resides in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've only recently become aware of him, which I'll get into momentarily.
As I've aged, my personal views haven't changed substantially, but I've gotten consistently better at considering and tolerating the views of folks whose views are significantly different than my own. Chris Messina really strains my ability to do so. First, his claim to fame is popularizing the hashtag. While I recognize the technical ingenuity of hashtags, I'm pretty ambivalent about the net benefits of hashtags specifically and Twitter generally. Messina has recently gained additional media attention by discussing another topic that sort of makes me wince: his decision to eschew monogamy. In his recent op-ed at CNN, Messina says:
Messina's argument is essentially as follows:
Marriage is failing for fifty percent of Americans. As a result, either marriage needs to be fixed, or an alternative needs to be offered.
"Monogamy established itself thousands of years ago, when society was ruled by scarcity and resources and potential mates were in limited supply."
"'[O]pen relationships'... are merely rational economic responses to excess inventory and changing expectations of romance. Viewed in this context, conventional monogamy is getting long in the tooth."
That last item is the crux of his argument: because resource scarcity is no longer a significant motivator of monogamy, and because information technology has altered the supply/demand balance with respect to locating potential sexual/romantic/domestic partners, open (or non-monogamous, or "monogamish") relationships are a viable option.
I think I understand where Messina is coming from, though I don't agree with him. And beyond disagreeing with him, I think there are some fundamental flaws in his logic which, at the very least, are worthy of consideration should the debate on "non-monogamy" or "monogamish" or polyamorous relationships continue.
First and foremost, Messina's premise rests upon a demonstrably false, yet culturally pervasive, myth: fifty percent of American marriages do not fail. I actually saw Messina address this criticism by someone else in a comment thread, and he made the entirely legitimate observation that the actual divorce rate (somewhere in the mid- to high-thirtieth percentile) is still problematic. However, he seems to be extremely focused on this idea of jumping to an alternative, rather than the alternative: acknowledging the reasons why marriage remains the best option, identifying the reasons why its effectiveness has declined (albeit marginally) in recent decades, and providing solutions to address those challenges. (Without going off on a tangent, I feel like conservatives are always trying to make the case that progressive policies have undermined marriage, and progressives seem reticent to even consider those arguments.) In that quote above, Messina talks about being "solution-oriented", but from where I sit, Messina hasn't actually identified the root cause of the problem, nor has he provided a solution to that problem; instead, he's tried to dodge the problem entirely.
To put this into risk management terms, those of us in the security field are fond of pointing out that you can manage risk, you can mitigate risk, you can transfer risk, sometimes you can even avoid risk, but you can't eliminate it. Messina's solution of just avoiding monogamy altogether would seem to be an attempt at risk avoidance or, potentially, risk transference, but it doesn't seem to actually manage or mitigate the risks. And, in so doing, Messina is eschewing the benefits of monogamy generally, and marriage specifically. If I'm right, then I'm not sure how Messina's philosophy actually passes a cost/benefit analysis.
That brings me to my next point: Messina's history isn't accurate. Messina claims that "monogamy established itself thousands of years ago, when society was ruled by scarcity and resources and potential mates were in limited supply"; but, in fact, periods of limited supply have often driven polygamy and other forms of polyamory. For example, it's frequently provided as one of the justifications for why the Mormons practiced polygamy for several decades before abolishing the practice in the late 1800's. Messina's historical error is consistent with the prevailing view of social progress, but I've been far more frequently impressed with the adage from Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun" - as a practicing historian, I can say with a great deal of consequence that the line from Ecclesiastes is a lot more verifiable. In so doing, he makes a common mistake: he assumes that monogamy/marriage's historical popularity is not a function of its historical success. There's a fine line between questioning authority and tradition, and assuming falsely that they are automatically wrong. Beyond being based upon a skewed view of history, his philosophy seems to focus entirely on a flawed perception of historical economics, while ignoring (or at least omitting) other benefits of monogamy/marriage from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, law, and even more contemporary economics.
I also take some issue with one of Messina's opening observations:
For anyone who can't watch the video, here's the money quote:
I doubt that anyone told Messina that monogamy/marriage was effortless, but if someone ever did, they were doing him a great disservice. Monogamy isn't easy, and neither is marriage. However, I've always thought that the case for why they were preferable to the alternatives were pretty compelling. For these reasons, I've always been very keen to frame my relationship with Lady Jaye as being part of a team: we work together, we triumph together, we work to overcome challenges together, and although we could (and did) function adequately as individuals, we co-opt the opposition campaign's motto from the Scottish secession referendum by saying that we're "better together".
Ultimately, while I acknowledge that Messina (and my friend, and anyone else for that matter) has the right to choose whatever lifestyle they think suits them best, I'm underwhelmed by the intellectual case that Messina has presented to support his relationship philosophy. That said, I think that one point that he makes can be spun a bit to make a relevant point. Messina says:
As skeptical as I've been of the case that Messina makes for "non-monogamy", I wish both him and my friend happiness and success. And, although I'd have previously wished misfortune to befall Messina as karma for having introduced hashtagging to the masses, I'd be interested to do a point-counterpoint with him on this topic (though I suspect that I would be too busy to actually do that, and that he would also have other endeavours consuming his time).
As I've aged, my personal views haven't changed substantially, but I've gotten consistently better at considering and tolerating the views of folks whose views are significantly different than my own. Chris Messina really strains my ability to do so. First, his claim to fame is popularizing the hashtag. While I recognize the technical ingenuity of hashtags, I'm pretty ambivalent about the net benefits of hashtags specifically and Twitter generally. Messina has recently gained additional media attention by discussing another topic that sort of makes me wince: his decision to eschew monogamy. In his recent op-ed at CNN, Messina says:
"But as a child of divorce and an aspiring designer-entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, I was suspicious of marriage. Out here, we're data-positive and solution-oriented and if your product (i.e. marriage) is failing for 50% of your customers, then you need to fix it or offer something better."Messina has written previously about his preference for open relationships. I only came across his recent article in the first place by an odd twist of fate: his current girlfriend happens to be an acquaintance of mine, and she has posted and discussed the article and their relationship online. Otherwise, my sole exposure to Messina's views would have been through a recent segment on the Michael Medved Show, in which guest host Mark Davis was less gracious about Messina's column and views than Medved tends to be. My exposure by way of my friend gave me more reason to be invested in Messina's views, as well as reason to consider them in more detail than I would have otherwise.
Messina's argument is essentially as follows:
That last item is the crux of his argument: because resource scarcity is no longer a significant motivator of monogamy, and because information technology has altered the supply/demand balance with respect to locating potential sexual/romantic/domestic partners, open (or non-monogamous, or "monogamish") relationships are a viable option.
I think I understand where Messina is coming from, though I don't agree with him. And beyond disagreeing with him, I think there are some fundamental flaws in his logic which, at the very least, are worthy of consideration should the debate on "non-monogamy" or "monogamish" or polyamorous relationships continue.
First and foremost, Messina's premise rests upon a demonstrably false, yet culturally pervasive, myth: fifty percent of American marriages do not fail. I actually saw Messina address this criticism by someone else in a comment thread, and he made the entirely legitimate observation that the actual divorce rate (somewhere in the mid- to high-thirtieth percentile) is still problematic. However, he seems to be extremely focused on this idea of jumping to an alternative, rather than the alternative: acknowledging the reasons why marriage remains the best option, identifying the reasons why its effectiveness has declined (albeit marginally) in recent decades, and providing solutions to address those challenges. (Without going off on a tangent, I feel like conservatives are always trying to make the case that progressive policies have undermined marriage, and progressives seem reticent to even consider those arguments.) In that quote above, Messina talks about being "solution-oriented", but from where I sit, Messina hasn't actually identified the root cause of the problem, nor has he provided a solution to that problem; instead, he's tried to dodge the problem entirely.
To put this into risk management terms, those of us in the security field are fond of pointing out that you can manage risk, you can mitigate risk, you can transfer risk, sometimes you can even avoid risk, but you can't eliminate it. Messina's solution of just avoiding monogamy altogether would seem to be an attempt at risk avoidance or, potentially, risk transference, but it doesn't seem to actually manage or mitigate the risks. And, in so doing, Messina is eschewing the benefits of monogamy generally, and marriage specifically. If I'm right, then I'm not sure how Messina's philosophy actually passes a cost/benefit analysis.
That brings me to my next point: Messina's history isn't accurate. Messina claims that "monogamy established itself thousands of years ago, when society was ruled by scarcity and resources and potential mates were in limited supply"; but, in fact, periods of limited supply have often driven polygamy and other forms of polyamory. For example, it's frequently provided as one of the justifications for why the Mormons practiced polygamy for several decades before abolishing the practice in the late 1800's. Messina's historical error is consistent with the prevailing view of social progress, but I've been far more frequently impressed with the adage from Ecclesiastes that "there is nothing new under the sun" - as a practicing historian, I can say with a great deal of consequence that the line from Ecclesiastes is a lot more verifiable. In so doing, he makes a common mistake: he assumes that monogamy/marriage's historical popularity is not a function of its historical success. There's a fine line between questioning authority and tradition, and assuming falsely that they are automatically wrong. Beyond being based upon a skewed view of history, his philosophy seems to focus entirely on a flawed perception of historical economics, while ignoring (or at least omitting) other benefits of monogamy/marriage from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, law, and even more contemporary economics.
I also take some issue with one of Messina's opening observations:
Like most of my generation, I grew up spoon fed monogamist fairy tales that pushed "happily ever after" endings as though achieving one was preordained.I suppose that this is the version that a lot of popular culture presents. I differ with Messina's description of these as "monogamist fairy tales" - I think most of us know couples who have lived long, happy lives together, and who have weathered life's storms better because they had done so with a partner who was committed to sticking by them "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health". And, in fact, the standard, cliche vows that most people take when getting married imply the truth that I suspect most of us, even Messina, have learned either by being told or through observation: that relationships, and especially marriages, are hard work. They require sacrifice, discipline, patience, and compromise, none of which are a "monogamist fairy tale". I'm reminded of an episode of Friends, The One Where Joey Tells Rachel, which features this exchange:
It was like, once you found "the one" and stepped on to the relationship escalator, all the answers became clear -- so long as you kept your eyes on the prize and didn't stray (wait, what was the prize again?). You could spend your whole life living out this fantasy, blissfully ignorant that any other way might be possible, let alone desirable.
Monica: I don’t believe in soul mates either.I'm also reminded of an old discussion featuring economist Thomas Sowell:
Chandler: You don’t?
Monica: No. I don’t think that you and I were destined to end up together. I think that we fell in love and work hard at our relationship. Some days we work really hard.
For anyone who can't watch the video, here's the money quote:
"Married men get an extra bonus because their wives take care of many things and enable them to put more time into their careers."Now, Sowell participated in that discussion many years ago, so let's extrapolate it to a more contemporary setting: married men and married women get an extra bonus because they work together to take care of many things that enable both husband and wife to put more time into their careers.
I doubt that anyone told Messina that monogamy/marriage was effortless, but if someone ever did, they were doing him a great disservice. Monogamy isn't easy, and neither is marriage. However, I've always thought that the case for why they were preferable to the alternatives were pretty compelling. For these reasons, I've always been very keen to frame my relationship with Lady Jaye as being part of a team: we work together, we triumph together, we work to overcome challenges together, and although we could (and did) function adequately as individuals, we co-opt the opposition campaign's motto from the Scottish secession referendum by saying that we're "better together".
Ultimately, while I acknowledge that Messina (and my friend, and anyone else for that matter) has the right to choose whatever lifestyle they think suits them best, I'm underwhelmed by the intellectual case that Messina has presented to support his relationship philosophy. That said, I think that one point that he makes can be spun a bit to make a relevant point. Messina says:
We're now living in a period of great (though unequally distributed) abundance where our basic needs are sufficiently met, and reproduction is a choice. As a result, the reasons to be with a single mate for life are less urgent. And with the advent of connected mobile devices and the internet, we've entered into the era I've dubbed Big Dating.Messina is right that since most folks' basic needs are sufficiently met, the pressure to marry young is much less urgent than it once was, though I don't believe that this extends to less urgency to mate for life. I'm skeptical of his conception of "Big Dating", but what "the advent of connected mobile devices and the Internet" has altered is the scope of the supply. Demand remains essentially the same: with few exceptions, nearly everyone wants someone to have and to hold, and most people recognize the benefits of monogamy relative to its costs. However, the information revolution offers unprecedented access to the supply of potential mates. The Internet has made prospective mates easier to find, and with a much higher degree of selectivity. It's enabled people to maintain relationships which would have been difficult or impossible to maintain under earlier circumstances. I can say with some confidence that it's played a fundamental role in my relationship with Lady Jaye, and judging from twenty years of news stories, we're certainly not alone.
As skeptical as I've been of the case that Messina makes for "non-monogamy", I wish both him and my friend happiness and success. And, although I'd have previously wished misfortune to befall Messina as karma for having introduced hashtagging to the masses, I'd be interested to do a point-counterpoint with him on this topic (though I suspect that I would be too busy to actually do that, and that he would also have other endeavours consuming his time).
Wednesday 11 February 2015
Pry my Kindle from my Cold Dead Hands
I've seen a number of articles in the last few months about the apparent dangers of E-readers.
The case against e-readers: Why reading paper books is better for your mind.
Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say
Why you might want to ditch your e-reader and go back to printed books
Screen time 'harms teenagers' sleep'
As I alluded to in early January, most of the books I plan to read in 2015 are electronic editions. Don't get me wrong, I love traditional books, but at this phase of my life, some E-books are a better investment than their traditional editions. I've had to move, or sell, or just plain give so many books away in the last couple of years, and I've travelled so much, that E-books are pretty attractive to me. I also tend to read books that I want to be able to search later - for example, I searched for one single quote for months and months between around 2010 and 2013, and finally found it completely by accident while re-reading Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts on a whim - and my Kindle is fantastic for finding passages, whereas traditional books are borderline worthless for the same purpose. So, I'll probably continue using my Kindle on many occasions for the foreseeable future.
On a side note, I can't help but find it amusing that a newspaper which has been losing readership to the Internet and a state-operated media outlet with eroding market share are highlighting studies that say that you should avoid electronic screens.
As I alluded to in early January, most of the books I plan to read in 2015 are electronic editions. Don't get me wrong, I love traditional books, but at this phase of my life, some E-books are a better investment than their traditional editions. I've had to move, or sell, or just plain give so many books away in the last couple of years, and I've travelled so much, that E-books are pretty attractive to me. I also tend to read books that I want to be able to search later - for example, I searched for one single quote for months and months between around 2010 and 2013, and finally found it completely by accident while re-reading Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts on a whim - and my Kindle is fantastic for finding passages, whereas traditional books are borderline worthless for the same purpose. So, I'll probably continue using my Kindle on many occasions for the foreseeable future.
On a side note, I can't help but find it amusing that a newspaper which has been losing readership to the Internet and a state-operated media outlet with eroding market share are highlighting studies that say that you should avoid electronic screens.
Monday 2 February 2015
Operation Open Range Report: January 2015
I'm trying to pursue Operation Open Range with a vengeance in 2015. With January behind us, how did I do?
I met my reading goal by finishing Thomas Rid's Cyber War Will Not Take Place, but since I actually started reading it in early December before taking a long break, that accomplishment comes with a bit of an asterisk. I also read a few chapters of Mary Lynn Garcia's The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems in preparation for my Physical Security Professional exam later this year, but I should have made better progress. My goal for February is to finish reading P.S. Allfree's Warlords of Oman, as well as more chapters from Garcia. I don't think I'm as far through Warlords of Oman, which I also started reading before taking a long hiatus, so it should be a smaller asterisk at the end of February.
I got a bit of writing done, but again, not as much as I would have liked. I put in a couple of weekends doing some serious work on OGHAP, and started working on an article that I hope to submit to the Small Wars Journal some time this year. In February, that OGHAP work will continue in earnest, and I may try to take a few opportunities to continue sporadic work on that article.
I already mentioned that I'm slowly studying for my PSP. I also intend to read the U.S. Army's current physical security manual, which I'll also need to finish reading before I take my exam, and from which I may try to sneak a chapter here or there if end up with slack time at work. So, those few chapters in Garcia that I read in January count toward this, but I could have been more disciplined about it.
I'm also trying to make a much more concerted effort with my Arabic study this year. I did okay in my first week, and then not as good in all of the subsequent weeks. In February, I'll try to shift my agenda a bit and weasel time for Arabic throughout the day, rather than trying to leave time for it after work that inevitably ends up getting filled with exhausted Facebook browsing in lieu of productive work. (In February, I may be able to do a combination of the two.)
That leaves two categories: Physical Training (PT), and Tigerlily (my catch-all term for business development). PT is still To-Be-Determined for February, but in February I hope to start working on a sort of draft risk management field manual incorporating some of the skill sets I've developed over the years.If it's a bit warmer in my neck of the woods by late February than it was in December and January, I might be able to start getting a bit more exercise as well.
So, January left plenty of room for improvement, but February is going to be a great opportunity to implement some of those improvements.
I met my reading goal by finishing Thomas Rid's Cyber War Will Not Take Place, but since I actually started reading it in early December before taking a long break, that accomplishment comes with a bit of an asterisk. I also read a few chapters of Mary Lynn Garcia's The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems in preparation for my Physical Security Professional exam later this year, but I should have made better progress. My goal for February is to finish reading P.S. Allfree's Warlords of Oman, as well as more chapters from Garcia. I don't think I'm as far through Warlords of Oman, which I also started reading before taking a long hiatus, so it should be a smaller asterisk at the end of February.
I got a bit of writing done, but again, not as much as I would have liked. I put in a couple of weekends doing some serious work on OGHAP, and started working on an article that I hope to submit to the Small Wars Journal some time this year. In February, that OGHAP work will continue in earnest, and I may try to take a few opportunities to continue sporadic work on that article.
I already mentioned that I'm slowly studying for my PSP. I also intend to read the U.S. Army's current physical security manual, which I'll also need to finish reading before I take my exam, and from which I may try to sneak a chapter here or there if end up with slack time at work. So, those few chapters in Garcia that I read in January count toward this, but I could have been more disciplined about it.
I'm also trying to make a much more concerted effort with my Arabic study this year. I did okay in my first week, and then not as good in all of the subsequent weeks. In February, I'll try to shift my agenda a bit and weasel time for Arabic throughout the day, rather than trying to leave time for it after work that inevitably ends up getting filled with exhausted Facebook browsing in lieu of productive work. (In February, I may be able to do a combination of the two.)
That leaves two categories: Physical Training (PT), and Tigerlily (my catch-all term for business development). PT is still To-Be-Determined for February, but in February I hope to start working on a sort of draft risk management field manual incorporating some of the skill sets I've developed over the years.If it's a bit warmer in my neck of the woods by late February than it was in December and January, I might be able to start getting a bit more exercise as well.
So, January left plenty of room for improvement, but February is going to be a great opportunity to implement some of those improvements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)