Nature/Nurture 01 and Teaching 01: The Lima Bean Effect

The Lima Bean Effect, or Why You Should Like in advance of Actually Liking

When I was a little kid, I ate everything.  I used to think that this was because I was such an obedient child, intensely aware of what my mother didn't like and earnestly eager to please.  My mother had nothing but contempt for picky eaters, or rather for the mothers of picky eaters.  In her view, children naturally loved all foods and only expressed dislikes to manipulate their parents.  Over the years, I've realized she was wrong.  People's taste buds vary, like their hair color or the length of their limbs, even relative to other limbs.  (Some people really do have short arms and long legs, and it's not because their mothers made them run for everything and would never accept a hug.)

The fact is that I and my mother are blessed with good tongues: we are less sensitive to bitter tastes and probably more sensitive to sweetness.  Maybe we are also more tolerant of variations in texture.  My daughter is equally lucky. But she has a friend who won't eat fruit and dislikes almost all vegetables.  I can see rejecting romaine, but strawberries with sugar?  Something hard-wired in this girl’s tasting apparatus must be involved, especially if the only vegetable she'll touch is overcooked frozen broccoli.

But broccoli is not the subject here. Lima beans are. They were the exception that proved that I was not a perfect eater.  I really did not like them.  This was a problem because they were a not-infrequent vegetable offering during my childhood.  My mother knew about nutrition, so we always had fruit to start (fresh grapefruit or canned fruit cup), and then a protein source, a starch, and a vegetable.  It was before Atkins.  Also before great produce was sold in supermarkets and before frozen foods occupied a whole aisle.  Often my mother made a salad:  iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and those awful tomatoes sold in plastic-wrapped groups of 3 that we said were like cardboard, because styrofoam, although it had been invented by then, was not yet a household word.  Any non-salad vegetables came from cans:  canned spinach -- which I actually liked: it had a sour lemony quality and a soft slimy texture that was not like anything else -- or canned green beans or canned zucchini in tomato sauce (which I can still eat with gusto straight from the can).  When she could afford the splurge, my mother bought canned asparagus.  And for variety, she'd pick up a can of lima beans.

What to do about the lima bean problem?  I was a stubborn and hard-thinking child, with a preference for the elegant (in the mathematical sense).  Not for me to dump the beans in my lap when nobody was looking.  And I knew enough to know that confession and a plea for sympathy would have done no good at all.  There was only one solution: I declared that I loved lima beans, and waited to see what happened. 

What happened is that I do love lima beans.  Especially the tiny ones in cans.  But also the little dried ones that go into homemade beef barley soup.  Lima beans are a pleasure.  Thus I learned that sometimes a lie can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Fast forward to the early days of my later-in-life teaching career.  (At age 40 I became an adjunct law professor at Michigan, teaching patent law and sometimes copyright.)  In the first years, I would occasionally have a student who was very attentive, very eager, but basically a pain in the neck: interrupting, showing off separately-acquired knowledge, catching me if I misspoke.  The problem was, of course, that such students were also the smart ones, the ones who were going to go on in the field, the ones I'd be glad I'd had a chance to know before they conquered the world.  I decided to treat them like lima beans.  It worked.  I began to love them. I appreciated that they were keeping me on my toes, that because of them I was not only thinking more clearly and intensely but also enjoying the experience more deeply and doing a better job overall.  After a while, I internalized this process, and in later years I only noticed my students' lima characteristics in retrospect.  But I still remember my early crop of human beans vividly.  I am still in touch with them from time to time. They are the best.

Choosing to like, in advance of actually liking, is a good idea.

 -------------------------------

(The ideas for this essay were first committed to electrons in 2003; above is a minor revision from a September 2010 rewrite. 6/24/12: typo corrected.)

The Head Smack Series

I am an inveterate problem solver. I don't do it on purpose. Things just spring to my attention and, as soon as I notice them, I know a way to do them better. I name this characteristic “not being passive to information.” It may not be a sign of intelligence, but it’s how I am.

My problem with my problem-solving, if I may put it that way, is that my solving skills far exceed my convincing skills. This is frustrating. Cassandra has become my patron saint, when Methusaleh should be (ref: Gigi, “I’m Glad I’m Not Young Anymore,” lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner).

I find my ideas so obvious, so excellent, so simple-quick-inexpensive, that I figure that if I just tell the right person, ne will smack nis head and say, "You're so right. I'll make that happen immediately."

But my experience with Stanford, Google, San Mateo County, and other objects of my mental bounty is that my ideas are rarely implemented. I am tired of writing to folks up and down the org chart and not finding a head-smacker.

I have two theories. Both, I regret to say, are cynical or at least curmudgeonly.

But first I'll acknowledge that these head-smack solutions often solve problems that affect many, many people a little, little bit.  That is, each affected person faces an occasional, temporary irritation, not a life threat. I've thought about how this skews all aspects of the matter: from identifying the problem to solving it to redressing the detriments of not having solved it sooner. Our litigation-centered view of societal problems is part of the story. These ideas may appear in upcoming posts called Cost-Benefit Calculus: The Area under the Curve and Litigation: It's NOT the Tip of the Iceberg. Stay tuned.

The financially cynical theory is that simple-quick-inexpensive solutions to real problems provide no room for corruption: no kickbacks, no bribes, no expensive presents from grateful contractors.

The psychologically cynical theory is that power-loving or ambitious people -- which describes pretty much all the people I write to in the hopes of finding a head-smacker -- view such solutions as ignorable.

You know the cynical old saying "Anything worth doing is worth doing for money”? Well, today’s version, applicable to both profit-making organizations and non-, may be “Anything worth doing is worth holding a power meeting about."

If there is no opportunity for scheduling a meeting with people whose schedules are already very full, and no reason to write a lengthy and serious report, and no possibility of favorable publicity, within the institution or outside it, then why bother? The fact that the solution serves the organization’s goals and will keep it from looking ridiculous to anyone who is affected (albeit temporarily and not severely) is not sufficient incentive to act.

Oh well. I accept defeat -- at least as to the efficacy of writing suggestions to those apparently in charge. Instead, I'll channel my energies into the Head Smack series.

NE-NER-NIS (part 2) - LANGUAGE 02

As mentioned in a previous post, I've created a trio of neuter singular pronouns, as follows:

NE: subject pronoun. Replaces he, she, he or she, they, or one.
NER: object pronoun. Replaces him, her, him or her, them, or one.
NIS: possessive pronoun. Replaces his, her, hers, his or her, his or hers, their or theirs, or one's.

These pronouns can be used for persons (or animals or robots) of unknown, unspecified, or irrelevant gender.

WHY NER, and not NIM, for the OBJECT PRONOUN

Some people tell me they'd prefer NIM for the OBJECT pronoun. I explain that I thought about that, too, before I rejected it in favor of NER for OBJECT and NIS for POSSESSIVE.

Principle #1. Gender Equality. NE uses the E that is common to both HE and SHE. For the non-subject pronouns, I wanted to be fair and borrow the masculine ending for one and the feminine ending for the other.

Principle #2:  Auditory Comfort. In order to be accepted, the substitute pronouns should be such that our mental and physical ears do not balk: the N is enough of a surprise.
The problem with using the ending sound of the feminine possessive is that it has two forms: HER and HERS:

It's HER book. The book is HERS.

HIS has only one form. The other grammatical persons have two forms, too, mostly with an S at the end:  OUR and OURS, YOUR and YOURS, THEIR and THEIRS.  Our ears want to add that S - or rather the sound of  Z - whenever the possessive pronoun is not followed by a noun. The only exception to the final S is the first person singular: MY and MINE. That makes HIS unique, or maybe I mean singular in two ways. Anyway, because HIS is the same with or without a following noun, NIS seemed the better choice for the possessive. That made NER the right choice for the object pronoun.

In addition, ER ends both the objective and the possessive adjectival forms of the feminine singular pronoun. That could lead to endless confusion or a violation of Principle #1 or both.

 ***

The Natural Superiority of NE NER NIS (with apologies to Ashley Montagu*)

Consider this sentence:

I feel certain that if people just start using these neuter

 pronouns, they can accustom their ears to the sounds.

Because there are two plural  nouns --  people and pronouns -- the word "they" after the comma is ambiguous or at least a potential stopper. To avoid a second ambiguity, I use "sounds" rather than "them" at the end of the sentence.  But with NE NER NIS at my disposal, I can write: 

I feel certain that anyone who starts using these neuter 

pronouns can quickly accustom nis ears to them.

As to ear-training: At some level, good grammar and good word usage are whatever does not offend the ears of the people who think they know better. And yes, I consider myself one of those people because I pay attention, I care, and I try to hold myself to a high standard of carefulness and thought. If you are reading this, you do, too.  If you don't like NE NER NIS, then "people who think they know better," who I hope also qualify as reasonable people, can differ.

* Montagu (1905-1999), a  male anthropologist, wrote The Natural Superiority of Women, one of my mother's favorite books.  It was first published in 1953.  A fifth edition came out in 1999.

rev to fix HRts: 11-14-2012
 to fix italics and make minor changes: 11-20-12
other revisions:  7-5-13, 1-31-14

LANGUAGE 01: The Reticent/Reluctant Hesitation

In today's Chronicles of Higher Education, Gabriela Montela writes in the On Hiring column:

"In a recent post, Lesboprof chides herself for having been reticent about pursuing a leadership position in academe...."

Montela quotes a portion of the blog that does not contain the word RETICENT.  I checked the actual post, however, and it does mention "reticence."  Whoever's word it is, it is wrong.

Had the blogger been RETICENT, then she would have applied for the job but not told her friends about it. What she describes is being RELUCTANT to pursue (not RETICENT about pursuing) the position.  Indeed her reluctance turned to refusal: she never did apply.

RELUCTANT may not be precisely the right word, but RETICENT is absolutely wrong.

The Start of Several Series

I plan to post a number of pieces that share a general subject.   They will constitute series (serieses?) although I won't be writing regularly to any single series nor finishing one series before starting another.  I will write when the spirit -- usually irritation plus procrastination -- moves me.  Many will be  based on things I have written over the years for myself or in email to friends or as (rejected) letters to the editor.

In myunpublishedworks, one series has already begun.  It consists of thoughts from the Stanford Technology Law Review February 2010 Symposium on Patent Reform.  Another was not billed as a series but could become one:  Citizens United. (Next in that series: freedom to speak v. freedom to speak anonymously.)  Other series in preparation are:  myths in patent law, bluebooking, writing better judicial opinions, and why knowledge is always power even for potential accused infringers.

In myunpublishedworks2, one series has begun but without the series title, which will be "Very Short Essays."  The first entry was http://myunpublishedworks2.blogspot.com/2009/09/merit-needs-publicist.html.  Like "Merit Needs a Publicist," the posts in that series will be written in poetry form. 

Other subjects I already know I will pursue are:  language, transportation, economics, friendship, and human anatomy.

It seems unlikely I would write more than 9 times about any of these subjects, but just in case, I will use two digit numbers, starting with 01.  Each essay in the series will be titled "SUBJECT-##:  Specific Title."

Today I start with LANGUAGE-01: The Reticent/Reluctant Hesitation.

RJM
April 5, 2010 

last rev 4/6/10.

The True Story behind the Hirschhorn Museum's Contest to Create Art from a Single Sheet of Paper

In February 2008 a friend sent me a message with some wonderful images of paper-cutting sculptures.  Today, more than two years later, I received the same message, with the same jpgs.  Here's an example:

The message said:

> Entries for an sculpture art contest at the Hirshhorn

> Modern Art Gallery in DC.

> The artist could use only one sheet of paper.

Two years ago, as now, it seemed obvious that all these supposed contest entries were by the same person. That made me skeptical.  I looked at the Hirshhorn's website.  They had never had any such contest.  I checked Snopes.com. Nothing. I forwarded the email to Snopes and meanwhile looked for more information.  A blog that perpetuated the Hirshhorn contest myth included the images, so I forwarded the link (and my skepticism) to my usual recipients, rather than fill their inboxes with attachments.The blog page has disappeared or I'd give you the link here.

My friend Nancy 3. Hoffman was also curious, and she was more persistent and clever than I.  She discovered that these are the works of a Danish artist, Peter CALLESEN.  His wonderful website, http://petercallesen.com/index/index2.html, has many, many brilliantly creative and beautiful examples of his paper cutting art.

Snopes has never covered the story.  I guess that the lack of proper attribution for an artist's work, and the incorrect reference to a nonexistent contest at a  fine art museum, do not rise to the level of internet urban legend for them. Hence this post.

Maybe some day the Hirshhorn will hold an exhibit of Callesen's works. It hasn't yet, but maybe it should, so that this highly-circulated message will have -- retroactively -- a grain of truth.

Health CARE, not Health Insurance

        I go to a non-profit HMO where everyone is on salary. Why then did my flu shot cost - in addition to the serum - a fee for the nurse to administer the shot?  And not a little fee.  $86.  What else was she supposed to be doing with her time?  I'm already being charged for an office visit.  I presume that charge is calculated to cover the salary and benefits of the medical personnel I see, plus the appropriate amount toward rent, electricity, other salaries, equipment and everything else that is part of the basic running of the clinic.
         And when my gynecologist (a nurse practitioner) spends no more than a few second noticing a vaginal polyp and then removing it, why does the statement show a charge for almost $700? Again, she was supposed to be seeing me during that time, I paid for the office visit, and she's on salary.  Plus there was a SEPARATE pathology/lab charge.  Is the excuse for the $700 charge malpractice insurance?  An extra $700?  As high as premiums are,  I doubt that is justifiable.
        But I do know what these extra fees pay for at least in part: all that infrastructure to create, track, and collect all those separate fees, and to pay the doctors and nurses when they spend time filling out all the paperwork instead of caring for patients, and to pay the people who identify all the separate things that might be charged for, and their supervisors who review those items, and then the economists who have to work out the appropriate prices for each separate item's pricing, and the bookkeepers and programmers who have to make sure the money is charged to someone and then collected. And the reams and reams of paper that this enormous effort requires.
        Since I have insurance, I don't pay any of that.  I only am charged a small co-pay for the office visit, but SOMEBODY is paying for it somewhere. In a sane health CARE system, I'd go to the clinic, get the flu shot or have the polyp removed, and would pay one standard office visit fee.  The employer of the doctors and nurses would pay them their salaries.  The end.
        True, many people currently employed in the health INSURANCE business, in the insurance companies, in the clinics, in the companies who employ the insured employees, would have to find other work.  I am sorry about that, but I think it is a price our society should be willing to pay. It would be a short-term detriment with an infinitely long benefit.

Maybe when we lucky insured folks get statements like I did from our providers, we should write to them and to whoever is paying the bill and question the charges?  In the short run, that would be terrible: even more people would need to be hired to address these insurance questions and insurance charges would go up even more.  But maybe in the long run, the employers would get wise, and demand a system that makes sense.

Drafted on 3/18/2010.  Minor revisions and actual publication 11/20/2012.

I am indebted to my friend Lisa Chu-Thielbar for the succinct formula "care not insurance."