Drugged Obedience

Experimental Narcotherapy vs
 Logical Consequences for Chronic Mischief in Classrooms

by Dr. David West Keirsey (published 1991)

Drugged Obedience

Editor’s Note: It has been about 30 years since my father wrote this article, which was based on his experience in the 50s, 60’s, and 70’s in the American public school system. Unfortunately, the abuse of psychiatry on their victims has gotten much worse and has spread across the world, and not only children in the American public schools are being abused. Old people, babies, the military, and the general public in mostly the “developed world” — are being fooled and drugged to conformity: to the monetary benefit of psychiatry and the drug companies.

Dr. Keirsey explains in this article what are the kinds of drugs, and their effects.

Narcotherapy

When a child gets up out of his seat at school without permission, his teacher tells him to sit down and get to work. If he is out of his seat every minute or so, say every six minutes in a 360 minute day, that makes 60 times a day. If he’s out of his seat that many times each day, five days a week, that’s 300 Out-Of-Seat-Without-Permissions (OOSWOPs for short). Now 300 is an impressive total of OOSWOPs. The teacher, now and then, reminds him to sit down and go to work, but with little effect. Pretty soon she adds scolding to reminding. Then maybe she gets the principal to spank him. Then maybe his parents are brought into the act. They either get after the school or their son or both. Maybe they take his bike away from him and send him to bed without dinner several times. Something like that. But all to no avail. No matter how many reminders or scoldings or whippings or deprivations, he still rings up his 300 or so OOSWOPs a week.

But the child doesn’t rest his case with just getting out of his seat. There are other kinds of disobedience, other ways to disrupt classroom proceedings. Like making motions and noises while seated. For instance, the disobedient child doesn’t raise his hand with restraint like the other children, but waves it wildly and maybe puffs and whistles to get the teacher’s undivided attention. And he gets it. By that time the child has had so much attention that just raising his hand won’t work, so he’s got to distract the teacher’s attention from the other kids with extra motions and noises, none of which are permitted. Let’s call motion and noise without permission MANWOPs to distinguish them from OOSWOPs. And of course the teacher must remind the child (again without much success) that that is not an acceptable way to get attention. Notice the child’s clever manipulation of the teacher: he is doing what he’s supposed to do — raise his hand to get the teacher’s attention –but in an unacceptable way. Now since an increase of reminding, scolding, threatening, paddling, and depriving doesn’t decrease the frequency of OOSWOPs and MANWOPs appreciably, there seem only two things left to do: remove the child from the classroom, or drug him into inaction. Both work. First, let’s look at drugging the child into inaction. To explain accurately what prescribed drugs are doing to our children, I must first describe in some detail just what drugs we are considering. There are many different kinds of drugs, but only those drugs called “narcotics” are of interest here.

Narcotics affect the nervous system and so alter behavior. This effect was first reported by physiologists in the 1920s, followed by a spate of similar reports in technical journals from time to time up to the present. Nowadays physiologists know pretty well what the various narcotics do to the nervous system and how behavior is affected as a result. For instance narcotics like THC (the neuroactive agent in marijuana) is reported to increase the difference in excitation times of adjacent effectors or receptors, while narcotics like LSD reportedly decrease those differences.

“UPPERS”“CONFUSERS”“CALMERS”“DOWNERS”
[High Activity] High Attention][High Activity] [Low Attention][Low Activity] [High Attention][Low Activity] [Low Attention]
“Stimulants”“Convulsants”“Tranquilizers”“Depressants”
“Hypermanics”“Synesthetics”“Nacroleptics”“Anesthetics”
amphetamine“Hallucinogens”butyrophenanonealcohols
amylnitrate“Psychodelics”dibenzoxazeponebarbiturates
caffeinemescalinelithiumcarbonate opiates
cocainepsilocybinnicotenePentathol
methyl
diamphetamine
licergic diethylamidetetrahydra
canabinal
Nembutol
methylphenidatePCPphenothiazineMethadone
pemoline DMTCibalithAmytol
BenezedeneLSDHaldolBarbitol
CylertLoxitaneDemerol
DexedrineMelarilXanax
ProzacMobanBuSpar
RitalinThorizine

As shown above, “uppers,” like cocaine, give us a high-high, such that we are both more active and more attentive as long as we are intoxicated. “Downers” such as heroin, in contrast to “uppers,” give us a low-low, so that we are both less active and less attentive, again, as long as we are under the influence of the narcotic. “Calmers,” like marijuana, give us a low-high, which is to say that our activity level is low at the same time that our level of attention is high. Lastly, “confusers,” such as LSD, give us a high-low, which means that we get very active, but have great difficulty paying attention to our surroundings.

Depressants like alcohol reduce nerve conduction, resulting in reduced attention and action. In contrast, stimulants like cocaine increase nerve conduction, resulting in greater attention or action. Tranquilizers like marijuana increase excitation threshold time differences between adjacent nerves so that reaction time is slowed and activity decreases, while attention increases. (Incidentally, this is why swing musicians of the 1930s used marijuana: it sensitized them to syncopation and enabled them to catch each note on the “down beat.”) Lastly, hallucinogens like LSD do quite the opposite. They decrease the difference in conduction threshold time between adjacent nerves so that they conduct simultaneously or nearly so. On the attention side of the neural system the person sees, hears, feels, smells, and even tastes from a single stimulus — that’s why drugs like LSD are called hallucinogens or synesthetics. The same stimulus can also fire off adjacent motor nerves in rapid succession, resulting in convulsions and cramps. Thus synesthetic or hallucinogenic narcotics result not only in more than one of the senses being affected at the same time, they also result in flexor and extensor muscles contracting simultaneously or in rapid succession.

In contrast to the technical names above, the people who use narcotics for their highs and lows (the “addicts”), and the people who try to stop them (the “narcs”) have street names for them. For the addicts and narcs there are “acid heads,” “speed freeks,” “coke heads,” and the like. Calmers are called cannabis, grass, hemp, indian hay, pot, snop, snoose, snuff, etc.; confusers are called angel dust, orange sunshine, PCP, LSD, etc; downers are called barbs, big H, booze, horse, sauce, etc.; uppers are called bennies, black beauties, charlies, coke, crack, crystal, dexies, footballs, heart, MDA, snow, white cross, etc.

There are of course great changes in behavior when people are under the influence of narcotics. This goes for stimulants or “uppers,” all of them. No one doubts that cocaine is a powerful narcotic if enough of it is taken at once, especially if this continues over a long period of time. Whatever the kind of stimulant, the effect on one’s behavior depends more on the amount than on the kind. A little bit intoxicates a little bit and a lot intoxicates a lot. The effect is a high-high, that is a high activity level and a high attention level. When the effect wears off, there’s a crash. The withdrawal from stimulants is said to be far worse than withdrawal from the other three kinds of narcotics. A “speed freak,” whether on bennies, dexies, crystal, or coke, is addicted according to the amount taken and the length of time that amount is taken. And the agony of withdrawal is proportional. People who drink, say, twenty cups of coffee a day are in for a crash when they quit and for painful withdrawal effects. Of course, many won’t admit they’re addicted and they certainly would not like being called “speed freaks.” Incidentally, many are also addicted to nicotine and alcohol, so they’re hooked on three narcotics at once, but still refuse to recognize their drug dependency. Such denial is particularly sad, but the truth is their addiction is their problem because they hooked themselves, however innocently.

The bad names that are currently given to children who disrupt classrooms are Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (ADHD). Precisely the same misbehaviors used to be called by other names, such as Aphasia, Asymbolia, Brain Damage, Cerebral Disrhythmia, Dyslexia, Hyperactivity, Hyperkinesis, Minimal Brain Damage, Minimal Brain Dysfunction, Learning Disability, Organic Brain Damage, the Strauss Syndrome, and others. Beginning in the mid-forties those writing about abnormal behavior understandably began to change the name of the suspected “cause” of such behavior as soon as the name stigmatized the children it was applied to. You see, these professionals believed that there was something wrong with the brains of the children who were too active or too inattentive for the educator’s taste. So they went along with those physicians who wanted to experiment on such children with narcotics like benzedrine. Not only did they approve of this practice, they even aided such physicians in their experimentation. The practice spread, slowly during the late forties and fifties, and then very rapidly during the drug-culture days of the sixties. By the eighties and nineties the practice had become epidemic throughout America, as many as a million children per year on stimulants. Some large elementary schools admit that they have as many as fifty children on stimulants at the same time. Can there be that many children with defective brains? And all boys? In the late eighties some physicians were even narcotizing preschoolers with stimulants while they continued to prescribe this narcotic for those adults that became dependent on it when they were kids in school.

But when the physician, with the approval of parent, teacher, and psychologist, risks the side effects and the addiction of children, that’s everybody’s problem. After all, these children are innocent of any desire for intoxication. Narcotics do temporarily quiet some children and heighten their attention level, but surely the “cure” is worse than the “disease.” Along with the “cure” comes arrested growth, brain atrophy, drug dependency, and severe damage to the self-image — loss of self-esteem, self-respect, and self-confidence. Maybe the child is “cured” of hyperactivity in school, but the price seems terribly high.

Who is abusing whom? Clearly the child is not abusing the persons who are drugging him. Peter Breggin, a noted psychiatrist, calls such experimental narcotherapy “Psychiatric Oppression,” putting it in the same category with shock, lobotomy, and other barbaric practices, thus challenging the justifiability of treating problem behavior with physiological methods, whether child or adult. In his latest exposé of psychiatric barbarism he says:

“It seems to have escaped Ritalin advocates that long-term use tends to create the very same problems that Ritalin is supposed to combat — “attentional disturbances” and “memory problems” as well as “irritability” and hyperactivity. When children are prescribed Ritalin for years because they continue to have problems focusing their attention, the disorder itself may be due to the Ritalin. A vicious circle is generated, with drug-induced inattention causing the doctor to prescribe more medication, all the while blaming the problem on a defect within the child.” (Toxic Psychiatry, page 307.)

Nor are physicians unaware of the risks involved in drugging children. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are careful to warn them, just as have many research reports over the years, of the dangers of prescribing cocaine-like narcotics to children. The long list of horrific consequences of stimulant therapy are now well known: insomnia, fatigue, listlessness, sadness, dizziness, withdrawal, tremors, tics, spasms, skin rashes, nausia, headache, stomachache, increased heart rate, high blood pressure, cortical atrophy, growth suppression, addiction to narcotics, and worst of all, severe damage to the child’s self-image.

It is true that drugged children stay in their seats longer and make less commotion. The trouble is that, aside from the spoiled identity, growth suppression, brain atrophy, and drug dependence the physician is warned about, the child’s restful sleep is diminished. Just as many adults do not sleep well if they take too much caffeine, so children who take too much stimulants do not sleep well. It is also true that these children seem to sleep as they did before medication was begun, but the sleep is not restful as it was before. That they’re tired when they go to school and are much less inclined to get into mischief should come as no surprise. This docility is usually mistaken for obedience by the principal, teacher, parent, psychologist, and physician, who then congratulate themselves on this “miraculous cure” of the child’s dread case of ADD. One of the interesting things about this solution is that docility is such a relief to all concerned that they don’t seem to notice that the child continues to be unproductive, unfriendly, and unhappy at school. Some physicians will admit that the drugged child doesn’t get to work and doesn’t learn like the other children, but they seem satisfied with reports by parents that the teacher isn’t complaining about too much activity any longer.

For almost everyone involved, in fact, this drug treatment is a comfortable solution. If the child is “brain defective” then his parents and teachers are not to blame for his misbehavior. And the fact that the misbehavior disappears when the child is drugged seems to prove the physician’s case that the child’s brain is indeed “somehow” defective. At least it proves it for those who have a stake in believing it. So everybody’s off the hook. A neat and tidy solution to a knotty problem.

Nor can the child be blamed now that it is “proved” he has something (vaguely) wrong with his brain. For how can you blame a child for misbehavior or expect productivity or friendliness or happiness from one so afflicted? He can now play Eric Berne’s game of “wooden leg.” After all, what can be expected of a boy with a bent brain? There is a terrible irony in this: by stigmatizing the child the adults in his life relieve both him and themselves of responsibility. In that sense even the child is off the hook.

But there’s a problem: even though the child has been drugged into submission he is still friendless, unhappy, has stopped growing, and is not learning. So neither he nor his parents are content. But if narcotherapy is discontinued he will resume his disruptive behavior. The question is: how can he stay in class without disrupting it? The answer is simple. Let him disrupt the class only once a day by dismissing him after his first disruptive act. For example, out of seat, out of school — and nothing more.

Logical Consequences

Continue reading

Officious Busy-Bodies

“Was mich nicht umbringt macht mich stärker.”
What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.
— Friedrich Nietzsche

I have lost Wikipedia battles.  The latest I just discovered.

They are virtually nameless.  They just appear in the history of edits on a Wikipedia page.  They are vandals in the guise of “Wikipedia Administrators.”  Self appointed legal vandals, in the guise of upholding “Wikipedia standards and practices”.  Their religion is to enforce that the Wikipedia has conforming and superficial knowledge.  I believe there are some good Wikipedia Administrators out there, but I haven’t encountered one.  I have had battles with these “little Caesars” with their officiousness throughout the years.

Here is what this “Wikipedia Administrator” troll has to say about his “work” — what he doesn’t mention is his trashing and deleting of Keirsey Temperament Wikipedia pages:

My current Wikipedia programming project is Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss, which aims to spell-check, grammar-check, and style-check all of the English Wikipedia.

“spell-check, grammar-check, and style-check”  and deleting perfect legitimate material that had been on Wikipedia for more than a decade at least.

I call it: Ignorant Censoring

Continue reading

Gestalt Science

modeling_relationA Viking Reader

Fearless Asymmetry and Symmetry

order_chaos_particle_biform
Chaos to Order,                                 Order to Chaos

My father died on July 30th, 2013 and I intend to honor him, if I can, by writing a blog about him and the consequences of me integrating his ideas every year.  First year,  Second YearThird Year, Fourth YearFifth Year, Sixth Year. this is the Seventh Year.

keirsey_seaweedMy father, near the end of his life, considered himself the last Gestalt Psychologist. When I was very young I was fearful of kelp seaweed: my father showed me that it couldn’t hurt me, so I shouldn’t be afraid of it.   I learned from him. If you understand something, you can reason about it.   If you only have a correlation, you can’t be sure of the factors. He was never afraid to question conventional wisdom or the current fashionable and entrenched ideas (however old or fast those ideas were).

As a clinical school psychologist he was on the front line against invasion of chemical psychiatry into K-12 schools, and he saw how they used “their pseudo-scientific expertise [and argot]” to fool and trap kids and parents into approving the use of brain disabling drugs, within the “educational system” and with the implicit pressure and blessing (and relieving of responsibility) of the teachers and administrators.  He also didn’t buy into the dominant paradigms of the first half of 20th century of Freudian psychology and the correlational “blank slate” behaviorism of Watson and Skinner.

“If you don’t understand something said, don’t assume you are at fault.”
— David West Keirsey

Throughout my discussions and debates with him in my lifetime, he talked about ideas.   We talked about philosophy, science, mathematics, computers, people, and life. 

to_explain_the_world_cover 

Continue reading

More Moore

I don’t remember exactly how it happened, but I was in his office.  I remember it to this day.  Think it was Sue Lapin who directed me to his room, but that’s another story.

wizard_child

He was a classic example of a gray haired, balding, absent-minded professor, his office shelves stuffed to the ceiling with books, papers, and other flotsam and jetsam of an academia life. There we were: two different generations —  he, my father’s generation, and me, a 50’s nerd baby boomer. The commonality was we were both computer nerds, interested in ideas and the nascent computer science field.   At the time I was just trying to get a job to support my education: a Masters degree at University of Wisconsin, Madison, far from my home in sunny SoCal.  I had driven the two thousand miles or so across the US for the first time in my life to get there.

We talked for about four hours non-stop about all kinds of things, the Chinese language is the only subject I remember: he was a fountain of knowledge, and both us could have gone on many Moore hours.  I probably didn’t know the significance of it at the time, except he did point me to a job which I got to support myself in that strange land.  A year and half later, I got a Masters in Computer Science, and left Madison to wander towards Enlightenment for the next 46 years, and hopefully beyond.

dmk_library_physics_math

Continue reading

The Digital Sand Reckoner

To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

— William Blake

dave_grad_schoolarchimedes
New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized,
but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher
who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought
on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.
Max Planck

elkies_power_five_formula

Connecting precise physical relationships between the finites and the infinites.

Continue reading

Slow Ideas

Comparative Science and Relational Complexity

We would debate for hours.

Over decades.

Only the educated and self-educated are free.

My father died on July 30th, 2013 and I intend to honor him, if I can, by writing a blog about him and the consequences of me integrating his ideas every year.  First year,  Second YearThird Year, Fourth Year, Fifth Year  This is the sixth year.

When I was young, my father would introduce and discuss, around the dinner table, the ideas of philosophers, scientists, and historians: like Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, Georg Hegel, William James, Arthur Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Oswald Spengler, Will Durant, Ayn Rand, Milton Erickson, and Jay Haley, to name a few.

I had a question early on “How and Why does the World Work?” He had a more difficult question: “What are the long-term patterns of an ‘Individual’s Human Action?” He was clinical school psychologist, who was identifying deviant habits of children, parents, and teachers. He was developing techniques aimed at enabling them to abandon such habits. His methods of research and reasoning enabled him to evolve his ideas into a coherent system. His model of Human Temperament has helped many people to better understand themselves and others.

He was good at qualitative reasoning, wholistic thought: the Gestalt (despite [and because] of having lots of training in statistics). I became good at quantitative reasoning: conventional science and mathematics. Between the two of us, as we debated, I realized that there was a middle way, much more powerful than ad hoc wholistic reasoning or ad hoc atomistic reasoning, when they are used separately. The new middle way, The Slow Idea, is using Comparative Science and Relational Complexity in conjunction as fields of scientific endeavor using systematic qualitative and quantitative reasoning together. To some extent: (hard and soft) science, mathematics, and computer science are towers of Babel, not able to understand each other’s argot and considered irrelevant to other.

The idea ofSlow Ideas <=> Fast Ideas

The root of this idea appeared just recently, thanks to Atul Gawande. He and Matt Ridley noted that ideas operate very much in an evolutionary manner.

Fast Ideas and Slow Ideas

FAST IDEAS WORK

eventually, SLOW IDEAS WORK BETTER, and longer

Atul Gawande introduced the idea of slow and fast ideas with an example from the 19th century. The fast idea was anesthesia and the slow idea was antiseptics. To quote him:

“Why do some innovations [ideas] spread so swiftly and others so slowly? Consider the very different trajectories of surgical anesthesia and antiseptics, both of which were discovered in the nineteenth century.”

“The first public demonstration of anesthesia was in 1846…”

“The idea [anesthesia] spread like a contagion, travelling through letters, meetings, and periodicals. By mid-December, surgeons were administering ether to patients in Paris and London. By February, anesthesia had been used in almost all the capitals of Europe, and by June in most regions of the world.”

Antiseptics, on the other hand, was a slow idea. It took decades for antiseptics to accepted by doctors, who had no incentives to change their practices that didn’t help them immediately. Blood stained clothes was a sign of a experienced surgeon; and washing hands, sterilizing instruments, and keeping hospitals clean seemed unnecessary. Germ theory was dismissed by doctors because the “germs” were not readily observed. Miasma Theory still was used as an excuse to not change.

Hey buddy, can you spare a Para-digm?

“Science advances one funeral at a time.” — Max Planck

“The trouble with specialists is that they tend to think in grooves” — Elaine Morgan

Establishment science needs to protect themselves from quacks, but it also resists slow ideas that are not easily incorporated into the current fashionable (often fast) ideas. This is natural, this is the way evolution works. However, Kuhnian revolutions (as in Margulian-Darwinian evolution) are necessary in science to progress and leap across the Quantum Gap.

Lost Horizons

There is no Shangri-La, except in Fiction

But in life, there is hope,

until there doesn’t appear to be.

What do Ludwig Boltzmann, Alan Turing, Yutaka Taniyama, and David Foster Wallace have in common?  All were successful from a outside point of view.  Each were very smart, and many would say they were geniuses.  But, they all committed suicide.

I would posit, in the end of their lives, they had lost view of their horizons.  Lost Horizons.  Horizons of the mind.

A gypsy of a strange and distant time
Travelling in panic all direction blind
Aching for the warmth of a burning sun
Freezing in the emptiness of where he’d come from

Is that all there is?

Weltschmerz

Infinite Jest

olivier-hamlet

“Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is!”

Ludwig Boltzmann:  Statistical Mechanics
Alan Turing: Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem)
Yutaka TaniyamaTaniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture
David Foster Wallace: Infinite Jest

Successful people who commit suicide are a mystery why in they don’t see life is worth living.

Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann, Architect Rational, (February 20, 1844 – September 5, 1906) was an Austrian physicist and philosopher whose greatest achievement was in the development of statistical mechanics, which explains and predicts how the properties of atoms (such as mass, charge, and structure) determine the physical properties of matter(such as viscosity, thermal conductivity, and diffusion).

Alan Mathison Turing, Architect Rational, OBE FRS (June 23, 1912 – June 7, 1954) was an English computer scientist, mathematician,  logician, cryptanalyst, philosopher  and theoretical biologist. He was highly influential in the development of theoretical computer science, providing a formalisation of the concepts of algorithm and computation with the Turing machine, which can be considered a model of a general purpose computer. Turing is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence.

Yutaka Taniyama, Architect Rational, (Japanese: 谷山 豊 Taniyama Yutaka; 12 November 1927, Kisai near Tokyo – 17 November 1958, Tokyo) was a Japanese mathematician known for the Taniyama–Shimura conjecture.

David Foster Wallace, Architect Rational, (February 21, 1962 – September 12, 2008) was an American writer and university instructor of English and creative writing. His novel Infinite Jest (1996) was listed by Time magazine as one of the hundred best English-language novels published between 1923 and 2005. His last novel, The Pale King (2011), was a final selection for the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2012.

“Until yesterday I had no definite intention of killing myself. But more than a few must have noticed that lately I have been tired both physically and mentally. As to the cause of my suicide, I don’t quite understand it myself, but it is not the result of a particular incident, nor of a specific matter. Merely may I say, I am in the frame of mind that I lost confidence in my future. There may be someone to whom my suicide will be troubling or a blow to a certain degree. I sincerely hope that this incident will cast no dark shadow over the future of that person. At any rate, I cannot deny that this is a kind of betrayal, but please excuse it as my last act in my own way, as I have been doing my own way all my life.”  — Yutaka Taniyama

To attain insight, to see what no others see, to be on top of that mountain:

We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.  — Alan Turing

The Logic of Madness?   The Ultimate Dark Escape?

Form

He didn’t get it.

I was surprised, kinda.  But it made sense, why he didn’t think much of my suggestion.  In fact, in his seminar at UCIrvine Information and Computer Science department (as tactic to get MIT to give him a better offer as a tenured faculty member), he dismissed my “idea”, quickly, even though he had asked (obviously rhetorically, in hindsight) for suggestions as a kind of Socratic presentation tactic in his talk.

My mentioning of Kirchoff’s law as a parallel in regards into information flow, he thought irrelevant, and was rather dismissive.  But who was I, just a graduate student from a west coast Podunk U [which eventually was a key university in the development of the World Wide Web].  He was an assistant Professor from MIT, angling for tenure.

kirchoff_law_1

This time I understood.  Although I didn’t have a name for it at the time.  I just shut up.

Now, I call it eucaryotic hubrisWe all have it, in the area of our expertise and our vast areas of ignorance.

This time, I had had enough encounters with these kind of guys to not be in awe of them. I didn’t assume I was at fault in not understanding, and not smart enough it “get what they are promoting”.  They were just as ignorant as I was.

And, Stupid, as me.  So when I was watching one of Geoffrey Hinton’s youtube talks…

carl_hewitt_stupid

I had interacted this “professor” before, in that seminar.   And I had listened to some of his other conference talks, he is very very very smart and accomplished.  So smart, these days, he is a distinguished emeritus faculty member, at the institution he got his BS and PhD at.  He has never had to move out of Massachusetts, or MIT.  No, this guy wasn’t Marvin Minsky, but his student.  So when Hinton told his offhand story, about Professor Carl Hewitt, I had to laugh.  Deja vu, all over again.

“Indeed, in their later years (after finding out that most others are faking an understanding of the laws of nature), INTPs [Architect Rationals] are likely to think of themselves as the master organizers who must pit themselves against nature and society in an unending effort to create organization out of the raw materials of nature.” – Please Understand Me II,  Keirsey, David. Please Understand Me II (Kindle Locations 4099-4107). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kindle Edition.

As scientists, we all are struggling with understanding:

Formatics: Precise Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison. Precise Analogy and Precise Metaphor: how does one do that, and what does one mean by these two phrases? This is an essay, in the form of an ebook, on the nature of reality, measure, modeling, reference, and reasoning in an effort to move towards the development of Comparative Science and Relational Complexity. In some sense, this ebook explores the involution and envolution of ideas, particularly focusing on mathematics and reality as two “opposing” and “fixed points” in that “very” abstract space. As Robert Rosen has implied there has been (and still is going on) a war in Science. Essentially you can view that war as a battle between the “formalists” and the “informalists” — but make no mistake the participants of this war are united against “nature” — both are interested in understanding the world and sometimes predicting what can and will happen, whether that be real or imagined. So… I will ask the questions, for example, of “what could one mean” precisely by the words: “in,” “out,” “large,” and “small.” The problem is both Science and Mathematics are imprecise — but this sentence contains fighting words and is impredicative, to say the least. In my father‘s terms, it is important to distinguish between order and organization, and understand the difference. Lastly, for now, the concepts and their relations, in the circle of ideas of “dimensions of time” and dimensions of energy along with the dimensions of space and dimensions of mass will be explicated, as I evolve (involute and envolute) this ebook. SO WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Let me try to explain.

Formatics

Other Architect Rationals include:  James MadisonSrinivasa RamanujanEmmy NoetherPaul DiracRobert RosenDavid KeirseyAlbert EinsteinLonnie AthensDavid Bohm

Prime

Partitions: Exact Approximations

… there is something strange going on with Primes
Paul Erdös

champagne_bubbles

Never mind the mock theta, Ramanujan’s gap, Namagiri dreams.

ramanujan_book

When Srinivasa Ramanujan wrote to G. H. Hardy in the 16th of January 1913, he had some remarkable formulas in that letter.  So remarkable are some of his formulas that mathematicians have been studying Ramanujan’s notebooks of formulas for new mathematical insights to this day, more than a hundred years later.
I beg to introduce myself to you as a clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust Office at Madras… I have no University education but I have undergone the ordinary school course. After leaving school I have been employing the spare time at my disposal to work at Mathematics. I have not trodden through the conventional regular course which is followed in a University course, but I am striking out a new path for myself. I have made a special investigation of divergent series in general and the results I get are termed by the local mathematicians as “startling”. 
Hardy invited him to England because some of the formulas “had to be true, because no one could have the imagination to make them up”.   But there were no proofs.  However, when this poor vegetarian Indian Hindu came to England, eventually Hardy showed Ramanujan (thru Littlewood) that his formula on Primes was not EXACTLY correct. So Ramanujan had to bend to Hardy and work on his proofs of some of his formulas, so when they tackled the function of Partitions P(n), Ramanujan with the help of Hardy got to point where they “cracked” Partitions (and could prove it). They developed a direct formula that computed the number of partitions pretty accurately, and at the limit (infinity) it was “perfect” — and, could by truncating the number for high partition number to an integer could guarantee to be exact: since the number of partitions of integers is an whole number (i.e., the real number series “formula” converges with an deceasing error rate). Together they “cracked” the problem where neither man could do it alone. Ramanujan supplied the “intuition” (the finding of the hidden pattern) and Hardy provided the rigor to explain why the pattern is true.  The method they created, in this instance, was called the “circle method” — and it has been used ever since by numerous mathematicians for various other results.

Continue reading

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore

Walking through that door
Outside we came nowhere at all
Perhaps the answers here
Not there anymore

She brightens up when she sees me.  There is recognition.

But she sits down, she is tired.  It’s at the end of the day.   It was convenient for me to come at this time and I had established a routine of going to dinner just to get her out and something to do.  She is glad to see me, however, she fades in the chair.

“What are we doing?”

I say what we are doing.  Going to dinner.

Recognition flickers.

House of four doors
You’ll be lost now forever
House of four doors
Rest of life’s life forever
“You tired?”
“Yes”
“Want to rest for awhile?”
“Yes”
She sits back and rests, falls asleep.
Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore.

Continue reading