Bits and Pieces 

The Neuropsychology of “Close Talkers”

A friend writes:

“A customer, who later became the dentist who performed root canal on me, was one of those people who came very close to you when he talked. Seinfeld described those people as, ‘close talkers.’ Whenever he came into my restaurant for dinner, he would chat with me. While he was talking, I found myself taking little baby steps, trying to back away from him. He would then take baby steps forward. I would often seat him before it was his turn, just to get him out of my face. I often wonder what the psychology behind that behavior is.”

I had a friend that did this. And I had the same experience with him. I didn’t like it because I interpreted it as an unconscious form of intimidation.

But then I read a great book on neuropsychology. (I don’t remember the title.)

Neuropsychology is a discipline that investigates the relations between brain processes/mechanisms and cognition/behavioral control.

One chapter of the book explained that the brain is not fully developed at birth. During the first two years of infancy, a lot of important neural development takes place. Most of this depends on the connection between mother and baby. (The father is not important during this period.) If the baby doesn’t get enough of that maternal attention – including breast contact, eye-to-eye contact, sound contact – its brain will not develop as it should.

Another chapter specifically focused on the part of the brain that, among other things, interprets the relationship between distance and intimacy in speech. People whose brains are insufficiently developed in this way cannot identify how far away they need to be to have comfortable, friendly conversations, or how loudly they must project their voices. Typically, they feel that they need to be closer than the social norm. Thus, they are always doing that encroaching thing

After reading that chapter, I spoke to my friend. I told him that I had great news for him. I said, “Did you ever notice how people often back up when you speak to them? Or ask you to quiet your voice?”

He acknowledged that he had.

“Well, the good news,” I announced, “is that you are brain damaged!” (I think I actually said it that way.)

I explained what I had read and advised him that if he wanted others to feel comfortable in talking to him, he had to stand further away and speak more quietly than felt comfortable to him.

And here’s the most amazing thing. He did that, and has continued to do it ever since. Wouldn’t it be great if all brain problems could be solved with a simple conversation?

 

Interesting: About US Stock Ownership

Most of America’s stocks are owned by the top 10% of the population. And among those people, stock market wealth is concentrated in the upper 1%. They got richer – about $10 trillion richer – over the last two years.

(Source: Bonner Denning Letter)

 

Interesting: About Sliced Bread

During World War II, the US government was spending money it didn’t have like never before. Not surprisingly, the cost of nearly everything – from food to fuel – was increasing. In response to this, a new agency, the US Office of Price Administration (OPA), embarked on a nationwide push to ration commodities.

One such commodity was bread. But rather than rationing all bread, which would have pissed off virtually every American, the OPA banned only the sale of pre-sliced bread and the machines that made it.

As with most government plans, there were some unexpected and unwanted outcomes. Bakeries were threatened and fined. Homemakers saw the price of breadknives double. And the populace, as a whole, was irate.

From History.com:

“Invented in 1928, the bread-slicing machine was a revolutionary idea that brought the humble loaf into the modern age. The time-saving creation was so beloved that when the wartime ban was introduced, the American public was outraged. In one letter to The New York Times, a Connecticut woman informed the editor of ‘how important sliced bread is to the morale and saneness of a household.’”

The ban was lifted within two months.

 

Who’s Counting? Homicide Rates Surged in 2021

Since George Floyd’s death, homicides and other violent crimes have surged. And the great majority of this is Black-on-Black crime. In 2021, 2,400 more Black males and 405 more Black females were murdered than were murdered the year before. According to the FBI, this was the largest year-to-year increase in homicides in US history.

Chicago provides a good example of how this surge exists mostly in Black communities. Through December of 2021, 767 people were murdered in the city. Of that number, 615 (or 80%) were Black. 8 (1%) were White. And 144 were – bizarrely – identified as “unknown.”

 

On My List: Harbin International Ice and Snow Sculpture Festival 

I’ve just put this place on my bucket list in the see-before-you die column. Harbin is a city in the north of China where each year up to 18 million visitors come to see an amazing display of gleaming snow carvings modeled after everything from global landmarks to cartoon characters. The Harbin Ice and Snow World is an exhibition of about 2,000 sculptures, crafted from more than seven million cubic feet of ice and brought to life with computer-controlled LEDs.

 

Worth Quoting: On Possessions 

* “It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly.” – Bertrand Russell

* “Many wealthy people are little more than janitors of their possessions.” – Frank Lloyd Wright

* “Most people seek after what they do not possess and are thus enslaved by the very things they want to acquire.” – Anwar El-Sadat

The last time this happened was 20 years ago, when Congress granted President George W. Bush the power to launch a military attack against Iraq.

The theme was “a war on terror.” The excuse was “weapons of mass destruction.” The investment for the US was $2+ trillion and the deployment of more than 100,000 troops.  The result was the death of as many as 700,000 Iraqis, the displacement of millions more, a civil war between Shias and Sunnis, and regional instability that is still a problem today.

I remember listening to the coverage in the months leading to our attack. I was surprised at the common sentiment. It seemed like just about everyone in the media and in Congress was in favor of a military invasion.

For me, it was a lose-lose situation. But since everyone else seemed to feel a war was justified, I felt uncomfortable saying what I thought.

I feel the same way now about all the rhetoric about Russia’s plans for Ukraine. Biden was criticized by both sides for suggesting the US might respond to Russia’s actions in a measured way. His statement was seen as a capitulation and a sign of his weakness. I’m thinking it was one of the most sensible things he’s said since taking office.

Ukraine has no “strategic value” for the US. It means nothing to us if they are admitted to NATO. Have we not learned, from losing every war we’ve fought since WWII, that fighting proxy wars over “freedom” benefits nobody but the military-industrial machine?

What am I missing?

Nightmare Alley

By William Lindsay Gresham

304 pages

Originally published in 1946 by Rinehart & Co.

Every so often we Mules (my book club) select not just a book of the month, but a movie to go with it. Our book for January was new to me: Nightmare Alley by William Lindsay Gresham. And we watched two film adaptations with the same name – one from 1947 and a recent remake that is still playing in theaters.

Nightmare Alley is the story of the rise and fall of Stan Carlisle, from hapless young carnival hustler to nightclub magician to mentalist-preacher-con man of the social elite. Gifted and ambitious, he’s not the only morally questionable character in this inverted bildungsroman. The entire population of the novel is comprised of broken and incomplete and self-interested people trying to make their journey through Gresham’s social landscape of fate and failure.

Nightmare Alley is The Grifters meets Freaks. It’s Jim Thompson meets Tod Browning meets Dostoyevsky. It’s everything you could want from noir fiction with an extra dash of fatalism lifted from the darkish lyricism of Cormac McCarthy.

In short, it’s one of the best books I’ve read in a long time.

 

What I Liked About It 

* As I said, it has the best elements of noir literature – grim, dark, fatalistic. A view of human nature through gray-colored glasses.

* Riveting interior monologue – as good as John D. MacDonald’s.

* Vernacular dialog equal to James Ellroy’s and Dashiell Hammett’s.

* Lots of vivid and elucidating details about the carnival world.

 

What I Didn’t Like 

It was long. And I don’t like long books because I don’t have a lot of spare time to read. But I half-read and half-listened to it. And because it was so damned good in so many ways, I finished it in time for the Mules meeting.

 

Critical Reception 

Nightmare Alley got the recognition and praise it deserved:

* “For fans of vaudeville and magic, the book is a treasure trove of trade secrets.” (Walter Kirn, New York Times)

* “While I’ve known for a long time that Nightmare Alley was an established classic of noir fiction, I was utterly unprepared for its raw, Dostoyevskian power…. It’s more than just a steamy noir classic. As a portrait of the human condition, Nightmare Alley is a creepy, all-too-harrowing masterpiece.” (Michael Dirda, Washington Post)

* “Nightmare Alley remains a masterpiece, not only due to its driving narrative power, but because it’s underpinned by the premise that the human animal is alone, helpless in the face of destiny, stumbling in the dark… toward the inevitable wall of death at the end. Yet we can’t stop ourselves hoping, and fearing, that there might be something beyond that wall. The message of this disquieting book couldn’t be more human, yet that message is metaphysical rather than moral.” (Richard Rayner, Los Angeles Times)

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Available on several streaming services

Directed by Edmund Goulding

Starring Tyrone Power, Joan Blondell, Coleen Gray, and Helen Walker

Genre: There is a sense of mystery to the way Goulding directed it, but it’s not a mystery movie. It has all the expected noir elements, but it’s more than just noir.

Plot: Generally, the same as the book. (See above.) But with a few important plot points left out.

Themes: Class is destiny. Life is about hustling. Hubris. Humans are easily corruptible.

 

What I Liked About It 

* It preserved some of the best elements of the book: the noir style, the key relationships, the carny vernacular, and the basic plot.

* The casting was perfect. (Especially compared to the 2021 version. See below.)

* The acting. All of the main characters lit up their parts.

* The photography – grim, stark, shadowy.

 What I Didn’t Like 

Several of the strongest scenes of the book, including the depiction of the freaks and particularly concerning Stan’s bad treatment of Molly, were left out. But I forgive Goulding for this. This version of the story was made at a time when these scenes would not have been allowed.

Critical Reception  

* “Although Nightmare Alley may have been slightly unsexed to fit it for the screen, there is still enough raw, red meat on its eight reels of ragged bone to satisfy all save those who wallowed deliriously in the book’s more turbulent episodes.” (George Burke, Miami Herald, 10/31/47)

* “To many film-goers Nightmare Alley will be too unpleasant in subject to please as entertainment. However, the acting is first rate, although the photography is too murky for a clear idea of what is going on.” (Marjory Adams, Boston Globe, 11/7/47)

* “The hoodwink-picture genre doesn’t have a whole lot of peaks to choose from, but Nightmare Alley is one of the few.” (Elvis Mitchell, New York Times, 1/28/20)

You can watch the trailer here.

 

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Now playing in theaters; available on several streaming services 2/1/22

Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Starring Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, and Toni Collette

Genre: It’s hard to define the movie exactly. Except for the music, most of the noir elements are absent from this version. I’d say it was a stylized psychological thriller.

Plot: The plot is roughly the same as the 1947 movie, which was roughly the same as the book. But key scenes were missing. And I was disappointed to discover that some scenes that had been omitted from the 1947 movie because they would have been censored were left out of this one.

 

What I Liked About It 

* The music was good and noir.

* The cinematography was visually arresting throughout.

* The set design was very good.

What I Didn’t Like 

* The casting of all the principals was a huge disappointment compared to the 1947 movie. The idea here seemed to be to go for the draw of big names like Bradley Cooper and Cate Blanchett, rather than trying to find actors that could match Tyrone Power and Joan Blondell.

* The fatalism that was essential to the book and 1947 movie was gone.

* Stan’s character was trivialized by making him more sympathetic, by excusing his bad behavior with contemporary pop victim psychology. The same criticism could be made of some of the other principal actors.

Critical Response 

* “While del Toro’s update adds details from the novel that wouldn’t have passed censors in 1947 and closes with more of a gut-punch, on a bleaker line (while overelaborating much else), the 1947 version is still the definitive one, leaner and meaner.” (New York Times)

* “Hypnotic with its increasingly tense slow-burning plot progression and alluring atmosphere, Nightmare Alley drags the viewer down with its self-destructive lead.” (Carlos Aguilar, Roger Ebert.com)

* “Though it never runs out of gas or even shows signs of sluggishness, del Toro’s Nightmare Alley runs out of importance about a half-hour before the finish. But it’s still an entertaining movie by a distinctive filmmaker.” (San Francisco Chronicle)

You can watch the trailer here.

Every person, sooner or later in life, must discover what sort of booze works best for him/her. In my case, it’s tequila. There are risks involved, which are pointed out deftly in this short video…

Bits and Pieces 

You Have to Admit… This Is Weirdly Encouraging 

A Maryland man with a terminal heart problem had a heart transplant. The donor was a one-year-old pig. Not an ordinary farmyard pig, but a genetically modified specimen whose heart was compatible with the human cardiac system.

When I first read about this, I thought: “Why are they doing this? What’s wrong with human hearts?” As it turns out, in the US alone, there are more than 100,000 Americans waiting for organ transplants. And 6,000 die each year while waiting.

In any case, this is good news, right? These early-stage medical technology patients are heroes in my book. I can imagine my grandkids, when they get to my age, being offered a menu of organs, each with its own warranties and pricing.

 

What’s Up With the Effort to End the Filibuster? 

In order to pass its election “reform” bill, Senate Democrats tried to do away with the filibuster, the 105-year-old protocol for slowing down or even blocking legislation that does not have bipartisan support.  What I don’t understand is this: Given the likelihood that Republicans might gain control of the Senate in 2022, why would the Democrats give up the filibuster? During the Trump administration, they used it to slow or block Republican legislation 589 times! Click here.

 

2022 Midterm Elections: The Fear Wars Continue!

A few of my liberal friends are still afraid of the virus, but much less so than they were last year. They are leaving their homes, attending gatherings, and going maskless outdoors. In other words, they are behaving pretty much like my conservative friends.

That poses a problem, though: It’s harder for them to identify the enemy.

The 2020 election was a media battle between the Left and the Right, each mongering fear. For the right, it was urban violence and the decay of Judeo-Christian culture. For the left, it was COVID. COVID won.

With the 2022 elections nearing, the right is doubling down on their key issues, pumping out data on the continuing surge of violent crime and news articles on how Critical Race Theory is being taught to grammar school children.

I believe the Left intended to stick with COVID, but the fear they can squeeze from that lemon is just about zilch. So, they are putting their money on January 6. They are calling it an “insurrection” and a “threat to Democracy.” I’ve watched just about every bit of video put out by CNN, CNBC, and the rest. It was about as scary as a group of high school teens throwing cherry bombs in the school bathroom. That they have made this characterization work is a mind-boggling media accomplishment.

The other bet the Left is making is on the voting rights issue. Recent changes in various Red States have been characterized as efforts to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. The facts don’t support that, unless you believe the utterly condescending and racist notion that people of color are less able to carry an ID. (The fact is that most African-Americans and Hispanics support voter ID requirements.)

I would have never imagined that anyone would take either of these narratives seriously. But, indeed, some have. Several of my liberal friends – actually smart, conscientious people – have told me as much. They are afraid that the Proud Boys and Southerners are going to put America back to Jim Crow.

So, I’m going to be watching to see how these narratives take hold. The key will be independent voters. Since Biden took office, there has been a significant shift from registered Democrats to registered Independents. From the surveys I’ve seen, their big issues are Biden’s failure to end COVID and inflation.

The fear of the virus is nearly gone due to the low lethality of the Omicron strain. It will disappear almost entirely the moment someone in the Biden administration persuades POTUS to follow Boris Johnson’s lead.

The fear of the End of Democracy and the rise of Jim Crow will likely stay strong among the Left’s core audience. The question is: Will Independents believe it?

 

Three Reason to Retire in Belize

* The language in Belize is English.

* The country uses common law.

* Business owners are not required to have liability insurance.

(Source: International Living)

 

Interesting: About the Human Brain 

This is a very good TED Talk about the human brain. It turns out that we have very ordinary primate brains, just larger. It explains why human brains soak up so much of our caloric consumption. Also, why neurons are expensive in terms of energy use. Hint: It’s all about the amazing invention of cooking! (And why raw-food diets are bad for you!) Click here to watch it.

 

Interesting: About Viking England

I’ve always thought of English history as a story in two parts. Everything before the Norman Invasion of 1066 was the era of the Anglo-Saxons. And everything afterwards (and every monarch afterwards) was the era of the Normans (who came from France.)

What I never knew is that half a century before William the Conqueror set his sights on England, a Dane – King Cnut – conquered and ruled over the country.

King Cnut exiled Anglo-Saxon royalty, but respected England’s past kings, created laws based on English ones, and eventually exported some English ideas to his kingdoms in Denmark and Norway.

After his death in 1035, he was succeeded by his sons, who didn’t possess their father’s talents for suppressing those lowly Anglo-Saxons. In 1042, England’s exiled Anglo-Saxon rulers returned, and the North Sea Empire crumbled.

But for a short time – caught between two great epochs of history – England was Viking territory.

(Source: Travel Trivia)

 

Politically Incorrect

I’ve mentioned Russell Brand – a comedian I like because he is politically incorrect – here on the blog several times. Tom Segura is one that is new to me. Click here and here to watch him in action Let me know what you think.

 

Readers Write… 

Re the link at the end of the Jan. 14 issue

DP writes: “Please feel free to tell me to ‘fuck off,’ but in your latest blog at the end under bullshit criticism (which was hilarious) you refer to the man on the left as ‘the Black guy.’ You don’t refer to the woman on the right as ‘the white woman.’  There’s only one man in the frame so it just seemed unnecessary.”

My reply: Good catch! However, I looked it up in the usage section of my Ultimate Woke Dictionary, 2020 edition. According to that, as long as the comparison puts the Black person in a positive light, it’s considered acceptable usage. Of course, that was the 2020 edition. The rule may have changed.

Re the Jan. 17 issue, “What’s Up with That?”

MF writes: “Great post, great advice. I had this discussion today with a colleague. I came up the same conclusion.”

 

 Words to the Wise  

* A word I misunderstood: wonky. I thought it had something to do with wonks, as in smart in a nerdy way. It actually means defective, wobbly, or twisted to one side. As used by Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor’s Tale: “The prettiest real-life example I can think of is the wonky-eyed jewel squid of Australian waters, whose left eye is much larger than its right.”

* A word I never knew how to pronounce: quixotic. I knew it came from Don Quixote – the story of a man who imagines himself to be a knight and sets out to right wrongs. And I knew it meant idealistic and unrealistic. Since I pronounce Quixote as kee-HOE-tee, I thought quixotic would be pronounced kee-HAH-tik. But according to my English dictionary, the “x” is pronounced as in English, not Spanish. So it’s kwiks-AH-tik.

* A word I’m trying to use: coprolalia. It means the involuntary use of obscene language, a symptom of Tourette Syndrome. I intend to use it to correct my senior friends that continue to use the F-word unnecessarily.

Nancy Pelosi: Trader of the Year!

The Hand of God 

Written, directed, & produced by Paolo Sorrentino

Available on Netflix

Starring Filippo Scotti, Toni Servillo, and Teresa Saponangelo

MM recommended it to me. He said he selected it because the trailer suggested it was about Diego Maradona, the famous soccer player. (MM was a talented soccer player in high school.) But 15 minutes into the movie, he realized it was something else entirely. It was an artsy movie, of some kind. “Not the kind of movie I would have watched,” he said.

But he said he couldn’t stop watching it. And he wanted me to watch it so we could discuss it. And so, I did.

 

The Story 

This is a coming-of-age movie, set in Naples in the mid-1980s. A young man, Fabietto, lives in an apartment with his father, Saverio Schisa, and mother, Maria Schisa. He is a solitary teen, spending most of his time listening to music, reading philosophy, and watching sports. But he attends family events, including parties and picnics and boat outings. And that is where we get to see the colorful lunacy of the Schisa family. When tragedy strikes the family, Fabietto comes of age.

 

 What I Liked About It 

* I love Fellini. The Hand of God was, in part, an homage to him, and included many Felliniesque touches.

* The cinematography was just plain delicious.

* The talent. First and foremost, Sorrentino’s scriptwriting, direction, and imagination. Then there is the fantastic acting, starting with Filippo Scotti in the lead role, and including Teresa Saponangelo and Toni Servillo, who play Fabietto’s parents, and Luisa Ranieri, who plays his voluptuous and aggrieved aunt.

 

Critical Reception 

The Hand of God won the Grand Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival and was selected as the Italian entry for the Best International Feature Film at this year’s Academy Awards.

On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 83% based on 140 reviews, with an average rating of 7.3/10.

* “The Hand of God is filled with the kind of detail that could only have come from observation and memory. That one family could contain so many unique and peculiar people is a reminder that truth is almost always stranger than fiction.” (Leonard Maltin)

* “This is a deeply affecting coming-of-age story that doubles as a movie about the movies themselves.” (Robert Levin, Newsday)

* “The film has the vividness of memory, but also the structure of memory, which is to say no real structure at all. Visually, though, the movie is of a piece; it’s Sorrentino’s eye that holds it together.” (Mark Feeney, Boston Globe)

Click here to read a good review of it by A.O. Scott.

 

Interesting Facts 

* This is an “auteur” film, written, directed, and produced by Paolo Sorrentino. It’s both a Portrait of Sorrentino, the Filmmaker, as a Young Man, and an homage to Federico Fellini – in particular, to Amarcord, Fellini’s 1974 film about his own adolescence.

* There are several fun little bits in the film that you might not notice on the first viewing, such as Fabietto’s teenage sister, who, because she is always in the bathroom, is not seen until the end.

* The title refers to an irony in the story when it turns out that Argentine superstar Diego Maradona “saved the life” of Fabietto.

You can watch the trailer here.

Enlightenment Now

By Steven Pinker

576 pages

Published in 2018 by Penguin Books

After I published a review of Rationality by Steven Pinker, AG, a colleague, sent me a note saying that he was happy I had discovered Pinker and recommending that I read Enlightenment Now.

I did. And Enlightenment Now is a great book. The best non-fiction book I’ve read since Yuval Harari’s Sapiens. It’s definitely a desert-island book, a book you could read over and over again.

The thesis is very simple. Contrary to what most people believe (and especially college-educated people), the world is not getting worse. From a longer-term perspective at least, in most measures of well-being, things are getting better. For example:

* People are living longer.

* People are wealthier.

* Extreme poverty numbers are plunging.

* Literacy has increased.

* Rates of death are in decline.

 

What I Liked About It 

* This book will educate you. Especially if you believe you are already well educated.

* It won’t just educate you; it may very well change your worldview. Very few books can do this.

* I like the way the book concludes – emphasizing what Pinker says are the essential enlightenment values: reason, science, and humanism.

* He persuasively argues that religious fundamentalism and political correctness are equally dangerous anti-reason ideologies.

If, like me, you have a huge stack of books several feet high that you’re waiting to get around to reading, put Enlightenment Now on top.

 

Critical Reception 

I’ve rarely read so many five-star reviews of a book. And that’s especially astonishing considering the fact that this book is intellectually subversive in today’s world of the woke. Indeed, there were detractors. Kirkus Reviews said what I expected, noting that “though Pinker is progressive, the academically orthodox will find him an apostate.” And British philosopher John Grey criticized Pinker’s advocacy of “scientism” and argued that he misunderstands Nietzsche.” But most of the reviewers gave the book nothing but praise. Here are some examples…

* “In an era of increasingly ‘dystopian rhetoric,’ Pinker’s sober, lucid, and meticulously researched vision of human progress is heartening and important.” (Publishers Weekly)

* “An excellent book, lucidly written, timely, rich in data and eloquent in its championing of a rational humanism that is – it turns out – really quite cool.” (New York Times Book Review)

* “Pinker is a paragon of exactly the kind of intellectual honesty and courage we need to restore conversation and community.” (David Brooks, The New York Times)

* “[Enlightenment Now] is magnificent, uplifting and makes you want to rush to your laptop and close your Twitter account.” (The Economist)

Steven Pinker is a professor of psychology at Harvard University. A two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, he has been named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the World Today and one of Foreign Policy’s 100 Global Thinkers. His popular and highly praised books include The Stuff of Thought, The Blank Slate, Words and Rules, How the Mind Works,and The Language Instinct. The recipient of several major awards for his teaching, books, and scientific research, He also writes frequently for The New York Times, Time, The New Republic, and other magazines.

If you’re not in the mood to read this 576-page book but have an hour to spare for watching a video presentation, any of these three will give you a good sense of what it is about:

* For an interview with Pinker at The Commonwealth Club, click here.

* For a talk he gave at Google, click here.

* For a presentation at the Cato Institute, click here.

This is the second time a friend has sent this video. It shows me two things. What good singing sounds like. And how a good song, well sung, can be an astoundingly good experience.