The Alchemist in the Minivan

In a blog post in mid-February, I introduced my (mostly tongue-in-cheek) theory that the Franken-Coleman election for the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota is the very first “quantum election.”

Even while that contest’s recount goes on (and on and on), we may now be experiencing our second quantum election–the 20th Congressional District in New York.

At this point, although it’s still very early, it looks like yesterday’s vote may very well prove to be inconclusive, with ongoing disputes about absentee ballots and other voting irregularities. Once again, perhaps, the winner of this election will be determined eventually by whatever official body takes the final snapshot. As long as additional snapshots are being taken (e.g., recounts, court cases, appeals, etc.), the outcome will change on a somewhat random basis, as predicted by the probability cloud of voters.

In a comment on my previous post about quantum elections, Erik offered a critique of my theory.  Although I feel unqualified, as a philosopher and epistemologist, to argue with this critique, I must reiterate my belief that there is no “true winner” in these elections.  The “winner” is randomly determined at the moment the observer makes the observation.

If this trend toward quantum elections continues, the next round of national elections in 2010 will be a mess.

Perhaps some of the techniques that high-energy physicists use to better understand quantum mechanics can be applied to political science.  Here are two suggestions:

1)  The large hadron collider accelerates particles (e.g.  protons) around a big circular track and then bangs them together.  The results of the collisions provide valuable evidence that can be used to test various quantum theories.  What would happen if we accelerated two politicians (perhaps  a Democrat and a Republican) around the outer edge of the Capitol’s circular Rotunda and then collided the two politicians?  Perhaps this would knock some sense into them.

2)  And here’s another application of quantum theory to politics:  It’s a thought experiment called “Schrodinger’s Supreme Court Nominee,” based on the well-known thought experiment referred to as Schrodinger’s Cat. In this experiment, a Supreme Court nominee is locked in a box, along with a geiger counter and a tiny radioactive sample.  During this one-hour experiment, the nominee is both confirmed and rejected at the same time.  The nominee’s political fate is smeared out in a probability cloud.  (In the cat experiment, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.)

At the end of the hour, the box is opened.  Only at this instant will the nominee “collapse” into a final state of either “confirmed” or “rejected.”  This procedure is just as effective as, and much faster than, today’s confirmation process for dealing with a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Any other ideas?

One of the themes of this blog is that scientists enjoy (and suffer) the same emotions, illnesses, ecstasies, depressions, and everyday life experiences as every other human being.

The process of science—with its values of measurability, repeatability, objectivity, logic, and skepticism—does an admirable job of dampening the “non-scientific” influences brought by a human being. But those values can’t be ignored or eliminated. And if it were possible to eradicate those pesky human qualities, we’d also have to eliminate curiosity, the search for meaning, the appreciation of beauty, the desire to make the world a better place, and the drive for truth—the very motivations that underlie science itself. That wouldn’t be a good trade-off.

Just remember that science is a process. A scientist is a human being.

In today’s Washington Post, an op-ed piece by endocrinologist David Shaywitz, “When Science is a Siren Song,” forcefully makes the same point.

My post from earlier today, “Some of my best friends are …,” discusses my personal experience with the idea of unconscious bias. The same topic is discussed in Charles Blow’s column in today’s New York Times.

Some of my best friends are …

…. unconsciously biased against certain social groups (e.g., Women in Science; African-Americans). And I am, too.

At least, that’s the claim by three psychologists from Harvard University, the University of Virginia, and the University of Washington. These psychologists study a phenomenon known as “implicit association.”

Here, for example, are two of the findings from these studies:

• People are often unaware of their implicit biases. Ordinary people, including the researchers who direct this project, are found to harbor negative associations in relation to various social groups (i.e., implicit biases) even while honestly (the researchers believe) reporting that they regard themselves as lacking these biases.

• Implicit biases predict behavior. From simple acts of friendliness and inclusion to more consequential acts such as the evaluation of work quality, those who are higher in implicit bias have been shown to display greater discrimination. The published scientific evidence is rapidly accumulating.

If these findings are valid, they have profound implications for the way we make career decisions for ourselves and for others. The findings offer support to the idea that a slight skewing of many minor and major decisions (by interviewers, reviewers, colleagues, etc.) gradually add up, over time, to a measurable decrease in the number of women and under-represented minorities in the scientific workforce. (See, for example, Virginia Valian’s book, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women.)

As a member of the “enlightened” generation that came of age in the 1970s, I find this hypothesis disturbing and these findings problematic. After all, I’m objective, fair-minded, sophisticated, sensitive, rational, and data-driven. Right?

Before I accept the notion that I’m unwittingly harboring sexist. racist, or ageist biases, I’d like to see some evidence, please. Show me the data.

“Take this test,” the researchers respond, inviting me to the Project Implicit website.

So I take the tests.

Guess what? The tests find:

• “Your data suggest a slight association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts.”

• “Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American.”

I’m not proud of the results, and I decide not to take any more tests right now. I don’t really want to take more tests and then be told about my biases in other areas (including weight, religion, age, Arab-Muslim, etc). Besides, the tests require concentration and time (actually only about 10 minutes per test).

Do I find my results distressing?
– Yes

Do I believe the validity of the test?
– Maybe. I’m not a psychologist, and I haven’t studied the peer-reviewed literature on this topic. Is there a scientific consensus on this subject?

Does it make me think?
– Absolutely.

Does it make you think?

While finishing my first cup of coffee this morning, I realized that my adolescent had not returned at all last night. I knew he was getting more restless every day, but I never expected him to stay out all night. I searched the house and the neighborhood, calling his name. I put out an online appeal on craigslist.org. Can anybody help me? Have you seen him?

It was probably his hormones, I realized. Puberty arrived earlier than I expected. “You should have taken action sooner,” I scolded myself. But…I thought I had more time, so I hadn’t made it a top priority. Did I wait too long? Would he be safe? Would others be safe around him?

At 11 am, he finally came home. I was relieved…until I saw the blood around his ear.

Leo, my nine-month-old, orange-and-white tabby cat, had been in a cat fight. After I cleaned him up and assured myself that he was not seriously injured, I called the vet and made the appointment I had been procrastinating—Leo will be neutered next week. Until then, he’s not going outside, no matter how loudly and often he howls.

A year ago, my previous pet cat, the beloved 13-year-old Midnight, had never returned home after one of his nightly outings. Although that incident was unrelated to cat puberty, it was nonetheless a very traumatic event for me and my boys. This morning, when Leo didn’t return, in spite of winter temperatures well below freezing, I’d experienced a flashback to last year’s heartbreak. With Leo, why hadn’t I taken action sooner?

Leo’s adolescent urges will be tamed pretty easily, with just a little snip. With human teenagers, however, that option is not available. At least, I don’t think it is…

When my sons went through puberty, I also procrastinated before taking action. I assumed that school and church would educate them properly about matters related to sex, morals, and relationships. Maybe I wouldn’t have to have “the talk” with them.

The schools and the church did their best, but, to be honest, those institutions provide little shelter in the hurricane of our modern culture. From TV sitcoms to movies, from MySpace to mp3 lyrics, our children are buffeted by strong societal winds as they enter puberty. As parents, we need to voice our values, knowledge, and wisdom to them—early and often.

As my sons can tell you, I did eventually have “the talk” with each of them, but it was brief and awkward. As a father-son talk, it was true to stereotype—short on details, long on unspoken assumptions, with minimal eye contact. It was not one of my finer moments as a Dad, and I regret not doing it sooner or more conscientiously. (Is this an easier job for Moms?)

As humans, we don’t have to be slaves to our animal instincts. Teenage boys don’t inevitably tomcat around, and teenage girls don’t go into heat. But if you’re a parent of a child on the cusp of adolescence, please don’t underestimate the power of puberty.