God and Athletes

I've long found it surprising that athletes could credit God with their athletic success. I can understand saying that talent is God-given, but the idea that God could care who won a tennis match (Michael Chang) or a basketball game (Jeremy Lin) seems ludicrous, almost insulting. An interesting NY Times article on Ryan Hall, a marathoner who will represent the US in the London Olympics next month, notes the important psychological advantage that comes from believing God is on the athlete's side. It seems that even altitude training is not scientifically proven to benefit runners, but may be more placebo effect:

Scientists debate its effects. The variables that determine performance are complex, said Tim Noakes, an exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town who served as an altitude expert for FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

“If you look at the literature, some people benefit and some get worse, and the general result is no effect,” Noakes said of altitude training. The placebo effect, though, can be significant, Noakes said. He urges those who believe in altitude training to continue and those who are skeptical to skip it. At the elite level of marathon running, he said, psychology probably plays a more crucial role than physiology.

“The more stable you are as a human, the better you are as an athlete, and religion is a very stabilizing force,” Noakes said. “You don’t have doubts. God is looking after you. That’s incredibly powerful. If Ryan finds special strength in his religion, it’s much more important for him than training at altitude.”

...He does not view his reliance on God as an abdication of responsibility but as a means of empowerment.  ...

 The article notes how oddly some view his close conversation with God, and quotes Tanya Luhrmann (who coincidentally teaches at Stanford, which is where Hall got his degree in sociology.)

Some elite runners seem taken aback by Hall’s faith-based training.

“So he really thinks God is saying, ‘Run 10 times 1,200 meters today,’ or ‘Take tomorrow off’?’ ” said Dathan Ritzenhein, who finished ninth in the marathon at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, one spot ahead of his countryman Hall. “Wow.”

Hall’s belief in a direct conversation with God was not a fringe occurrence, said T. M. Luhrmann, a Stanford anthropologist who spent a decade researching charismatic evangelicals and wrote a recent, critically acclaimed book, “When God Talks Back.” Polls have shown that about a quarter of Americans have reported a direct revelation from God or have experienced a voice or a vision through prayer.

“Just the way a well-parented child will carry with them the soothing voice of their mother and father, these folks are really trying to build God as that kind of personal relationship,” Luhrmann said in an interview. “It really does give an emotional buffer to people. It seems people are able to carry with them a sense of comforting reassurance and a sense of inspiration. So it’s not so alien as it seems.”

Between Luhrmann's empathetic understanding of evangelicals, and the psychological advantage that certainty can provide, we can understand why we get the professions of faith from elite athletes. It is often said that the difference among elite athletes is not their physical abilities, but their mental toughness, and having God in their corner helps create that mental toughness.

On being "busy"

A commentary in the New York Times ("The 'Busy' Trap") notes that people in New York typically reply to "How are you?" by saying they are very busy, apparently complaining but really bragging, implying their work--and life--is important.  This is perhaps even more the case in Hong Kong, where people have taken the time saved by having domestic helpers and invested it in more work rather than leisure. Plus, since Hong Kong professionals often travel in the region for their work, appointments for professional and social purposes need to be scheduled weeks and even months in advance.  The writer of the NY Times piece--who is a professional writer--makes many important points, including that he needs to work less in order to be able to get more done.  His practice of writing for about five hours a day and taking the rest of the time to visit friends and do other things is good advice for students writing a thesis. I feel many students writing a thesis chain themselves to their desk, but then rather than write, they check (and post on) Facebook and read blogs.  They then feel guilty and spend more time in front of their computer, unproductively.  I highly recommend the article to all students, not just the loafers, but the most ambitious ones too.  I, of course, am too busy to follow his advice....

The SCMP and Editorial Independence

I was wondering when problems would become apparent at the South China Mornign Post. Well, today they’ve erupted into the paper itself. Wang Xiangwei was named editor-in-chief of the SCMP in February, the first mainland born and raised person to hold the post. It was also noteworthy because Wang is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference of Jilin province. A number of people have wondered if this was not a conflict of interest. Asia Sentinel raised the issue the very day he was named editor-in-chief.  I had heard that he had a habit of blocking sensitive stories. I also know that he fired or did not renew the contracts of many non-Chinese journalists, including three who then went on to win awards for the SCMP in early June for their previous work. He seemed to be making the paper more pro-Beijing and less independent.

Now the SCMP has violated one of the basic rules of damage control, it seems to me, by publishing a defensive letter by Wang Xiangwei to his staff that brings even more attention to the allegations against him.  He is accused of downplaying the alleged suicide (but apparent murder) of Li Wangyang on the first day the news was public. A curt (and unflattering) email to an employee who requested an explanation has circulated, embarrassing him. Perhaps he felt he needed to make a public statement since articles like this one in The Malaysian Insider  were making this public, and were questioning whether the SCMP was guilty of self-censorship.  Certainly Wang has a different take on China from many Western commentators. That can sometimes be refreshing. But his entanglements with the state and editorial policies do lead to questions over his independence. It will be interesting to see this play out, and to see how long he lasts.

Inequality, Fairness, and Citizenship Renouncers

Inequality is increasingly under discussion. Some take a very neo-classical, economistic, approach, and do not see why it is an issue. They think the distribution of talent and normal functioning of the economy will create inequality and we should not tamper with it for political reasons. They fail to see how politics accounts a great deal of inequality in the first place.  Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winning economist who does see the political nature of inequality. He says he learned to see the unfairness of inequality growing up in Gary, Indiana, where he saw racism and cyclical unemployment lead to unfair results. He was recently interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air re his new book The Price of Inequality. He said:

The percentage of the population falling below the poverty level has increased dramatically in the last few years, and the percentage of income of those at the very top, the 1%, is now about 20%, much higher than it was 2 or 3 decades ago. I think most Americans understand that our system today isn’t fair. One of the roles of government is to make our system fair.  And one part of fairness is that everybody ought to pay a fair share of their income in taxes. A basic premise I think that most Americans believe is that if your income is very, very high, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as somebody whose income is lower. Most Americans, I think, would not agree with the view that speculators ought to be taxed at half the rate of those who work for an income.

Now, conservatives have pointed out that how many people fall under the poverty line is determined at least in part by where you draw the line. True enough. But no one seriously questions the fact that there has been growing inequality. There are questions about why this is so, and there are questions about whether anything can or should be done about it.  Unfortunately, many economists think inequality is a "natural" fact and that nothing can change it.

Stiglitz is not right that most Americans believe in a sense of fairness where everyone pays at least the same percentage of their income in tax. Neoliberalism has changed Americans' idea of fairness. I have a family friend in Hong Kong who works in venture capital. His family has been fairly liberal; they were fairly mainstream East Coast Democrats. From what I gather, he and his parents supported Clinton, Gore, and Obama. But in a conversation about a year ago, he startled me by arguing that it was not fair that he had to pay so much in taxes. This is a common theme among Amercans abroad, since only the USA and Liberia tax their nationals who live abroad. But as I discussed this with him, I discovered that he had a bigger gripe. He did not think it fair that he even pay the same percentage of his salary in taxes as everyone else. He pointed out that the cost of him uses the roads, the services of the State Department, the benefits of regulations, and all other government services did not increase just because he made more money. He basically was arguing for a "poll tax": a tax per person, with every person paying the same amount, regardless of income.

I think people like him get upset at how much they pay: if you make $2 million per year, and pay at the maximum rate of about 35%, you are paying about $700,000 in taxes. And that sticks in these people's craw. I tried in vain to tell him that he benefited from the economic system, that many services (like FBI protection against kidnapping) protect the rich more than the poor, and that should be happy to pay more to assure the survival of an economic system that benefits him much more than most ordinary workers. He would have none of it. In fact, like many high flying investors, he's begun the process of renouncing his US citizenship. The Wall Street Journal reports that last year, 1,800 Americans renounced their US citizenship.

The whole issue of citizenship renunciation makes me feel uncomfortable.On one hand, it is a bit unseemly to change citizenship based on relatively short-term financial considerations (especially if, given the current worldwide economic problems, security should deteriorate in certain parts of the world--renouncers need to remember they cannot move back to the US later). On the other hand, the nationalistic populism that criticizes renouncers is also unseemly. If people don't want to play in your sandlot, let them go somewhere else. My uncles brought the Bosco clan to the US because of the great economic opportunities it offered. From a certain point of view, they were "renouncers" of Italian citizenship, and during Fascism, my father could not go back to Italy because he was viewed as a sort of traitor (he would have been inscribed into the Italian army). The US is created by people who abandoned their previous nationality, so it is a bit odd to criticize some for abandoning their US citizenship, though I suppose that is precisely what makes it sensitive in the US.

But what I find most disturbing is the fact that people like my friend, a perfectly decent person, now feels that he should not pay any more in taxes, in dollar terms, than a mechanic or assembly line worker. Stiglitz' idea of fairness has become "old fashioned" in the neo-liberal world we live in today. If the rich even don't agree to pay the same percentage tax as the 99%, let along a higher percentage to reflect their greater ability to pay, how can we come to a consensus on how to reduce the government deficits?  How can our notions of fairness have changed so much in just one generation?

New Protocols Against Sexual Harassment

Yesterday’s Ming Pao newspaper published a “front page story” (actually on A2 because A1 was a full page ad featuring Cameron Diaz) that a CUHK professor was given a warning letter for “contact of a sexual nature” for hugging a colleague.  The woman argues the penalty is too light, but the fact of the matter is that a professor hugged a distressed colleague and was then unfairly chastised and is now publicly humiliated. The professor strongly protested his innocence, and resigned in protest. 

A friend of mine who works in a big company, upon hearing of this sad and shocking case, said that the University needs to have “protocols” for meetings. 

I hereby proclaim my protocols for meetings with students and colleagues:

1) All meetings in my office will take place with the door wide open. 

2) All students, staff and colleagues are required to stay on the other side of the desk from me.  I can swivel the computer screen so visitors can see it from across the desk, so no one should come around to my side of the desk and stand next to or behind me, for any reason.

3) No hugging. Ever.

A corollary is that if you come to my office and see there is someone sitting in front of my desk, please do not interrupt me. The open door is not an invitation to interrupt.  And since the door will be open, noise in the hallway needs to be kept down.

Sexual harassment is terrible and needs to be stopped. But we also need to protect people from false accusations of sexual harassment.  Since the University clearly does not have a fair system in place to balance these two needs, my protocols are necessary. They may seem extreme, but given the extremely serious consequences and distressing results of the above case, they are necessary.

Cultural footnote: An important aspect of the original dispute in the case is the meaning of the hug. The professor in this case studied in the US and is married to an American; he hugs my wife when we meet and when we say goodbye. But Chinese do not hug. The newspaper reports the woman saying that she nearly fainted in shock when the university vice-cancellor (president) explained to her that the professor was just using a foreign custom. She could not accept that. I suspect she never spent time in a Latin culture. Many students and some colleagues have commented to me over the years at their surprise at French and Brazilians' custom of hugging and "kissing" (not really a kiss, but seems like a kiss).  Then there is the issue of the professor's resigning in protest. An American friend said that resigning made him seem guilty, but Chinese all recognize this as part of a tradition of righteous protest. Americans would stay and fight (which is why they perhaps deserve the reputation for being litigious), while the Chinese believe in maintaining one's honor. A colleague used the expression 不同流合污, which means "to not associate oneself with undesirable elements" or "not join in their evildoings (literally cesspool)."

Romney Economics and Politics for the dumb

I find it discouraging to see the degree to which democratic politics often does not focus on real issues. As an anthropologist, I understand that symbolism is at the heart of politics, and have no trouble with that. But when symbolism distracts people from their interests, or causes polarization rather than consensus, or confuses the issues, then democracy does not seem to be well served (or democracy does not seem to work that well).

I recently read an article (which I can no longer find) describing the Elizabeth Warren's campaigning in small venues in Massachusetts. The point of the article was that the "undecided voter" would make up his or her mind based on how likable she appeared at such events. To the extent that this "likeability" has to do with how much they feel she understands them and their problems, it is a good fit. But it was clear from the article that she is considered a good candidate because of her social skills in dealing with voters, skills that are probably only partially useful for getting things done in the senate. I've always wondered about the intelligence of "undecided voters" in recent contests: the lines are so clearly drawn between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, red and blue, that one wonders if the "undecided" voter has really been paying attention. To reach them, politicians cannot just hold press conferences and issue position papers. They need to recruit them emotionally, not through rational thought.

Today I see that the Obama campaign has created a website called Romney Economics that seeks to tell the story of Romney's private sector record.  This is a clever idea, because Romney portrays himself as "experienced" and "skilled" in business, and people need to understand what kind of business he ran and how he hollowed out companies, and often made huge profits at the expense of workers and taxpayers who were left holding the bag when the excessively leveraged companies went bankrupt. So far so good.

The problem is that when one reads the examples, it is impossible to understand why what Romney did was even legal.  The three cases describe plundering so egregious that they seem impossible or very biased. The website really needs a 4th example, one where Bain Capital (Romney's firm) and the company it bought and the workers all benefited, so that we can understand how the system should work in theory, helping the reader better understand the three cases of failure. In fact, only if you understand how venture capital is supposed to work can you really understand how Bain Capital's record is one of greed and excess, even if it is legal.  I wonder if the website, and the stories, will really stick if people do not understand how the system is supposed to work. Can people see how Bain (and Romney) used the rules to their private advantage? The website merely demonizes Romney, but will those "undecided voters" be swayed, or will they dismiss this as partisan posturing?  On the other hand, if they are still "undecided" in this election which offers such clear choices, do they have the time and interest to really understand how venture capital is supposed to work?

Human Rights in New York

There is a disturbing report by the anthropologist David Graeber on the New York Police apparently using sexual assault against Occupy Wall Street protesters. He ties this to the city elite's ties to banking, especially to Mayor Bloomberg's statement that the police is his personal army. Bloomberg is, of course, number 20 on the Forbes Billionaires List (11th in the US), so has a vested interest in protecting the current financial system. Graeber also notes that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly is the former director of global security of the Wall Street firm Bear Stearns, so has also revolved between banking and policing. Is there any difference in Kelly's mind between protecting Bear Stearns and protecting "the people of New York," or does protecting the banks loom large in his image of his duty to "New York"?

Americans are uncomfortable about this type of story on two levels: first, sexual assaults are easily believed when they happen in Egypt, but people have trouble believing they would happen in the US. Second, the idea that the rich use force (including police violence and "the law" as a form of terror) to protect their interests is something we learned in history books about the Gilded Era (see Haymarket "Riot"), not something we imagine happening today. I note that despite Graeber's links and fairly good sources, my search of the NY Times showed not a single story mentioning groping or sexual assault of protesters.  What I find interesting about this case is how it is not visible to most Americans.  Many Chinese wish their country were more democratic, and complain about the government, but they basically think things are going in the right direction, and they take some level of authoritarianism for granted (especially if they are among the privileged). Stories like this make the US look uncomfortably like the Chinese case, with Americans making excuses (it must be rogue officers, it must be exaggerations, it cannot be policy) and not seeing how their own democracy is constrained by the rich and powerful. Graeber's story, plus the recent revelations of NYPD spying on ordinary citizens simply because they are Muslim (see Fresh Air story here)--and the fact that many New Yorkers think there is no problem with this--make one worry about the future of American democracy and freedom.