The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.1
I've been puzzling about how to respond to recent events, and whether it's even a good idea to respond at all. Part of our current predicament is the constant media over-attention to the coronavirus pandemic at the expense of all other news, even when there's really nothing new about the disease to report, and I don't want to contribute to that. So, maybe, the best thing to do is to ignore the whole subject.
On the other hand, I can't stop the news media from obsessing about coronavirus, nor President Trump from giving a lengthy news conference every day. So, I did move up my monthly "Recommended Reading" post to try to draw attention to some measured, non-hysterical recent articles. Now, I'm going to discuss in some detail just why I think we over-reacted to this threat.
Just as the proper response to the pandemic is somewhere between inaction and panicked over-reaction, the correct response is for me to neither ignore nor obsess about it, as so many are doing. Hopefully, this entry will fall somewhere in between.
I am not a physician, epidemiologist, or medical scientist of any sort, so I'm not an expert on viruses or epidemics. Moreover, at this point in time, part of the problem we face is uncertainty: even the experts don't know exactly what is going to happen. However, as a logician, there are some logical matters related to the current pandemics of coronavirus and of fear of coronavirus that, hopefully, I can shed some light on.
It should be obvious that at least some of the reaction to the pandemic in the United States is unwarranted. For instance, along with toilet paper, hand sanitizer has been a victim of panic-buying with some stores being cleaned out2, and some news sites providing instructions on how to make your own3. However, washing your hands with soap and water is a better way to prevent the spread of a virus than using hand sanitizer4. Obviously, one reason for this sort of behavior is ignorance, but given the saturation news media coverage of the coronavirus, why are people still ignorant?
It's impossible to be sure exactly what else is contributing to this over-reaction, and this period will be much studied in the near future to figure out how to prevent a re-occurrence. But in the absence of sociological and social psychological studies into what produced the pandemic panic response, I will make some educated guesses about what factors have contributed to it:
- Fear of the Unknown: Because the coronavirus is new, there's much that we don't know about it: How infectious is it? How many people are already infected? How widely will it spread? What is the death rate for those who become ill from it? I'll discuss below in more detail some of these unknowns, but the uncertainty we face is one potent source of fear. How should we react when we don't know the answers to these basic questions? The tendency may be to assume a worst-case scenario simply due to ignorance and fear. However, we need to weigh the actual costs against the possible benefits of every action, taking into consideration the probabilities of those benefits. If the actual costs are higher than the potential benefits, then the cure is worse than the disease. It's like the old medical joke that there's good news and bad news: the good news is that the operation was successful; the bad news is that the patient died on the operating table.
The newness and, hence, ignorance about coronavirus is one reason why the reaction to it has been so much greater than that to past influenza epidemics. For instance, 80,000 Americans died of flu just two years ago5, yet there was nothing like the media frenzy then that surrounds the new virus. There was no run on hand sanitizer, even though both viruses are transmitted in similar ways6. As I write this, fewer than 1,700 Americans have died from the disease caused by coronavirus infection7, which is about 2% of those killed by flu two years ago. No doubt that number will rise, but will it exceed 80,000 this year? We don't know.
The same sort of steps being taken today could have been taken two years ago, and some of those 80,000 lives would have been saved. Why the difference? One reason, I suspect, is that influenza is a known threat, one that we have grandfathered into our lives, whereas coronavirus is new, and we fear the new.
- You can't spell "pandemic" without "panic": The media constantly use the word "pandemic" to describe what is happening with the coronavirus, and the World Health Organization (WHO) officially designating it such was treated as a big deal8. I expect that if you asked most Americans what "pandemic" means they wouldn't be able to define it or explain why coronavirus is one, but would think it just means some sort of super-epidemic. However, a pandemic disease is a new disease that has spread worldwide9; it has nothing to do with its severity. In today's world of global transportation by airplane, any new highly-infectious disease is likely to become pandemic in a matter of weeks if not days. Seasonal influenza is not a pandemic only because it is not new8.
- The Death Rate: One of the unknowns about coronavirus is the death rate, or what epidemiologists call the "case fatality rate" (CFR)10. The CFR is defined simply as the number of deaths caused by a disease divided by the total number of cases of that disease, often converted into a percentage. On the third of this month, the WHO announced that the CFR of the disease that's caused by the coronavirus was 3.4%11, which was simply the result of dividing all reported fatalities―3,110―by all reported cases―90,893―and multiplying by 100. While, as with the other factors I discuss in this entry, I can't prove it, I suspect that a lot of people were frightened by this statistic. It's by now been fairly widely explained that 3.4% probably does not represent the actual death rate of the disease caused by coronavirus infection, which should be considerably lower12. However, once again, we don't know what the actual death rate is and won't know for a long while.
- Follow the Leader: People are social animals, like bison, and if a frightened few run off in one direction, others will follow and, hopefully, it won't be over a cliff. Fear can spread through a human society in much the same way as a disease, though the agent in this case is an emotion, not a virus. Thankfully, such epidemics of panic seem to die out on their own fairly quickly, which is what I expect will happen in the next few weeks. There are already signs that people are calming down and reconsidering how to rationally respond to the spread of the disease, and March madness may, thankfully, die with the month.
- All or Nothing: I hope that it is obvious that I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the spread of this new disease or do nothing to stop it. This is not a case where the choice we face is black or white, do nothing or do everything. Instead, we have a range of choices between inaction and over-reaction. Protecting ourselves from the disease is not the only value in play: we also need to protect our economy, our political system, our social life, and our freedom.
- H. P. Lovecraft, "Supernatural Horror in Literature", 1934
- Jeff Ferrell, "'Panic Buying' blamed for hand sanitizer shortage", KSLA News, 3/4/2020
- Boone Ashworth, "How to Make Your Own Hand Sanitizer", Wired, 3/12/2020
- "Good luck finding hand sanitizer; CDC says soap is still king", Associated Press, 3/3/2020
- Julia Belluz, "80,000 Americans died of the flu last winter. Get your flu shot.", Vox, 12/20/2018
- Pien Huang, "How The Novel Coronavirus And The Flu Are Alike…And Different", National Public Radio, 3/20/2020
- "Cases in U.S.", Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed: 3/28/2020
- Amy McKeever, "Coronavirus is officially a pandemic. Here's why that matters.", National Geographic, 3/11/2020
- "What is a pandemic?", World Health Organization, 2/24/2010
- Gary D. Friedman, Primer of Epidemiology (2nd edition, 1980), p. 11
- "WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19―3 March 2020", World Health Organization, 3/3/2020
- For instance: Jamie Ducharme & Elijah Wolfson, "The WHO Estimated COVID-19 Mortality at 3.4%. That Doesn't Tell the Whole Story", Time, 3/9/2020
Book Review: Cold Warriors
Title: Cold Warriors
Subtitle: Writers Who Waged the Literary Cold War
Authors: Duncan White
Quote: Orwell took [Animal Farm] to [publisher] Jonathan Cape. … The signs were auspicious as…the chief reader of fiction…recommended publication. In May , Orwell met with Cape, who agreed to publish. … On June 19, though, Cape wrote to [Leonard] Moore [Orwell's agent] to tell him he was not going to publish after all. …[T]he real reason for the rejection was…sinister. During negotiations, Cape told Moore that he wanted, "as a matter of policy" to consult a "senior official" at the Ministry of Information. What is remarkable is that this official then followed up with a letter in which he told Cape that publishing Animal Farm would damage relations with the Soviet Union and therefore undermine the war effort. The pressure applied by the official caused Cape to crack. … What Orwell did not know at the time, but came to later suspect, was that there was more going on than weak-willed capitulation to political censorship. The Ministry official who warned Cape against publication was Orwell's old acquaintance…Peter Smollett―or, to give his real name, Hans Peter Smolka. … It is disputed when Smolka first began working for Soviet intelligence. …Smolka…was given the code name "Abo"… Agent Abo's intervention did not kill Animal Farm but delayed its publication, and subsequent impact, by as much as a year.1
Review: Cold Warriors is a book about how a large number of writers, and their books, were used for propaganda during the Cold War. Sixteen writers are listed in the chapter titles, and many others are mentioned in passing. Here's how White says he chose them:
One of the biggest challenges of this book was deciding which writers to focus on. Some selections seemed obvious for the indisputable influence they exercised over the Cold War: George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Boris Pasternak, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, for example. Another criterion for selection was writers who had lived through various stages of the Cold War and therefore could provide a throughline to the book: Graham Greene, Mary McCarthy, and Stephen Spender fit this profile. Others have less space dedicated to them but have compelling, essential stories to tell: Ernest Hemingway and the end of the Second World War; Anna Akhmatova under late Stalinism; Howard Fast during the Red Scare; Richard Wright at the Bandung Conference; John le Carré at the Berlin Wall; Vaclav Havel leading the Velvet Revolution.2
White can write about whomever he wants to, but some of his inclusions as well as omissions puzzle me. For instance, Fast, a once bestselling author of potboiler novels made into movies, is probably little read today. White writes of Fast:
Fast's ability to build tension marked him out as an excellent storyteller, and in Spartacus he deployed an ambitious flashback structure, but the novel slipped too easily into overripe prose and melodrama to be considered a work of serious literary merit. It was Fast's gift as an author to be able to write in a way that carried a broad appeal even if that appeal did not last more than one reading.3
Though I've never read Fast, I found his story in Cold Warriors interesting, but it seemed that it could've been better told in a biography, and perhaps it has been. For an example of a writer who is not included, but arguably should be, consider William F. Buckley, Jr., who was a spy novelist with a personal background in espionage, like Greene and Le Carré. Buckley had much more influence on American foreign policy, especially during the Reagan administration, than either Greene or Le Carré seem to have had on British policy. Reagan's policies probably contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, and thus to the end of the Cold War. So, Buckley may have had more influence on the course of the Cold War than any writer discussed in this book, with the exceptions of Orwell, Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn.
I suppose that Buckley could be rejected on literary grounds, but so could Fast. Alternatively, it may be that Buckley's political influence was largely due to his magazine editorship, newspaper columns, and television show, rather than his spy novels. Or, perhaps, White just doesn't like him, but likes Fast. Fair enough, but then we readers should be told that the writers are included for subjective reasons, rather than based on historical influence or literary merit.
As far as I can tell, all the writers selected for inclusion were or are left-wing anti-communists, with the possible exception of Solzhenitsyn. This may explain Buckley's exclusion, as well as that of the most famous spy novelist of all, Ian Fleming. I don't know whether Fleming is read much nowadays, but his character, James Bond, is alive and kicking in the movies. When was the last time a movie was made based on a Mary McCarthy or Howard Fast novel?
This is a very long book, and I could have done with less of some of the minor literary figures such as Fast. For example, an entire chapter is devoted to Gioconda Belli, a Nicaraguan poet whom I'd never heard of before and don't care if I never hear of again. The chapter could easily have been left out without affecting the book's "throughline"; I suggest skipping over it if you've never heard of her.
The book is a series of short biographies of writers, focusing on their political lives, embedded in a literary history of the Cold War. Unfortunately, with some exceptions, if you aren't familiar with and interested in the writers, you probably won't find their stories very interesting. The chapters on Orwell, Koestler, Isaac Babel, Akhmatova, and Solzhenitsyn, are exceptional. I've never read Babel or Akhmatova, and I'm not sure that I want to, but their life stories are fascinating.
At its best, the book reads more like an elaborate spy novel, such as those by John le Carré4, than a scholarly history. At its worst, White gets bogged down in uninteresting and confusing historical details5. He often doesn't seem to know the difference between the telling detail and the useless detail.
Unfortunately, I don't think I learned much about literary propaganda from this book, except for the interesting fact that the United States used balloons to drop copies of Animal Farm behind the Iron Curtain6. What I'd really like to know, though, is did this sort of thing do any good? Of course, the Soviet Union prohibited the publication of the book, otherwise smuggling in copies would make no sense, but was the book really a danger to the Soviet state, or was its prohibition simply the result of an irrational paranoia? One won't learn the answer to such questions from this book, but perhaps no one knows. White quotes the little-known―at least, in America―Russian writer Yulii Daniel, who was put on trial for anti-Soviet writing:
Daniel himself questioned the whole premise that literature could be used as a weapon in the Cold War. "As regards the harm done to our state," he said, "I do not think a couple of books by us, or even a score of books, could inflict any considerable damage on it."7
Now, Daniel was trying to defend himself and his writing during a show trial, but I think he made a good point. Despite quoting this, White doesn't seem interested in the issue himself. Clearly, both sides in the Cold War acted as though novels and poems could be dangerous things, but were they really? I'd like to believe that Orwell's novels contributed to bringing down the Soviet Union, but I suspect that the main reasons for its decline and fall were economic. White's book, despite its great length, supplies little evidence to think otherwise.
The Cold War was a long and, as evidenced by this book, exceedingly complicated series of events, which leads to a sprawling and sometimes hard to follow work. White does not do a very good job of explaining the complex political background that's necessary for understanding the events related, but then he had his work cut out for him. I lived through the latter half of the Cold War, and I've read a good bit about it since, yet there were times when I was lost trying to follow what was happening in the book. Too much is included and too much is left out.
I found parts of Cold Warriors engrossing, but it could've been more interesting as a whole if it had been shorter, with its cast of characters trimmed down to a more manageable size. Even without cutting out some of the lesser writers, the book would've been significantly shorter and an easier read if White didn't so often get bogged down in petty details. There's a good 500-page book inside these 700 pages.
The book is well-proofread, and I noticed only a few typographical and grammatical errors. However, it could have used a ruthless editing to cut it down to size and shape it into a clearer story. No doubt history is complicated and confusing, but that's no excuse for history books being so.
Recommendation: If you're locked inside your house due to the current mass hysteria outside it and you need something long to read, you could do worse than this book―or you might finally get around to War and Peace. Recommended for those who have read or are interested in one or more of the writers covered, and such readers might skip over chapters dealing with ones that they're less interested in, but what's your hurry? Who knows when you can go out again? Those not already familiar with the history of the Cold War should start elsewhere.
- Duncan White, Cold Warriors: Writers Who Waged the Literary Cold War (2019), pp. 212-214. All subsequent page citations are to this book.
- P. 12.
- P. 324.
- Unfortunately, Le Carré's life is much less interesting than his novels.
- Here's an egregious paragraph from p. 127:
…"Etienne" introduced Agelhoff to a playboy by the name of Jacques Mornard, who claimed to have deserted from the Belgian army. Mornard seduced Agelhoff, buying her expensive gifts and taking her to sophisticated restaurants. Mornard was not really Mornard, though―he was Ramon Mercader, a highly trained NKVD agent. Mercader had been recruited at some point in 1936 by Leonid Eitingon, who ran the Barcelona NKVD station during the Spanish Civil War. Eitingon was the lover of Caridad Mercader, a radical Spanish leftist and Ramon's mother, and he arranged for her son, who then commanded a Republican army unit, to receive instruction in guerrilla warfare. Ramon was a keen student and helped train foreigners recruited by the NKVD―including, it is speculated, David Crook, the Englishman who spied on Orwell. In the summer of 1937, Ramon traveled to Moscow, where he received further training.
Got that? There will be a test later. If you think that this passage is taken out of context, you're right, but it's not much better in context, which is why I marked it as a horrible example.
- Pp. 1-3.
- P. 514.
And Then There Were Suddenly Only Two
Sunday night there was another so-called debate between candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination for president. The previous one had seven contenders1, but only two are left standing: Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders2. Agatha Christie would not have plotted it this way. I have a few procedural comments about the event before getting into a substantive issue:
- Most of the five lost candidates were done in by the primaries on "Super Tuesday", which was just two weeks ago but seems to have happened long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Tulsi Gabbard received a delegate in those primaries, which would have qualified her by the previous rules, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) gave her the old heave-ho by raising those requirements3. I'm glad to see a more manageable number of contestants, but three might have been just as good or even better than only two. Gabbard probably has little chance of gaining the nomination, but she may well have added interest as well as value to the match between Biden and Sanders.
- There were three moderators for only two candidates. I would've thought the DNC and its media hosts for these events would have been embarrassed to have more moderators than candidates, or at least the moderators themselves would be embarrassed that the DNC seems to think it takes three of them to control two old men.
- Due to the current conditions of near panic over coronavirus, there was no studio audience―I assume they were all out trying to score some toilet paper. I've previously questioned the value of such an audience4, especially when the moderators cannot control it, so I don't think that this was any great loss and maybe even a gain. I hope that future forums will remain audience-less even if coronavirus fear dies down.
Now, on to the substantive point. During the forum, Bernie Sanders addressed Joe Biden, asserting: "You have been on the floor of the Senate time and time again talking about the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and veterans programs." Biden then denied it5. This exchange provides an example of a common political fallacy.
At least with respect to Social Security (SS), Sanders here is using the word "cut" in the political doublespeak sense of a smaller than requested, scheduled, or expected increase6. What Biden was talking about was lowering the automatic cost-of-living increases of SS. In other words, these would not have been "cuts" in the usual sense of the word, but lower increases. For this reason, Biden was right to deny that he had called for cuts to SS.
This may well have been the last forum for Democratic candidates for the party's nomination in this election cycle, since the Sanders boom seems to have fizzled out. If so, the next one will be between the two party nominees―presumably, Biden and Trump―and will be run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, instead of the DNC. Hopefully, the commission will do a better job than the DNC has done.
- Debate Watch: And Then There Were Still Seven, 2/26/2020
- Mark Z. Barabak & Melanie Mason, "6 takeaways from the Joe Biden-Bernie Sanders Democratic debate", Los Angeles Times, 3/15/2020
- "Tulsi Gabbard rips Dems, DNC for ignoring fact she is still in 2020 presidential race", USA Features, 3/10/2020
- Logic Checking the Last Debate, 10/20/2016
- "Democratic debate fact check: Examining claims from Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders", Associated Press, 3/15/2020
- For a couple of previous examples, see: More is Less, 10/21/2004
The Panic Virus
I usually wait until the end of the month to post these reading lists, but given the current state of borderline mass hysteria on the subject of the new virus spreading around the world, I'm putting up this one earlier than usual. So, if you've barricaded yourself in your house until the news media say it's safe to come out, you might as well read something to pass the time. All of the following readings are from experts of one sort or another.
- Ignacio López-Goñi, "Coronavirus: how to keep things in perspective", World Economic Forum, 3/8/2020
Regardless of whether we classify the new coronavirus as a pandemic, it is a serious issue. … We certainly have…a pandemic of fear. The entire planet's media is gripped by coronavirus. It is right that there is deep concern and mass planning for worst-case scenarios. … But it is also right that we must not panic. … The 1918 flu pandemic caused more than 25 million deaths in less than 25 weeks. Could something similar happen now? Probably not; we have never been better prepared to fight a pandemic.
Keep in mind that the news media run on "the power of bad" and careen from one supposed "crisis" to the next, because that's how they get you to pay attention to them.
I'm not a physician, and I don't even play one on television, so here is an actual physician warning about the dangers of over-reaction:
- Alex Kasprak, "Did an Infectious Disease Specialist Write 'I Am Not Scared of COVID-19'?", Snopes, 3/9/2020
I'm a doctor and an Infectious Diseases Specialist. … I am not scared of Covid-19. I am concerned about the implications of a novel infectious agent that has spread the world over and continues to find new footholds in different soil. I am rightly concerned for the welfare of those who are elderly, in frail health or disenfranchised who stand to suffer mostly, and disproportionately, at the hands of this new scourge. But I am not scared of Covid-19. What I am scared about is the loss of reason and wave of fear that has induced the masses of society into a spellbinding spiral of panic, stockpiling obscene quantities of anything that could fill a bomb shelter adequately in a post-apocalyptic world. … But mostly, I'm scared about what message we are telling our kids when faced with a threat. Instead of reason, rationality, openmindedness and altruism, we are telling them to panic, be fearful, suspicious, reactionary and self-interested. … I implore you all. Temper fear with reason, panic with patience and uncertainty with education. … Let's meet this challenge together in the best spirit of compassion for others, patience, and above all, an unfailing effort to seek truth, facts and knowledge as opposed to conjecture, speculation and catastrophizing.
Let's also not panic about the panic. In addition to hyping the virus itself, the media are over-emphasizing a few minor incidents of over-reaction, such as people fighting over toilet paper in Australia.
Another physician is interviewed:
- "Dr. Drew Pinsky: Coronavirus Panic Must Stop, Press Needs to Be Held Accountable for Hurting People", Real Clear Politics, 3/10/2020
CBS News: So you've seen pandemics over the decades, how does this one compare with everything?
Dr. Drew Pinsky: A bad flu season is 80,000 dead, we've got about 18,000 dead from influenza this year, we have a hundred from corona. Which should you be worried about influenza or Corona? A hundred versus 18,000? It's not a trick question. … What I have a problem with is the panic and the fact that businesses are getting destroyed, that people's lives are being upended, not by the virus but by the panic. The panic must stop. And the press, they really somehow need to be held accountable because they are hurting people.
CBS News: So, where do you think the panic started? Besides the press…what was the impetus in terms of mass hysteria?
Pinsky: … Let me give you an example: so the World Health Organization is out now saying the fatality rate from the virus is 3.4%, right? Every publication from the WHO says 3.4% and we expect it to fall dramatically once we understand the full extent of the illness. No one ever reports the actual statement. We go 3.4% that's 10 times more than the whatever, five times more than the flu virus and, yeah, it's gonna be a little more [than the] flu probably. … I think there was…a concerted effort by the press to capture your eyes, and in doing so they did it by inducing panic.
The next writer is not a physician but a journalist with a long experience with writing about viral diseases, extending back to the '80s and AIDS:
- Michael Fumento, "Coronavirus going to hit its peak and start falling sooner than you think", The New York Post, 3/8/2020
In 2018, the CDC estimated, there were 80,000 flu deaths. That's against 19 coronavirus deaths so far, from about 470 cases. Worldwide, there have been about 3,400 coronavirus deaths, out of about 100,000 identified cases. Flu, by comparison, grimly reaps about 291,000 to 646,000 annually. China is the origin of the virus and still accounts for over 80 percent of cases and deaths. But its cases peaked and began declining more than a month ago, according to data presented by the Canadian epidemiologist who spearheaded the World Health Organization's coronavirus mission to China. Fewer than 200 new cases are reported daily, down from a peak of 4,000. Subsequent countries will follow this same pattern, in what's called Farr's Law. First formulated in 1840 and ignored in every epidemic hysteria since, the law states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern or bell-shaped curve. AIDS, SARS, Ebola―they all followed that pattern. So does seasonal flu each year. Clearly, flu is vastly more contagious than the new coronavirus, as the WHO has noted. Consider that the first known coronavirus cases date back to early December, and since then, the virus has afflicted fewer people in total than flu does in a few days. Oh, and why are there no flu quarantines? Because it's so contagious, it would be impossible. As for death rates, … you can't employ simple math―as everyone is doing―and look at deaths versus cases because those are reported cases. With both flu and assuredly with coronavirus, the great majority of those infected have symptoms so mild―if any―that they don't seek medical attention and don't get counted in the caseload. … Still, if you want to try to reduce your low risk even further, then use what works against flu and colds. Both the surgeon general and head of the CDC have advised we nix the masks; they don't work. Instead, wash your hands with hot water and soap or an alcohol solution for at least 10 to 20 seconds. That way you won't spread any germs when you use the TV remote to flip off the latest hysterical news report.
A social psychologist on the cognitive mistakes that can lead to panics:
- Mark Travers, "Psychology Research Explains Panic Over Coronavirus―And How You Can Calm Down", Forbes, 3/6/2020
By now, we've all seen the pictures and read the headlines. Coronavirus is real and its impact is growing. How concerned should we be about the chance of infection? That's difficult to say, but one thing is for sure: panic is not the answer. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we tend to do in situations like these. Flawed judgment takes over. We overreact. We suspect that we might already be infected. We prepare for the worst. Irrational impulses drown out level-headed thinking. … How can we combat this type of flawed reasoning? One way is to take a more passive interest in the news rather than being glued to the TV or reading every new Coronavirus headline that is published.
Regular readers of The Fallacy Files will recognize the first bias discussed in this article as the availability bias.
Perspective from a microbiologist:
Former NBC Nightly News anchorman Brian Williams has a show on the MSNBC cable "news" network―who knew? Williams was driven from his anchor chair five years ago1 because of a long history of self-aggrandizing falsehoods2. Apparently, MSNBC is NBC's version of Siberia, where disgraced NBC personnel are sent to die.
Judging from a segment of yesterday's episode, it would seem that Williams' mathematical abilities are as bad as his memory. This has already received a lot of publicity3, so you may have heard about it. In case you haven't, you can watch it here:
In their defense, they were only off by a factor of a million! But this was really beyond ordinary innumeracy; it's innumeracy times a million. I suspect that this was the result of what Douglas Hofstadter calls "number numbness"4, which is the paralyzing effect that large numbers have on some people's brains. Throw in the word "million" and they can no longer divide. How else can you explain the fact that it never struck them that giving a million dollars to each American citizen would equal more than 500 million dollars? A lot more.
It's remarkable that no one caught this mistake before MSNBC aired it. It's not just Williams who was at fault here. There was the original Nitwitter, whose innumerate blurt was shown on screen. Then, there's Mara Gay, the oblivious young woman that Williams is interviewing, who's apparently on the editorial board of The New York Times, which could explain a lot. Also, there must be some writers, editors, and producers behind-the-scenes who should have stopped Williams before he became a public laughingstock. Perhaps all of the above people attended the Costello School of Math, see:
Keep this incident in mind if you're ever tempted to watch MSNBC. You can learn much more from Abbott and Costello movies, though they're not as funny.
- "NBC removes Brian Williams from 'Nightly News'", Chicago Tribune, 6/18/2015
- Paul Farhi, "NBC News finds Brian Williams embellished at least 11 times: report", Chicago Tribune, 4/25/2015
- For instance: Reed Richardson, "Watch MSNBC's Brian Williams and NYT Editorial Board Member Both Fail Basic Math on Bloomberg Ad Spending", Mediaite, 3/6/2020
- Douglas R. Hofstadter, "On Number Numbness", Metamagical Themas (1985), pp. 115-135
Quirks Vs. Anti-Quirks
You've heard of quarks, of course, but you may not have heard of quirks. Quirks are a type of subatomic particle recently discovered by physicists, together with their anti-particles, anti-quirks. Quirks got their name because they're quirky: they're strangely unreactive particles. In contrast, anti-quirks are highly reactive.
Quirks and anti-quirks always collide in pairs. Also, if you put a bunch of quirks or anti-quirks together, they will eventually collide. Whenever two quirks collide, they just bounce off each other and go about their business. When two anti-quirks collide, they annihiliate each other. However, when a quirk and an anti-quirk collide, the quirk is destroyed, but the anti-quirk continues on its merry way.
Quirks, it turns out, are easily made, but it takes massive amounts of energy to create anti-quirks. So far, only 23 anti-quirks have been created, and are kept in 23 magnetic bottles on a shelf in the basement of the Extremely Large Quirk Collider (ELQC). No quirks or anti-quirks can escape from the ELQC; they just bounce around in there colliding with one another.
What would eventually happen if all 23 anti-quirks were released together into the collider with an unknown number of quirks?
Here's a hint: Quirks are odd particles, but anti-quirks are even odder.
Here's another hint: It often helps to solve a puzzle by first solving a simpler version. So, first discover what would happen if only one anti-quirk were released into the collider with the quirks. Now, what would happen if two were released? What about three?
Solution to Quirks Vs. Anti-Quirks: Eventually, all the quirks in the collider would be destroyed, and all but one of the anti-quirks, so only one anti-quirk would be left. This is because when quirks collide, nothing happens, but whenever an anti-quirk collides with a quirk, the quirk is destroyed. So, quirks are destroyed singly. In contrast, the only way anti-quirks are destroyed is in pairs, when two collide. Therefore, an even number of anti-quirks will eventually destroy themselves. However, an odd number of anti-quirks will always leave one anti-quirk undestroyed. So, no matter how many quirks are in the collider, eventually that lone surviving anti-quirk will destroy any remaining quirks. Since 23 is an odd number, there would eventually be only one anti-quirk left in the collider.
Disclaimer: This puzzle is a work of fiction. There are no quirks or anti-quirks. Nor is there an Extremely Large Quirk Collider, though there ought to be. No subatomic particles were annihilated in the making of this puzzle.