A little while back, Megan McArdle wrote a post that I mostly agree with about the social power of shame. I’ve been unpacking the subject in my mind over the last week or so and am going to share some of my thoughts. I’ll be writing a few posts, but they’re not really related enough to be called “Parts”, but rather looks at the limitations of shame as a tool.

The first was brought out by the original post that McArdle was responding to. Andrew Serwer. Serwer makes the valid point that shame often pushes those that have already done wrong to continue to do wrong. It has limited utility as a corrective sometimes. They internalize the fault or frequently rebel ever-more-loudly against whatever norm it is that they are accused of breaking. Or they commit another wrong in hopes of two wrongs making a right.

McArdle’s counter is that shame may not be a good corrective, but it is helpful to get people to avoid going bad to begin with. Serwer and McArdle are both right to an extent, and that’s really the tension that exists when it comes to enforcing social norms. Or one of the tensions, at any rate.

A young woman that is lead to feel truckloads of shame at getting pregnant in her teenage years out of wedlock is a young woman to whom abortion seems a particularly attractive option. She can make the stigma go away! A young man that made some mistakes with a criminal record that follows him around for the rest of his life has difficulty getting on track and is more likely to rely on crime in the future. I’m not saying that in each of these cases a strong enough person wouldn’t be able to attack the adversity heads-on. I’m just saying that from a practical standpoint, they’re less likely to succeed.

At the same time, you simply can’t just toss up your hands in the air and say that all social stigma is bad. It’s not. Avoiding social condemnation has proded me into doing the right thing at all sorts of points when I was too stupid or misguided to do the right things for the right reasons. It’s true for all sorts of people. Fear of disappointing those whose opinions matter to you — the dreaded negative reinforcement that Serwer swears doesn’t work — is a necessary component of any society that doesn’t have to make every discouraged behavior prohibited.

So when should shame be used? Are there any strict criteria? None that I can think of. I think that it’s one of those things that has to be approached on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, concepts as nebulous as social disapproval are extremely difficult to pin down and get everybody to agree on. On the one hand you have people that frankly use shame as a boost to themselves rather than as a useful social tool. People that could justify calling the kid a fat booger-face by saying that he’s bringing attention to the importance of personal hygiene and physical fitness. Then on the other hand you have people that seem to believe that if you just leave everyone to their own moral devices that they will naturally discover what is right.

And even in the middle, we don’t really know what we’re doing. Parents who want nothing but the best for their children fumble on when and how to apply negative reinforcement in the form of outspoken disapproval all the time. Most are wrong in both directions at once, being too approving when the best approach would be to condemn and condemning when the best approach would be something else. Sometimes the right answer for one person is the wrong for the next even in the exact same situation.

So what’s a society to do?

15 Amazing Yearbook Photos of U.S. Politicians (Veto Corleone)

A fascinating look at the yearbook photos of various prominant (or infamous) politicians. I suppose it makes sense that there seems to be a correlation between how prominant and young a politician is and how much I recognize him (or her). Carter is almost unrecognizable due I guess in part to his age. You have to look closely at George H. Bush, too, but when you do you can see it. I don’t know whether the recognizability of Georgie W. Bush and Bill Clinton were simply due to exposure or the distinctness of their faces. I suspect the former.

In Brightest Day (Comic Book Resources)

Found via Barry, it’s a heartwarming story of a nine-year old Green Lantern fan going to DC headquarters to be heard.

The Watchmen Motion Comic (watchmencomicmovie.com)

A brilliant concept that I hope they make the most of. Inexpensive and entertaining. However, having one guy doing all of the voices on a project like that just doesn’t work and makes the product very disappointing.

Terrible Twos – The Ten Worst Sequels: Highlander II

Quite possibly the worst movie ever. Unfortunately, the blurb mentions that they have a commentary on the DVD wherein the creators try to explain what the heck went wrong. Sadly, that means I need to rent said DVD. It seemed obvious to me that they simply took the storyline of some completely separate movie and turned it into a Highlander flick, but maybe there’s another story behind it. It’s sad that in four movies they never got it as right as the TV show it spawned did in the first episode.

I am watching the early part of season two. There is a scene where the Cheerleader is painting her toenails. Then, to test out her regenerative superpower, she cuts her pinky off.

I can’t decide whether it was the nail polish or the severed (and regrown toe) that was more disturbing.

Regardless, I was relieved to see that when the toe grew back, it didn’t have polish on it.

Because that would have been truly disturbing.

A few of your have recently figured out some of the locations that I discuss on this site. Some locations, such as Zaulem, are open secrets. Others, such as Colosse, are a little more closely guarded. I ask that you all be cautious before giving out details of the city. I know that sometimes Web and I give stuff away, but we spit out details sporadically and in careful doses so that while the sum of all evidence may point in the right direction, casual readers won’t immediately be able to identify it. Some areas to avoid are dominant industries, landmarks, events, and of course the actual names of locations. Not only do I want to guard the information, but the truth behind the fiction is a little more complicated than it initially appears and even knowing the broad strokes the specifics may refer to something different.

I’m not asking you to unknow what you know, but do tread a bit carefully.

I have added a new feature if you want to write a post but aren’t sure if it’s something that I might not want posted. If you put the word “moderateme” (one word, no spaces or quotes) it’ll go to the moderation queue. That way I can take a look at it. Most likely I will pass it on through. I may redact a specific reference (but will always make a note if I do). Or I may email you and let you know what the problem is.

Note, if you have something that you know that I won’t want posted, don’t test the moderateme feature with it. It’s worked when I’ve tested it, but I don’t know if it will always work perfectly.

Also, a comment sent to the moderation queue will look as though it was posted. I’m not sure why that is the case, but it is. The thing is that only you can see it. I haven’t figured out exactly how that works yet.

Thank you for your cooperation!

In January, the New York Times had a story on some of the data-mining that credit card companies are doing to “manage risk.” American Express was accused of, admitted to, then later denied using people that shop at particular merchants as the basis to cut someone’s credit down to size. Citibank is looking at mortgage data. CompuCredit got in trouble for slashing the credit of anyone that had the nerve to see a marriage counselor recently got a flat tire repaired. That latter part I guess is because if you’re too cheap to get the tire replaced, you must be hard up and a bad credit risk. I guess I’m lucky that last time I had a tire problem, it was beyond repair. Or I’m lucky not to be a CompuCredit customer.

I have no doubt that when it comes to a lot of these things do make you statistically more likely to be a problem in the aggregate. Marriage counseling, after all, is a step on the road to divorce sometimes. A part of me is sympathetic to the idea that lenders should be able to use whatever criteria they want because they should be free to lend however much they want to whomever they want. Free country and all that.

But that doesn’t do a thing to get me any less pissed off at this sort of thing.

It’s one thing to discriminate against people that have done something to suggest that they personally are a risk. Even there I have some problem with it insofar as it can misrepresent the service that they provide. When my ex-roommate Hubert got into a jam because his wife unwisely needed medical attention at a time when money was tight, despite their good record with their credit card companies they saw their interest rates skyrocket and credit lines dissipate because they were suddenly racking up a lot of expenses and weren’t able to pay everything off right away. Suggesting that you offer a certain amount of credit at a certain rate provided that you never actually need it and then pulling the rug out from under when they do is dishonest.

But some of the above is even worse because it largely involves things that you have absolutely no power over. Theoretically, Hubert and his wife could have had more money saved up, could have borrowed from friends and family, or something like that. But to have a house in a neighborhood where your neighbors are falling on tough times? Do we need to start asking for the credit ratings of our neighbors before we buy a house? Or cases where somebody is doing the prudent thing. Penalizing people for shopping at places where you can get things cheap? Should I really need to be concerned that the money I save by getting a tire repaired rather than replaced could come at the cost of my credit? Then the other thing is that we don’t even know what they’re looking. We have no way of knowing what we’re doing wrong. We don’t even know that we need to choose between going to a thrift store and keeping our credit lines. We’re expected to play by certain rules without being told what these rules are.

Worse yet, these things don’t just affect how much credit you have at any given time. They are materially important. From what I understand, if you have a creditor that closes your line, it hurts your credit rating. If you carry any sort of balance, your credit rating definitely gets hurt because you’re suddenly using more of your credit line than you were before your wings got clipped. A hurt credit rating means that you will pay more for the next house you buy than you otherwise would. It means that your car insurance rates might go up. There are places that run credit checks before they will hire you. There comes a point when it stops being about their right to define the terms of the money that they lend or how they evaluate your creditworthiness and it starts being about your right to not pay a price for the life choices you make that don’t adversely affect others.

I don’t know what the solution to all of this is. Or if there is one. Disclosure is important, but vague disclosures like “We can cut your rating for any reason or no reason at all” don’t cut it. Even vague proclamations like “We can cut your rating if we don’t like your haircut” don’t do it if you don’t have any idea of what sort of haircut they would prefer you have. And I still object to “You have our services until you need them.”

But I would start with disclosures of greater specificity than we currently have. And more notice that they’re going to do whatever it is that they’re going to do so that they can plan more ahead of time for what’s coming.

When I was driving to work this morning, I was at a temporary stop thanks to traffic. I decided to take the opportunity to clean my glasses. As I did so, they fell apart in my hands. Both lenses.

It’s easy to forget how blind you are until you don’t have corrective lenses to fix your eyes right up. To make matters worse, there was this white stuff falling from the sky and my windshield wipers weren’t doing a very good job of shoving it out of the way, preferring instead to spread it around more evenly.

When I got to the parking garage, at about two miles-an-hour I rammed into a concrete wall.

At my workbench in the Secret Vault were some contacts I’d accidentally left there over the weekend. What’s funny is that I was wearing some pretty old glasses (hence their falling apart) I keep around as back-up at work. Then at work are my contacts, in which I don’t see as well anymore as I do with my glasses. When wearing either of those two things, I complain to myself that my vision is limited.

My definition of “limited vision” has officially be re-calibrated. Limited vision is running into concrete walls. Being unable to read things from across the room is something else entirely. Something a lot less dangerous.