Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them

Moral Tribes begins with the story of multiple tribes that have different ways of organizing themselves. Things work well for each of the tribes alone (though some work better than others.) However, large amount of conflict arises when the tribes compete with other tribes for the same resources. This is a similar to what we have today with differing values and morals. There are many "morals" that are held by all, but others that differ from one to another.

The author then spends a lot of time looking into morals and utilitarian philosophy. The trolley problem is analyzed from a number of different angles. People are reluctant to push a person to his death to save other peoples, but are more willing to do other actions that would incidentally lead to his death. People also are much more likely to be attracted to a cause when there is single person that can be identified. A lot of these odd differences are related to the difference between the "automatic" and "manual" mode of the human brain.

The conclusion was a disappointment. He analyzes the abortion debate. Appeals to "rights" are seen as a cop out for looking at the distinct moral arguments. He presents many of the issues with each argument. (When does a fetus have a soul? Should we protect a mother vs. a child? What about sentience and animals? Would making abortions more difficult discourage more risky sexual behavior.) After exploring this, he goes on to express his preferred view. Wait. Wasn't the point of this to be able to help us to resolve conflict among different moral views? Declaring one view to be better just takes us back to where we started.

Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life

In Excellent Sheep, William Deresiewicz identifies some big problems with the current higher education system. Then he rambles on for a while as he explores possible individual "workarounds" for the problem.

The big issue is our current "elite" higher education system. Currently, the ruling class of the country comes primarily from a few elite universities. The Supreme Court is the domain of graduates of Harvard and Yale law schools. Government and business leaders disproportionately come from elite schools.  Even many of the upstart "tech geeks" often attended these schools. (Microsoft and Facebook were started by Harvard dropouts, Google by Stanford dropouts and Amazon by a Princeton grad.)  Admissions to these schools is based on merit, so anybody can join the elite, right?

Well, not exactly.

A century ago, the Ivies became the finishing school of the aristocracy. However, that did not mesh with the egalitarian nature of our society. So the schools created a seemingly objective admissions scheme that appeared to make things open to everyone, yet still primarily provides spots to the same people. Sure, there are legacy admissions. However, others are more nefarious. The schools look for students with high test scores, advanced classes and extra-circular activities. Parents must prep students from a young age. Expensive test prep courses are mandatory. The student will most likely need to attend an elite school - either by paying for a private school or living in an upscale suburban school district. Then there are the extra-ciriculars. These take time, money and transportation. Parents must spend a lot of money in order to get their children in the desired schools. The schools do admit a token few from less-well-to-do backgrounds, but these are the exception rather than the rule. 

Most of the students at elite colleges have been driven from a young age to follow the rules of the competition to get admitted to their desired school. Many of them continue this through college and end up as consultants because the interview process follows a similar paradigm. They are encouraged to be "sheep", doing what is required of them in the classes rather than taking part in free academic inquiry. 

While there are professors that are dedicated to instruction, many are focused on their individual research. (After all, that is most likely to get them tenure.) Students miss out on this educational opportunity. They also miss out on true connections across society. They end up in school with a diverse group of students that are all alike. They are more likely to meet a classmate from wealthy foreign family than one from a blue collar family in the midwest.

Even lower tier schools are following this pattern. Many programs are focused on getting students ready for careers, rather than finding a field they want. While a career is important, spending time studying for the wrong career may delay the entry into the desired field.

How do we solve this problem? That is the big question. The author proposes attending second tier liberal arts schools that are not so beholden to US News rankings. He also proposes more activism. Though that seems to be narrowly within the realm of "common" activities. There was some criticism of service - people are willing to go help "others" without seeing the problems internally. Religious students do have some positive characteristics. Perhaps because they are willing to be "different". Perhaps we need to really encourage more "different" students in school. Would a pure lottery help? Or perhaps one for part of the spots. And how can we fix universities and their teaching? There are plenty of big problems in need of solutions.

Patton, Montgomery, Rommel: Masters of War

I remember an old Commodore 64 video game that would have the word "Rommel" uttered when you were in trouble.
Since then, I've wanted to know more about this German commander. This book presents his story together with that of his American and British counterparts. Montgomery is portrayed as a very British commander who was concerned with status and enjoyed schmoozing with his men. He would regularly "bend" the facts to his version of the truth. Patton was a realistic Jerk. He'd resort to coarse language to relate to his troops and denigrate the enemy. Montgomery and Patton were allies during World War II, but they did not get along. They did both admire Rommel. He is the brilliant commander who could always seem to outmaneuver the allies. His biggest fault was his allegiance to Germany and Hitler. He would often do thing that Hitler ordered that were against what he knew was the best military solution.
I found myself most annoyed with Patton. He just seemed like a know-it-all jerk who was just itching to start a fight. I wanted to see him canned during the war. However, during the post-war reconstruction, his ideas were prescient. He was against de-Nazification, and wanted the best civil servants on the job, regardless of what they did during the war. He also saw the Soviets as the true enemy, and wanted a strong Germany to help defend against them. Were he to prevail, we may have been able to reduce much of the pain of the cold war. Alas, he died shortly after the end of hostilities in a freak motor vehicle accident. (That should make him a poster child for seatbelts.)
Rommel met his end shortly before the end of hostilities. He was significantly injured due to enemy fire. However, he was able to survive that. He was not able to survive the forced "suicide" at the hands of his own side. He was suspected to be a member of the plot to overflow Hitler with the briefcase bomb. (Had the briefcase not been moved and Hitler killed, things may have been very different.) It is not known whether he had knowledge of the incident. When people thought they could have their punishment reduced by fingering conspirators, he was accused. Immediately after the war when Germany was looking for post-war national heroes, he was seen as having no knowledge. Later, when Nazis were seen as evil and the west was looking for a good model, he was portrayed as the "good general" who wanted to fight a just war and was willing to overthrow an evil dictator. We are not sure of his involvement. We do know that he was tiring of Hitler and wanted Germany to cut its loses to help preserve some of the gains.
The book starts with brief biographies of each of the generals and then intertwines their stories as they battle for North Africa and Europe. Montgomery and Patton seemed to be involved with skirmishes with each other as often as with Rommel. The British and American public needed to see Britain pulling its weight and achieving victories under Montgomery. However, it seemed that the American troops were often set up more capably to win. (The Germans would even use this conflict in their propaganda, amplifying the conflict.) The book ends with a brief postwar status. Montgomery was the only one of the three to live for some time after the war's end. He published his memoirs in which he tried to raise himself up further and smear others. Rommel and Patton had the courtesy of dying around the war's end, leaving biographers to tell their stories and raise them up as was seen fit at the time.