I Like Single Malt Scotch

Single Malt Scotch is not only a treasure in its own right, but a metaphor for life as well. However, before we get into that, let's first, look at some etymology. Distilled spirits, in the Middle Ages, were referred to as aqua vitae which is Latin for water of life. A little alcohol does make one feel a bit more lively. So, the name is not surprising. As the Romans penetrated into the British Isles, aqua vitae got translated into Celtic as uisge beatha again water (uisge) of life (beatha). Uisge (pronounced, roughly, as oose-gay) came down to us as whiskey. For reasons that may be obvious to some, but are opaque to me, whiskeys in the British Isle took on names from their countries of origin (Irish Whiskey and Scotch Whisky) while American whiskeys are named for ingredients such as Bourbon (corn whiskey) and Rye Whiskey. I also have no idea why there is an 'e' in Irish and American Whiskey but no 'e' in Scotch Whisky. 

As distilling evolved, something happened in Scotland that can only be described as magical. As in the valleys of southern France where soil and weather conditions produced grapes ideal for wine making, the raw materials of Scotland produced peat for roasting barley which made it ideal for making scotch. In fairness, I should point out that ideal conditions are not enough. In France it was the vintner's art applied to the ideal grapes which produces extraordinary wines. And in Scotland, it is the distiller's art applied to peat roasted barley which produces extraordinary scotches. 

Following the wine analogy we can see another parallel with scotch.  wines can be varietals or blends. Varietals are usually named after the grape variety from which they are made. So, a Chardonnay is made from Chardonnay grapes where as Pinot Noir is made from pinot noir grapes. If a wine is not named after a grape, it is usually (although not always) a blend. Varietals tend to bring out the flavor of a specific grape more clearly where as blends allow different flavors to compliment each other. Whether a varietal or blend is a superior wine is difficult to say as there are plenty of extraordinary wines as well as clunkers in both categories. This lack of clarity is not usually the case with scotch. 

Scotch is made from malted barley which produces alcohol much like fermented grapes produce alcohol. The process is a bit different but the result, in both cases, is tasty alcohol. And the tastiness is a result of the ingredients and the fermentation process. Scotches follow the same dichotomy that wines follow in that there are single malt scotches (like varietal wines) and blended scotches (like blended wines). Some of the most successful scotches such as Johnny Walker and Chivas Regal are blends. Blending scotches allows the distiller to compliment flavors from various malts in order to produce a more palatable product. But, connoisseurs of scotch nearly always prefer single malts. Why is that?

Single malts provide more intense, unique flavors. Unlike blended scotches where the various flavors round out each other, the flavors in a single malt and well defined and more pronounced. The down side of this is that one must develop a refined pallet in order to really appreciate a good single malt.

The first time I took a sip of Laphroaig (pronounced Lah-froyg) I almost spit it out. It tasted like somebody had taken a mediocre scotch, thrown in a half dozen used cigar butts and let it sit for a week. I was even angry at the person who had recommended it. But, over time as my pallet became more refined, I began to appreciate the complex symphony of flavors. I like the symphony analogy because it a person who had never heard music were to listen to a symphony they would be over whelmed with what would sound to them like a cacophony of random noises. But, over time, as their ear became more refined, they would begin to appreciate the beauty and complexity of the music.

This is how it is with single malt scotches. It takes work to develop a refined palette. But, once you do, the taste experience can only be understood by some one else who has invested the time to develop the necessary refinement. I think single malt scotches are the finest tasting experience on the planet. Granted, I am not entirely objective. There may well be wines that offer a similar experience. But, if there are, I cannot afford them let alone afford enough to develop the refined pallet necessary to enjoy them. So, for my budget, they simply do not exist.

I also said, at the beginning of this post, that single malts are a metaphor for life. As the tired old saying goes, you get out of it what you put into it. But the underlying metaphorical theme here is that most of the great pleasures in life take great effort and refinement to fully enjoy. Think art, opera, theater, culinary delights, and so on, as examples of things that you might not appreciate at first. But, once you learn to appreciate them, you allow yourself profound experiences of joy that cannot be understood by anyone who has not made the effort.

Lest I sound too elitist here, I would also point out that not everyone experiences the same level of appreciation watching a baseball game, horse race, or golf match. Not everyone gets the same level of enjoyment out of a book or a movie. The more you learn about what is to be appreciated by these things the more you will enjoy them.

I Like Big Bang Theory

Every decade or so a major sit com (situation comedy) comes along that captures not only an audience but the imagination of the audience as well. Examples include shows like Odd Couple, Mash, Seinfeld, Friends and, now Big Bang Theory. To the comedy purists I should note that I am aware of the fact that Big Bang Theory uses a laugh track and has both a formula and an ensemble cast. I am also aware of the fact that these are considered ear marks of a cheesy TV sit com. In fact this formula was satirized by Ricky Gervais in Extras. I agree that formula TV sit coms are not generally the height of comedy. But, some times they are and here are some reasons why Big Bang Theory rises above the clutter.

First, the characters are archetypes. We have all known people like the characters in the show. But, these characters are both larger than life and self contradictory. Viewers can both relate, at some level, to each character but they can also relate to the others that the character irritates. If it were a standard ensemble viewers would side with a character while disliking others. But, due to the clever character construction there are things we like and dislike about each character.

Second, they are not only funny but they resonate with the audience. Following the archetypes theme in the previous paragraph, the characters resonate with the audience. We not only recognize people we have known, we recognize aspects of ourselves. And, in recognizing ourselves we can gain insight into our conflicts and sublimate our concerns.

Third, they allow the audience to laugh at themselves as much as they laugh at the characters. Some times all you do when faced with the complexity and unfairness of life is to laugh at the human condition. As we laugh at the characters in the cast we also laugh at ourselves.

Fourth, the comedy is both universal and unique to a moment in time. One of the strengths of the show is that it works at multiple levels. There are universal themes instantiated in the moment. The instantiation in the moment makes it relevant while the universality makes it more enduring.

Of course, the writing is excellent. This is not to say that the acting isn't good. It is. Making these larger than life archetypes is no small feat. But, without the excellent writing there would be nothing to reveal through the characters.

Sixth, the story has legs and the legs are used. Some people feel that serial TV shows should never run more than a few seasons as the story gets stale and forced. But, the secret is to have the characters evolve so they face new situations. This is tricky since we like the show because we know the characters. If they evolve into different characters we might not like them as much. So, the writers walk a fine line between having the characters grow and evolve without making them unrecognizable in the process. So, far they have managed to pull it off. There is a natural entropy in a series show and so far the writers have managed to stave it off.

Seventh, the cast has a natural chemisttry. Three of the cast worked together on the Rosanne Show and already had a working relationship. But there relationships are not the main story. So, you get the benefits of their experience without having it over shadow the new show. 

Finally, they fold in cameos from big name actors which provides a stamp of authenticity. It is an honor, for example, to have Bob Newhart on the show. But it is an honor for Bob Newhart as well. There has been a parade of cameos as big name characters honor the show and receive honor as well. This removes the isolation of sit com in a studio and integrates it into the reality of daily life. This in turn increases the resonance and excitement of the show.

Yes, they have done a wonderful job.

I Like Downton Abbey... A Lot

Like tens or even hundreds of millions of other people across the globe I am a loyal fan of Downton Abbey. Some of the reasons for this are no different from the other fans. Other reasons might be less common.

Superficially, the visual experience is extraordinary. The costumes, main house, and grounds are breath taking. And the trips to the village just add to the authenticity. Who ever is responsible for period authenticity does an amazing job. One one hand it feels as educational as a documentary, yet, on the other hand, it never feels arcane or strange. You feel like your television is a time machine into days gone by where you are as comfortable and familiar as you are on the sofa where you are sitting to watch the show.

The actors are extraordinary as well. They bring these characters to life so well that you feel as though you know them, perhaps even as though you have always known them. But, for me, an important measure of good acting is that you think  the actors and actresses are really like this character in real life. Then you see one of them in an interview, where they are very different, and then realize what a truly amazing job they are doing with their character.

The writing deserves kudos as well. In fact, if it weren't for the excellent writing the other components would not come together. At bottom Downton Abbey is a soap opera. Its purpose is to emotionally engage the viewers into the lives and travails of the characters. But, what separates Downton Abbey from afternoon soap operas is that the afternoon poor cousins are usually heavy handed and formulaic brutally extracting unrefined pathos from an unwashed audience. But the emotional complications in Downton Abbey are subtle, sophisticated, and nearly always instances of larger issues. And, on that note of larger issues, I will turn to the of the deeper reasons why I like the show.

The characters of Downton Abbey, despite the grandeur, costumes and quaintness are people just like you and I. One of the greatest accomplishments of the actors and the writers is to make us feel like we know about these people and care about them. The problems they are facing are problems that we face today. They are coping with change. They are often pinched by social roles. They often pinch back. They have to adjust to new technologies. They have to cope with the ugliness of war.  They are people wresting with the eternal problems of the human condition and we can relate to their struggles. But, it isn't all big issues. There is unrequited love. There are serious and painful losses of a loved one. Society is unfair; yet it works better for some while not as well for others. And it isn't perfect for anyone. 

Maggie Smith won a well deserved award from the Screen Actor's Guild last night for her role as the Dowager Countess. She is, at once, the very symbol of the old order and its most cynical and insightful critic.In reacting to the other characters she provides equal amounts of stern rebuke and comforting solace. And, yet, despite the complexity and contradictory aspects of this character she pulls it off as though it is as natural as a walk on the beach. 

This is good stuff. Some day it will end and I will be very sad.

What Do I LIke ?

If you have been reading this blog for a while and hearing me bitch about all manner of things, you might wonder if there is anything I do like. The truth is that there are a lot of things that I like and I thought that now might be a good time to point some of them out lest I be dismissed entirely as a cranky old curmudgeon. I am just going to provide a list of things I like here. But, in subsequent posts I will explain what I like about them. This second step is important because a lot of people think that liking something is good enough. According to them, you don't have to know why you like it, you just like it. But, that is not good enough for me. I have to know why I like something lest I find myself liking something that I don't really like. Yes, life gets complicated for me. And I recognize the fact that there are compelling arguments in favor of the unexamined life. But, before I digress on that, here are some things I like.

I like books. I like history. I like movies and TV. I like recorded books and lectures. I like  sushi. I like single malt scotch. I like good beer. I like teaching. I like people (Well, not very  many really. But the one's I like, I like a lot) I like World of Warcraft. I like waking, hiking and biking. I like the C&O Canal. I like cooking.I like kids. I like students. I like new ideas. I like learning new things. I like detecting new trends. I like finding patterns in things that don't seem to make sense. I like cats and dogs and reliable cars. I like Sudoku and jigsaw puzzles. I like figuring out how things got to be the way they are. I like the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian. I like people who are clever, creative or know what they are talking about. All three are rare and if they all occur in one person it is scarey.

Over the next few posts and more sporadically after that, I will explain why I like these things. After all, the unexamined like is not worth liking.

Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons

I am not yet finished ragging on life in Academia. If you have been enjoying this rant, then please keep reading. If I have been irritating you, then you should probably stop until I move on to another topic.  Back in the late 1990's Kurt Vonnegut published a book entitled Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons. These terms, which were coined by Vonnegut in earlier works refer to foibles in our search for meaningful patterns in our daily lives. I thought I would take them a step further and show how they apply to academics who are world class masters of finding patterns in the otherwise meaningless.

A wampeter is a central theme of a group of people who are connected in a mystical way thought this theme. The wampeter provides meaning, connection and a sense of purpose to the group. An example of a wampter is the Holy Grail or the Maltese Falcon.  For academics the wampeter is academic recognition. This comes in the form of rankngs, publications, or citation indexes. Consider the following two options. In option one you are well regarded for your entire life only to have your life's work completely refuted shortly after your death. In option two, you are not recognized during your life time but shortly after your death you become accepted and widely recognized prescience. Which one would you choose. Most academics would choose option one as having it feel good while you are doing it is much better than really making a lasting contribution. And while there are glaring exceptions, most academics are shallow and short sighted. And the pursuit of wampeters such as rankings, and citation indexes is exactly what they need.

A foma is a harmless untruth meant to comfort simple souls. A real life example of a foma is the claim that if you keep your head down, work  hard and play by the rules, life will work out OK. In academia, foma are more common than hushed up affairs. Despite the common misconception that universities are centers of critical thinking, academics as a group are far more likely to believe nonsense than any other professional group. H. L. Mencken once said something to the effect that there is no idea so stupid that you cannot find a professor who believes it.  Yeah, I know, I could have looked it up and gotten it right. But, then, you can as well. Anyway, my favorite academic foma is that all research is valuable and contributes to our body of knowledge. Academics like to cite the example of imaginary numbers which were created for no obvious purpose but found use later when Marconi invented the radio. But, there are two flaws in this example. First, overwhelmingly most academics don't come up with stuff nearly as good as imaginary numbers or radio transmission. And, if this is so common in research why is it that the example of Marconi and Imaginary numbers are the only example that is every provided. The sad truth is that if 99.9% of all academic articles were destroyed today, not much would be lost. That is, of course, as long as the right 99.9% was destroyed.

A grandfaloon is a proud but meaningless association of people. I will not give any real life examples of this as I am trying not to offend any more than I have too. But, granfalloon, like foma, in academia are as common as fudged annual reports.  There are honor societies, tenured professors,  and fellows of professional societies. There are traditional professions such as psychologist or historian and more modern sounding categories such as innovation engineer or cognitive neuro something or other. There are alumni of important schools and faculty of equally august institutions. If you ask someone how being a member of a particular granfalloon makes them any different from people who are not members of that granfalloon your question will be greeted with a tolerant and slightly condescending smile. After all, how could you understand. You are not, after all, a member.

What Is the Purpose of the University?

In my last post I was criticizing the institution of tenure but pulled my punches at the end by saying that you cannot determine whether or not tenure serves the purpose of the university until you determine exactly what the purpose of the university actually is  So, what is the purpose  of the university? One would think that the answer to this question would be clear. Yet, it is anything but clear.

Here are some possibilities. Is the purpose of the university to provide education? Is its purpose to do research? Is the purpose to socialize young people? It the real goal to provide a coming of age ritual? Perhaps the purpose is to provide marketable job skills to support the economy. Is it all of these things.or some subset? Well, the answer is that we don't know and different people have very different perspectives on this.

If we go back to the beginning of the university concept back in the 12th century, we see the the first universities were created on the guild model. In one of the original universities, the faculty were the guild and their product was education. In the other major university of the time, the students formed a guild and selected faculty to provide them with education. The later did not survive. So, we can think of the origins of the university as an education guild whose purpose was to provide a product (education) and limit entry into the guild by granting degrees.

As time progressed the product became increasingly more popular and education became the mark of the upper class educated person much like clothing, jewelry or servants. This model of education continued through the founding of the United States where it was believed that education should not be limited to aristocrats. After all, if you were going to let everyone vote, they should be educated enough to vote wisely.

But, even this noble sentiment did not hold for long. By the end of the 19th century, American Universities were under going a major shift away from what we refer to today as Medieval Scholasticism to a curriculum based on math and science. This scandalized many who felt that the University was being pulled away from its lofty responsibilities and restructured to provide job skills for the masses.

It wasn't until the very end of the 19th century that anyone considered having faculty do research. Again, many were scandalized by the thought of pulling faculty away teaching and having them do research instead. Today we see research as a major part of the university but even this comes into question. For example, in Isaac Newton's day, nearly all of what we would consider scientific research today was being done outside of the university. Today, most research in technological fields is done outside the university as well. Although there are certainly examples of good research being done in universities, it is probably also true that the vast majority of university research has more to do with tenure and promotion than it does with advancing knowledge.

So, what have we left to consider? Oh yes, socialization. An argument can be made that the college experience is just a modern example of a coming of age ritual. Given the number of people who go to college and leave with more debt than education, one has to wonder what they are getting if it is not education. Maybe they are getting socialized into the tribe (some would say the tribe of humanism, but I am not going to go there). 

I apologize for having gone on this long, and still not clarified the purpose of the university. But, the point is that you cannot. And until we can, any prospects for evaluating the tenure system or improving our education system look bleak. After all, if you don't know what you are trying to do, it is very difficult to get better at it.

Tenure

I am feeling a bit cynical these days. Being an academic has simply failed to live up to my expectation. I really should move on. But, academia has a tradition called tenure that encourages faculty to not move on. Instead it encourages you to stay stuck in the mud becoming increasingly cynical and alienated as time goes by. OK, maybe I overstated that a bit. But, as I said, I'm feeling a little cynical.

Presumably the august tradition of tenure protects intellectual curiosity. It allows the development of bold new ideas. And, if that were the case, then it probably would be a good idea. But, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality tenure protects both mediocre people and mediocre thinking. Which is to say that it is one of those good ideas that doesn't really work out very well in practice.

Consider the plight of a new PhD coming into the academy full of ground breaking new ideas. For their first six or seven years as an academic they will be on what we call 'the tenure track'. During this time they will have to convince their senior colleagues that they are worthy of life time employment in their prestigious institution. Do they do this by showing their senior colleagues that they are irrelevant? Do they do this by attracting attention with bold new ideas that rub everyone the wrong way? No. They do it by showing how they can conform to the standards of the day. 

Senior academics often tell their junior colleagues to tow the line until they get tenure. And once they are tenured they can begin a new spree of free thinking. But, think about this. After five to seven years in a doctoral program and seven more on a tenure track, does anyone have any creative ideas left? Or has the process squeezed all their originality out of them? Overwhelmingly, the later occurs. 

Does anyone ever make novel contributions after tenure? Of course they do. But they are in the extreme minority. And it is those few, and I mean very few, that are used to justify the systemic mediocrity of everyone else.

Would it be better without tenure? Unfortunately things are never that simple.In order to evaluate alternatives to tenure, we would have to examine them in terms of the purpose of the university. In order to do that we would have to understand the purpose of the university. We would have to know exactly what it is that universities are supposed to do. And that is another hornets nest entirely. I will pick that up in the next post.