I like the moon and how it lumbers across the sky at night…er, at an orbital velocity of roughly 2288.3858 miles per hour. Weird hu. Well, scale is funny that way. Now, stand real still and be very quiet…give it a second….to quote the nation of Haiti, “you feel that?”. The earth is spinning at around 1,000 miles per hour. Can’t feel it can you? Naw, of course not. In fact, I’d bet you can’t even really comprehend those two facts. I’m sure you understand all the words in the sentences but I doubt you really comprehend them. I know I don’t. The comment on Haiti, well, I’m guessing you comprehended that one all too well and probably feel one of several ways about it.
Here’s the problem with scale: we don’t do a good job of comprehending scale outside of the normal boundaries of daily experience. So what do we do? We compensate emotionally for the things we can’t understand cognitively. Realistically, our mental rulers are just so big; they are exactly how big they need to be for our survival; no bigger. So when we try to hold that pitiful, egocentric ruler up to something to big, we’ll quickly run out of breadcrumbs and will never get home. Why is this important? Well, because if you understand this about yourself and others you can watch for it. Its not really hard to find; its just hard to recognize.
For example, this Charity hospital thing. Its been going on and on. Be that as it may, lets look at what happened yesterday. WWLTV reported
It was a major victory for local officials who have argued that the facility suffered more than 50 percent damage from the storm…50 percent is the magic number, which forces FEMA to pay for the hospital’s replacement, as opposed to its repair.
Ok, so that’s some kind of rule right? Whatever. Doesn’t matter.
So then I went to came across an interesting statement on Business Week
The decision ended a long-running dispute between the state and the federal agency, which argued that damage to Charity Hospital was not as severe as the state claimed.
Ok, a dispute between the State and the Feds.
And somewhere in the mix it seemed like I should check out what Owen Henkel, the owner of SaveCharityHospital had to say
We now have enough funding to gut and rebuild Charity Hospital.
Now if I only want to look at scale the questions to ask are pretty easy.
Why is there a 50% rule? I believe there are statistical reasons for this kind of thing if the movie “Fight Club” is a good source.
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn’t believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
What is a reasonable comparison between the scale Owen Henkel and the SaveCharityHospital website; the State of Louisiana, the Federal Gubment? Well, I don’t know Owen Henkel but I know he has a website and I know there are an estimated 4,492,076 people in the State of Louisiana. So since not all those people have websites, we can say that the State of Louisiana is something less than 4,492,076 times bigger than Owen Hankel. Nothing against Owen obviously since this would be true of anyone living in Louisiana who had a website. Additionally, we can say the Federal Gubment is at least 50 times larger than the State of Louisiana since there are variations in state populations and non-state “territories” and “Districts”
What is the scale of the Charity Hospital “gut and rebuild”? What is the scale to “replace Charity Hospital”? To me, relative to the previous question, its a moot point. The Reason being, that the scale of both of those projects is well beyond the ability of anyone one individual, regardless of whether they have a website or not. Just as well, its far too small for the Federal Gubment to try and do – for they are too big and clumsy to orchestrate either job.
So having read just over 750 words to get to this point in my little story, what have we learned? Well, we learned that I have a very limited understanding of scale. And that was my point: We all do. Does that mean you shouldn’t have an opinion or start a website? No, go ahead – its good for you. Does that mean we should all temper our opinions a little when the subject involves something of substantial scale? I think it does. I understand the desire to want to be right; I really do. And this is especially true of the big questions: the existence of god, economic theory, healthcare reform, the myth of the female orgasm, etc. But I think, more so than being right, there is something admirable in understanding that you’re taking on a big, sometimes heady issue, deciding where you stand on it, and still being open to other opinions and arguments in so far as they are convincing.
The thing I see the most, however, is that when something is of such a scale that our little, egocentric rulers won’t suffice, people tend to use emotional arguments and anecdotal evidence. And although convincing to the self, they are not convincing to others. In just the same way that getting attention is not a convincing argument to anyone other than the person who quite surely feels like a martyr.
Note: Scale has a similar effect on very small things and time but I really just wanted to beat Styborski’s word count so I’ll save those for another time
Correction: According to Frenemy, Owen Henkel does not run the SaveCharityHospital site. I based the statement on the Registration of the domain name alone. I have no other way to easily verify who owns/runs the site. And to be fair, that wasn’t my point.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Owen Henkel is a total douche…
…but he doesn’t run the SaveCharityHospital.com website
Oh, well shit Frenemy, I was just going by the fact that he’s listed as the registrant and administrative contact according to internic (I actually queried betterwhois.com) But like I said, I don’t know the guy. Maybe he just registered it for whoever runs it. Its shame too cause the site being attributable to an actual person gave it more credibility in my mind.
Thanks for the info – I’ll note it in the post.
It is attributable to actualy people: The site is run by Jonah Evans and Eli Ackerman.
http://www.savecharityhospital.com/content/about-us
Perspective:
http://lorddavidtruth.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-are-not-alone.html
Except that some of us have been inside Charity and seen that it’s not as bad as the State claimed. In fact, one day that I visited Charity was swarming with worker ants carefully removing the Machines That Go Ping through the Emergency entrance. (’06 I think, or early ’07) I was just looking for facade shots at the time, but I figured, hey… it’s open…
I got about ten feet inside when the security guard stopped me. I told her I had heard that Charity was in danger of collapse/razing and wanted to get some shots of the lobby. You know, the cool floors and Art Deco lobby and all that. She referred me to Charity’s business office across the street. So I walked over and through the receptionist I was informed that unless I was a member of a Major Media Outlet I would not be allowed access because it was “too dangerous inside.” Funny, those worker ants seemed okay, and they had been there for a while judging by the amount of crap in those 18-wheelers…
Great rumination on scale and on the natural myopia of people, including ourselves.
MS: You’ve just done a wonderful job of illustrating what I was talking about in the last paragraph. What you have is “Anecdotal Evidence” and although convincing in some ways and possibly even true, it that doesn’t necessarily make it valid (philosophically). To say it another way: As is evidence from the view 10′ inside the emergency room entrance, and the fact that there were people in the building removing equipment, and the fact that a substantial amount of removed equipment filled several trucks, you come to the conclusion that Charity is not as bad as the state claimed. Logically, you can’t get to that conclusion based on the evidence presented; not to mention the implication that it should be rebuilt instead of replace. And yes its convincing, but it is also a hasty generalization if not, by definition, a logical fallacy.
And I guess I should say at this point that I do hope they can save the building and find a suitable use for it. Architecturally, it would be a tragic loss. But even so, I don’t believe as a state of the art medical facility, it is a good choice.
My thinking on this is painfully simple: The building was constructed in 1939. So take a 1939 Packard; a beautiful and powerful car at the time it was built. Make any and all renovations to it you want but you have to use the same frame without modifying it, and try and win the Indianapolis 500.
But a Packard was not meant for the Indy 500. And check out many of the old buildings in Europe that are way older than Charity, have had many reworks over the centuries and are just hunky dory. Charity was built to be a hospital, and at the very least a building – noone’s asking it to be a bridge or a tunnel, but a building. A valid architectural forensic report by an unbiased agency please. There’s a case in Houston where a university is claiming that H’cane Ike damaged a building beyond saving, a forensics firm surveyed it for them and found it quite sound and not at all at risk. It’s not unusual for parties interested in only shiny & new to try to trick those who would pay, in the Houston case, an insurance company for the replacement of the old.
No, I know what I saw isn’t representative of the building as a whole, but I lost the entire lower four feet of my home plus furniture and apliances, etc. and was told by the state that it didn’t amount to over 50% damage so I didn’t qualify for RHP funds. Charity is 13 floors plus basement and 5 wings so I wonder what exactly they considered damaged.
On one side, Charity was allowed to languish without clean-up for some time, as if the State wanted as much damage possible in order to bolster the need for their McHospital Plan. Then there was the complete lockdown on press save for a few Charity personnel-guided tours which were tightly controlled and only went to specific areas, notably the basement level which flooded. I try not to be the Conspiracy Nut, but everything about the way the State has handled this issue screams collusion.
I’d love to know where the old equipment went. I seriously doubt it will be used in the new McHospital. Surely there are provisions for new Machines That Go Ping in the LSU Plan, but was the old equipment recycled? Sold to other care facilities? Destroyed?
I get the scale thing. I see Charity in one way and I only have my own scale to work from, but I have yet to hear from the other side as to why my scale is wrong. From the start LA/LSU has simply dismissed the Save Charity movement as reactionary, mis-informed, paranoid and simply wrong. That is, when they acknowledge them at all.
Lastly, the Packards used in the Indy 500 were slim, custom jobbies, not the road-yachts you’re probably thinking of. Regardless, even those cars never won an Indy 500 which speaks more to Packard’s engine department than their aerodynamics guys.
Sheesh. No wonder Loki fired you! :)
You know, with both of us here, Loki’s gonna have to but a whole lot more storage space for all the extra words!
Yeah.
[one word comment is irony]
Maybe I’ll have to start editing for length. Nah.
The mystery douchebag speaks….
Hey all, to clear things up – last year I helped Jonah Evans and Eli Ackerman build the SaveCharityHospital website, buying the domain. But virtually all of the content on the site is theirs.
Frenemy, I guess my reputation proceeds me ;)
Monkeyboy, intersting article but perhaps poorly researched? I quick survey of the site or any of the posts would reveal the to main writers of the site. Also if you take a longer look at the site, it is quickly apparent that this is not some personal “opinion” blog, but a well researched, rigorous community advocacy effort. Eli Ackerman is a well respected investigative journalist on staff with the Lens, and Jonah Evans has been involved in several high profile community organizing efforts over the past few years. The amount of information and the detail with which they tracked this story, disrupts your ‘scale arithmatic.
LIke I said I think the overall point is interesting but that you picked a poor example and might not have looked into it very carefulle
Hey, thanks for checking in Owen and sorry for the misunderstanding. You’re right that I didn’t research the site very much, mostly because I don’t consider it authoritative. Its a neat site though, and some interesting opinions are voiced there. But see, stating an opinion on Charity Hospital was not the point to my post and everyone that has reacted as if it is, backs up my stance that emotion clouds judgment at a certain scale. I intentionally picked something big with an emotional charge. And people got defensive. I’ll give you a pass on this since Frenemy called you a douche – but alleged douchbaggery aside, I do appreciate you stopping by and I hope you keep reading and comment frequently.
{ 1 trackback }