In Celebration of today's Youth

I have just enjoyed a marvelous week singing in Princeton with the Westminster Choir College Summer School.

There was so much to love about the week. It was the strongest choir I had ever sung with, so the week was full of learning and it rekindled my desire to improve. The music was superb and the concert excellent. The teachers were great. The surroundings were also lovely – Princeton is the most pleasant US university town we have visited so far. The whole week was a fantastic gift, I feel completely privileged to have been a part of the festival.

But despite all those reasons for joy, something else about the week stood out for me. Of fifty eight in the choir, about fifty were in their twenties. And collectively they were a credit to their generation.

I heard and saw nothing but respect throughout the week. They were all at ease in any company. They had each embraced their own style, whether of dress or character, and all seemed comfortable with their choice and the choice of those around them. In hardly any eyes did I see any pain or discomfort. I did not observe one cigarette during the week. Their talent was incredible, but so too their discipline, their motivation, and their humility.

When I compare myself at that age and what I remember of my peers, the contrast is striking. Many of us had serious social issues, notably in how we related to the opposite gender but also in our attitudes to people of difference and society at large. We were less mature, less balanced, and less at peace.

This wonderful phenomenon set me thinking. Firstly, was this a unique group? Are we witnessing a general improvement, or rather a growth in inequality of personality, with the lucky ones getting more mature and the less lucky ones less? I am inclined to take the more optimistic view.

I have to acknowledge that this was an elite group. They were predominantly white, and many showed signs of having wealthy parents – many were driving fancier cars than mine. They are high achievers within their field. And their field of choral music is one that will attract team players and offers many life lessons. Finally, guys that specialize in choral music are very likely to be in touch with their feminine side, an evident fact this week. That helped to take any macho or sexual tension out of the group.

But I believe I witnessed the extreme upper end of a general trend rather than something confined to elites. I have evidence.

First, this is not the first occasion I have been impressed with youth. In my latter years at Shell, I noticed many the incoming kids to be markedly more mature than those who had gone before. Admittedly that was an elite group as well, albeit a different one.

Then I think of the friends of my children. When my daughter was in her teens, her group was more mature than previous generations, though quite a few exhibited growing pains. Her friends seem to have developed into wonderful twenty-somethings as well. Now I am going through the same process with two more teenagers, and, if anything, their friends are even more mature and balanced. OK, I accept these anecdotes still refer to elite groups.

For a more general analysis, I turn to the Economist of last week. The findings are clear. Across multiple dimensions, there seem to be improvements across the board, at least in rich and middle-income countries. Teenage crime is well down. Teenage pregnancy is starkly lower. Smoking and drug and alcohol abuse are sharply down as well. Happily, it does seem as though there is a general trend here.

The Economist offered some possible reasons why things have improved. Some credit was paid to stronger enforcement and better policing. But most credit was offered to better parenting.

I agree. There are many supporting factors. Dads are much more willing to play a role than they were even twenty years ago. While Mum’s and Dad’s are both working nowadays, they can sometimes work from home or take advantage of other flexible arrangements. The housework burden on Mums has reduced thanks to things like dishwashers.

More important, Mums and Dads have a better idea what to do nowadays. There are all sorts of self-help books available now. Perhaps most important, the emphasis seems to have moved from respecting authority, doing what one is told, and putting on a good show for the neighbours (or priest, or head teacher, or grandparents) towards growth and respect for society and humanity.

Perhaps most important of all, there is now more of a climate of acceptance. Difference used to feared and condemned, then tolerated, but now celebrated. Any child in former times growing up in a home with divorce or mixed race or lacking any of a number of other expected norms was likely to feel some resentment or shame. Most of us were secretly ashamed of something or resentful of something else, and our growth was inhibited as a result.

This is a massive social change with a huge positive payoff. Divorce is as common as ever, but now it can even help kids after a few years, since some kids can benefit from three or even four parents. The most admired kids nowadays are often the mixed race ones, with their exotic looks and fused cultures. Of course, these trends are happening at different speeds in different countries and social groups, but the overall trend is positive almost everywhere.

I also pay respect to smarter education. Teaching style nowadays is less about facts and more about growth and discovery. There has also been a move where respect for authority has been supplemented by respect for peers and self, and even respect for the planet.

Finally, and maybe even more valuably, kids are much better at helping each other now, thanks to technology. We like to complain about their constant texting and gaming, but we tend to forget the positive side. Kids now are never bored, so they do not brood resentment as easily as former generations. Google gives them solutions to most things, and Facebook to the rest. Social media helps a segmentation, whereby almost all kids can find a respectful group of peers to grow with and learn from and to gain self-confidence.

Whatever the reasons, these trends can only pertain good for humanity. Being with such young people fills me with joy. It helps me move beyond the headline of an isolated gun spree or abysmal politics or the perennial moans of my own peers. The future can only be bright, especially considering that the parenting and social network factors continue to spread around the world. Think also, if my lot have managed to be reasonable parents, this next group will be spectacular ones.

It will take time. The older generation may have left an improved micro legacy as parents, but our macro legacy is horrible, characterized by inequality, dysfunction and disrespect. Maybe as many as half of these talented people at Princeton will struggle to make a decent living. Of the ones who do, many will join the misery that I observed on the opposite carriageway as a drove there, sitting on the Gawanus for two hours every morning.

There must be a better way. Slowly, humanity will discover it. It will be achieved bottom up rather than top down. And it will be delivered by the wonderful people I had the pleasure of meeting this week, and their many peers. Wow, this makes me feel so good. 

In Praise of Germany

So my prediction was right for once, and Germany won. Actually, I have never placed a bet on sports, and am pretty sure the bookies would beat me. However, every so often I delude myself. I also fancied a tip from Gary Lineker on the BBC website to back Algeria as the last surviving Africans at 10-1 or so. Simply because they were in Group eight that looked a good bet – and it would have paid out. Oh well.

I was very happy for Germany, and not only because I picked them. They were the best team, and played exciting and intelligent football. They were the least dirty team in the last sixteen and always played with a fair spirit, diving and surrounding the referee much less than other teams. They never needed penalties to advance.

There was also a lot to admire in what lay behind the win. There was a consistency of plan and approach over ten years or more. Team ethic was always emphasized over individual brilliance. The team valued work ethic and persistence. There was a clear approach, but also a readiness to adjust mid-game. The depth of squad was second to none. And the team made full use of a diverse array of talents, whether in age, style or background.

In all these factors, the team shared a lot of traits with the German nation itself. The poor Germans get such a bad press; it is time for the residual resentment from the Hitler years to be set aside. True, the policies carried out by that regime were especially odious, and many Germans actively colluded or at least stood aside. But that generation has largely passed away now. We have also seen many subsequent examples to show that a patriotic rhetoric and a compliant media, combined with pressure of expectations, can pull most people along in its slipstream.

It is time to stop the veiled references to the wars. It is especially time to stop casting aspersions at the German character. We have got into the habit as seeing admirable strengths as somehow dangerous or threatening, or at least worthy of ridicule.

For if you look at the last sixty years, many of the world’s most wonderful human achievements have occurred because of Germans. Adenaur was a leading light behind the EU. Brandt learned how to lead a divided country with practicality as well as principle. The unification project was executed with brilliance. Germany led the process of integration of other Warsaw pact countries into a strong, safe, prosperous Europe. Finally, having steered the introduction of a single currency, Germany played the leading role in holding it together during the financial crisis.

Meanwhile, from the wreckage of the war, a social system has been built as strong as any in the world. Drive through Germany and it is impossible not to feel a sense of development, stability, peace and prosperity. This is much stronger than in neighbouring countries. Behind this lie ethical and spiritual values, and a focus on family and education.

As well as some extraordinary leaders, Germany has used the same strengths that helped the soccer team prevail in Brazil. There is teamwork, a focus on the fundamentals and on the long term.

German companies have an unusual degree of cooperation between management and their staff, through the work council concept. Fundamentals place quality ahead of slogans and campaigns. And the long-term is served through consistency of strategy and implementation. It helps that many German companies are family-held, so the mixed blessing of instant pressure from the markets can be held at bay.

These strengths come through most clearly in the Mittelstand, a cluster of specialist companies holding world-leading positions, often in obscure fields like ball-bearing manufacture. There are larger leaders too, notably in the automotive sector, where VW have played their hand consistently well for a long time.

I worked quite a lot in Germany, and these admirable qualities were in abundance, though I also found the place extremely frustrating. There was a strong conservatism, expressed through respect for hierarchy and age. Change did not come easily, and bureaucracy could be heavy. I found this rather stifling when I worked there. It does not surprise me that Germany has been slow to produce leaders in technology or retail, sectors where pace and flexibility matter more.

Contrary to stereotype, I have always found Germans fun and rewarding colleagues. Even in large groups, I have never seen any tendency towards militarism or groupthink. There is always respect and decency, and sometimes even humour.

What is gratifying to witness now is the way Germany is using its strengths for the global good. Angela Merkel is an exceptional leader, but I hope this trend is deeper and will outlast her.

Germany is clearly leading the EU with brilliance, but its influence spreads more widely nowadays. Have you noticed how Mrs Merkel is often in the news around the troublespots of the world? In Ukraine, the situation may well have spun out of control without her steady hand – she has respect of both Putin and Obama. In Iran, the negotiating group is P5+1 – the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany. Germany also takes the lead in speaking truth to the power that is Israel, especially delicate and laudable given the history.

Germany is also being deft in handling its powerful ally, the US. It is not easy being an ally of a hegemon. Britain tries fawning. France tries occasional sulks. South Americans mix resentment with dependence. As far as I can observe, only Germany is consistent and sticks to facts and issues.

Recently, it has been Germany that has shown the strongest principles over the Snowden revelations. Others have used them for domestic short-term gain or have been silenced by their own complicity, but Germany has spoken out consistently and with clarity. It is obvious that this is a matter of deep principle, coming from the recent history of East Germany and the Stasi.

I greatly admire the move on Friday to send home a senior US diplomat. This is not without risk, but the reasons were made clear, and are far more than a pandering to local opinion. It gave rise to an interview I saw on US public television on Friday evening.

The German invitee stressed the seriousness of how her government saw the subject. The US invitee was an embarrassment, but a telling one. He was condescending and dismissive, arguing that everyone spies on everyone else and that the Germans would get over it in time. Sadly, the administration probably feels the same way. They underestimate Mrs Merkel. She will not back down until there is authentic recognition and restorative action on the US side. I will celebrate the benefits to humanity, as well as enjoying the spectacle.

As Russia reasserts itself and China rises, such maturity will become ever more crucial. Hopefully, other nations will ally more and more around German opinion, and a powerful force for good will grow as a result. The world needs it.

So it is time we changed our attitude to Germany. Their World Cup team deserves higher praise than “ruthless efficiency” and so does their national psyche. Mrs Merkel deserves a Nobel prize and her nation deserves permanent Security Council status. We should all fight stereotypical portrayals, fed by lazy media in Greek streets and even at the Eurovision Song Contest as well as the sports studios, and start to fully recognize the force for good we have in the world.

Congratulations Germany, and thank you.   

Time to target Privilegism

This year, there have been many documentaries on US television looking back at the racial discrimination of the past. The height of the civil rights movement was during the mid 1960’s and many programs have commemorated fifty-year anniversaries of various events.

As well as filling in gaps in my education, the programs have certainly provoked thought. Usually, I end up in disbelief that humanity was so base only fifty years ago, during my own lifetime, and in the richest country on earth.

Rampant racial discrimination tarnished almost every aspect of society only fifty years ago. Blacks had to fight against enforced separation on buses, and to bring something approaching equality in schools and the workplace.

Given where society in the West has reached now, it seems almost incredible how backward we were then. But, as well as mourning the sins of the past, we can also celebrate the extraordinary progress made in such a short time.

Racism has moved from being systemic, general, then hidden but widespread, then grudgingly accepted as wrong, now widely seen as unacceptable and even actively confronted by most of us. That is a lot of big steps achieved in a short period of years.

Now we have FIFA campaigns, and ostracizing of Donald Sterling to show how overt racism has become wholly unacceptable. Even the antics of John Terry a couple of years ago seem unthinkable now.

Nonetheless, we cannot declare victory. There are parts of the world where racism is still systemic. Most kids in Asia still desire to lighten their skin. And, even in the West, there are still huge differences in outcomes.

While implementing behaviours and structures that overtly discriminate have been outlawed, the results of these past behaviours still drive outcomes. It is very obvious here in the US, where school performance, housing quality and crime signal a society that is still starkly divided.

What made us racist? It is worth trying to answer the question, in order to work to remove it, and also to check whether other discriminations may still exist and how we might combat them. There are many factors.

We are frightened of the unknown and unfamiliar, and can react by making fun of it. Fear played a factor in many of our early racist behaviours. But fear cannot really explain sustained racism.

Once we move beyond fear and grow familiar with difference, we react to peers and other influences. It can make us feel more secure as part of a group if we define that group by some characteristics and reject those who don’t comply. That slows down progress, especially as media and older role models tend to lag behind. Our parents were racist, so it feels natural for us to follow them, until we have enough evidence to make us see its folly. Some shameful leaders, notably but not exclusively religious ones, talk about maintaining traditions as an excuse.  Again, this inertia factor will reduce over time, and cannot explain sustained structural racism.

Another factor is greed. Greed comes from a desire to maintain the status quo because it suits us and we are threatened by change. Part of the fear of change can be a fear of reprisal, whereby the injured party turns the tables and demands reparation for past wrongs. Greed lies behind a lot of immigration fears. It can also manifest itself socially: we don’t want to see our house value threatened by black neighbours or our golf club status challenged by a black daughter-in-law. Greed is harder to break down, but it will eventually, since most of us are decent enough to see its wrong-headedness.

So we need a factor that we use to justify our views. That is a belief in superiority, or at least a patronization of differences.

At its heart, we used to think it was OK to belittle black people because somehow we had evolved further. We could list excuses for this – our superior education, moral fibre and so on – which helped us to justify the belief. As a result, we could claim we were showing pity others when we were really patronizing them. And we could justify discrimination too, on the grounds that somehow they were not ready, whether it was to vote, or perform management jobs, or appreciate culture.

Now isn’t this hateful? Before you claim you could never think like this, just check back. Have you ever made or accepted remarks about Roma (gypsies) and their way of life?

I believe this belief in superiority is the factor that makes racism and other discrimination persist. With all the other factors, we can’t really find excuses than hold water. With this one, the excuse is still weak, but it can still stick.

For of course we can find empirical evidence to support such beliefs. Educational attainment is generally lower for first generation immigrants (though by now working class whites are the lowest attaining group of all). Africa and the Middle East have terrible problems with governance.

I read a piece recently which helps to explain why. It introduced me to Epidemiology, a newly fashionable and useful science. A study tried to explain why alcoholism and poor marital relations persist in Glasgow. There is evidence that it goes back a hundred years, when housing was so poor that families were crammed into pitiful space. This drove men to the pub and away from regular discourse with their wives. And, crucially, that tendency has persisted through generations, passed by a mixture of genes and environment.

This makes sense to me. Advantages persist across generations. Where we are born and how we are brought up (especially early months) determine a lot of our fate, and now we learn that not just our parents, but also the starts of our grandparents and great-grandparents matter too. Advantage has hysteresis, so it tends to stick around. It takes a long time to turn around a supertanker.

So what we see as superiority is really the result of privileged history. I have focused on racism but this applies to all the other forms of bias. Happily we have recently made great progress in many of these areas too over the last fifty years, though so much more remains to be done.

Even those determined for merit to rise should take pause from this argument. The Economist defends private schooling because it pushed the elite forward faster, promoting human development. But surely our evolution would be better served, over multiple generations, if that merit stripped away the effects historical accidents? So rather than token programs to let in a few gifted kids from tougher backgrounds, the selection should be actively skewed to make it harder for those coming from privilege to get in than for those without it.

I think the time has come to lump all the biases together, and work at their common root cause, that of a false belief in superiority. National and religious superiority are nowadays the worst examples. Does God really bless America (over the rest of humanity)?

Let us campaign against privilegism, or at the least challenge our own privilegist behaviours and views. Probably 99.9% of my advantages were due to the accident of birth. How can I ever disdain another human (except maybe those like Bush or Cameron who would score 99,99%)?

Public policy is hugely skewed in favour of the privileged, since we vote for it for exactly the same reasons we used to be racist. Each time we complain of a tax or yawn when we see boats capsizing off Lampedusa we can reflect a bit more and gradually challenge others, just like we learned to with racism. Let us be clear also that a small government or libertarian agenda is little more than a privilegist one. Instead, the purpose of global government should be to skew the paying field in the other direction. This is not about forced equality or communism, but a rebalancing of opportunity.

Perhaps in fifty years time we will be able to enjoy retrospective TV programmes, marvel at how backward we used to be, and celebrate our wonderful progress against privilegism. 

Glorious World Cup

For the first time in my life, I’ve been able to see as much as 50% of the soccer in the World Cup so far. I have benefited from a blessed combination of not working, day games (too many evening games can be disruptive to family priorities) and ESPN’s comprehensive coverage.

So far, it has been a pleasure. Brazil is clearly a wonderful venue, full of colour and carnival, and I have no complaints about the cameramen seeking out wild costumes and beautiful women. Somehow the carnival has made its way onto the pitch in most games, and the soccer has generally been great to watch.

The World Cup has something that even the European championships lack, which is a full spectrum of playing styles. When two styles meet in a match, the result can be fascinating tactics and the opportunity for talent to thrill. Queens is also a good environment to watch the spectacle remotely, with many cars displaying flags and restaurants and bars noisily supporting their own homelands. This will only get better as the tournament develops. 

A big part of me in glad that England has been knocked out, and the same part has a secret hope that the USA does not last much longer either. The reason is the commentary. ESPN has hired several British commentators and summarisers, who are generally excellent, except when England are playing. Everything is viewed through a narrower lens, more bigoted, more desperate, and more annoying. Every defence has been repeatedly carved open – it is only England’s that is then ruthlessly pilloried, at a time we should be celebrating the skill of the opposition. When the USA is playing, that tendency becomes even worse.

In general though, ESPN have done an excellent job, achieved by hiring knowledgeable and diverse pundits. Former US stars tend to be quite erudite – perhaps as people choosing a minority sport? – and Efan Ekoku and Stewart Robson are excellent analysts. In the studio, we have Roberto Martinez, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Michael Ballack, as well as some South Americans, and the outcome has been excellent. Based on the junk I read on the BBC website, you are not so fortunate in the UK. We have one exception, Steve MacManaman, who was a classy player but should never be allowed near a microphone. So far, he has been covering the England games – perhaps I can hope that he goes home with the England team?

What will it take to win? The tournament seems very open, so I have come up with a few criteria to separate the winners from the also-rans.

First, look at the team and the coach. Are they a unit? Do they have passion? It seems strange to say it at what ought to be the pinnacle of a career, but most teams seem to lack a winning spirit. Argentina is in open revolt with their coach. Some star players are remote. Other teams have many players who seem to be coasting. Why might this be?

The dominance of the club game may have a lot to do with it. Players from the most successful clubs are most tired after their season. A mid career player at a big club has a big contract to protect, not one to earn.

The winning combination seems to be a bunch of fast, fearless, hungry young players, guided by a few old hands looking to leave a legacy, and a recently retired coach who can galvanise a team, not just impose a system. Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Ghana all seem to have this, though you have to worry if later in the tournament the old-timer skill of holding on to win ugly matches might become more important and catch these ones out. Then look at Germany and France.

The second factor is goals. This is divided into some sub-factors. Most goals so far have come from either pacey counter attacks using width, from sheer brilliance in strikers, or from set pieces.

Pacey counter attacks with width argue for the same teams as the ones above, those with youth, energy and less fear. I used to think that the emergence of the defensive midfielder into the game was a bad thing for entertainment. With unimaginative coaches, it is. But we see here how the smart teams have used the extra central strength to free up their wide players to great effect. There is nothing more entertaining than the sweeping move, and we have seen many of those in Brazil.

No matter how beautiful your soccer, someone has to put the ball into the net, and this might be the most important factor, strikers who can turn half chances into goals. In Spain versus Netherlands, the teams created a similar number of half chances, but van Persie and Robben were clinical while the Spanish were not. Messi rescued Argentina in injury time. It is no coincidence that great strikers are the moneymen of the game, they are the ones who make the most difference.

The third way to score is set pieces. So far, goals have mainly come from corners and crosses, so teams must be able to defend them (can Chile?). But I predict more will come from direct free kicks in the second half of the tournament, as players finally get used to the ball. The balls are flying rather than dipping, and most free kicks have gone too high, but you can sure Ronaldo and others will adjust to this in the end.

So our winners will have flowing fast players, a quality striker on form, and set piece expertise. France is possible, though I am not sure about Benzema. Are the Colombian strikers good enough? Does Brazil have the pace? Germany seem to have all the elements though.

The third factor is luck. Posts are narrow, and margins are of inches. There are only seven matches – in how many years are there surprise leaders of major leagues after just seven matches? And there are the officials. Marginal off-side or penalty decisions make all the difference – just ask Croatia. All the teams are good and anyone can beat anyone else, so the winners will be lucky.

Given all this, I am backing Germany. They have team spirit, pace, strikers, maturity, and, usually, luck. I think the Ghana result was not as bad as it looked, as Ghana has a wonderful team as well.

Having jinxed Germany, now I have two complaints. The minor one is about statistics. There is so much more we can glean from statistics in soccer. Other US sports have stats for everything, and these are displayed in real time consistently. Stats cannot tell you everything, but they also don’t lie. I would love to know the passing accuracy of every player as the match progressed, and a summary of key stats per player to be part of the coverage. Instead we often get flawed opinions of lazy pundits. Just look at the BBC website England player ratings – not good enough, Mr. McNulty. I predict that stats will play a bigger part of our viewing experience in future, and it will be better as a result.

My second complaint is about use of technology. I just don’t understand why soccer persists in being ten years behind other sports. In the first match, we had the ludicrous spectacle of FIFA showing off their goal-line system for a ball that nestled in the back of the net for ten seconds, while allowing a poor penalty decision decide the game.

It would be so simple to employ technology. We could have multiple referees on the field, supported by others watching film, all communicating to each other. Offside can be decided in two seconds, fouls and simulations by a panel within five seconds. Suarez could have been sent packing straight away, to everyone’s benefit.

The only half-decent argument against this is the risk of slowing down play. But I actually think it would work the opposite way. Until a decision is confirmed, play would continue. A result could be a revolution in the use of the advantage law, to the benefit of open and attacking play and also continuity.

Soccer has a lot to learn from US sports, and officiating and statistics are just two examples. But don’t expect FIFA to enter this century anytime soon.

Meanwhile, let’s enjoy the rest of the spectacle, hopefully without Mr. Suarez. And probably without Germany too, now I fancy them. May the best team win, not just the luckiest or the best cheats.