A Curious Prefix

A recent article in the MIT Technology Review was titled “An un-American feel aids expanding US Web firms.” This caught my eye, because it would be a surprising admission. The title seems to say that web-savvy American companies deliberately promote un-American content to help them make inroads with international customers.

However, it turns out that that is not at all what the article is about. Far from making an important statement about anti-Americanism, the piece simply makes a point that is trivially obvious: American companies would do well to recognize that customers in other countries like to see things that are familiar to them, as opposed to things that would be more familiar to Americans. To me, it’s pretty dull stuff.

So, why the provocative title? It is clear from the content that the title should have read “non-American” instead of “un-American.” It’s a curious misuse of the prefix. (I admit that I would not have bothered to read the article if it had used the much less interesting “non-American” adjective.)

Now, aware of the irony of having just declared the Technology Review article to be “dull stuff,” let me proceed to nitpick on the usage of these prefixes. My American Heritage Dictionary describes the subtle but important distinction between non- and un- as follows:

When used with adjectives, un- often has a sense distinct from that of non-. Non- picks out the set of things that are not in the category denoted by the stem to which it is attached, whereas un- picks out properties unlike those of the typical examples of the category.

In other words, if a stem adjective subsumes a set of properties – let us call it set A – then the non- prefix attached to the stem causes the word to refer to things that are outside of set A. The un- prefix attached to the stem causes the word to refer to things that are inside of set A, but unlike (or contrary to) those properties.

Thus, for example, John Ridpath, who is a passionate defender of the America ideals of individual rights and capitalism, is non-American because he happens to be a Canadian citizen. Michael Moore, an American citizen, is un-American because of his antagonism to American values. The Technology Review article highlighted certain preferences of citizens in China, South Korea, and Australia, but these preferences were simply different from those of typical Americans. They were non-American, not un-American.

NOTES

1. Technology Review, “An un-American feel aids expanding US Web firms,” (http://www.technologyreview.com/Wire/21138/?nlid=1238&a=f)

UPDATES
I added a diagram to enhance clarity. (Thanks LB!)

Leonard Peikoff Podcast 23

Here is the new podcast posted by Leonard Peikoff yesterday.

Leonard Peikoff Podcast 23 (28 Jul 2008)

Of course, the complete set is available at his web site.

LTE to Design News Magazine

In the latest issue of Design News magazine, a trade journal that I read, there is a an editorial called “Everything is ‘At Stake’.”  The first line of the piece reads, “Engineers as a whole are an altruistic lot...”[emphasis mine]

Obviously, I wasn’t going to let that one go by without a comment.  The author, editor-in-chief John Dodge, goes on to appeal to engineers to join him in his mission to solve the world’s problems, such as the hunger and disease represented by the dreadful photograph that accompanied the editorial.  (The photo is not in the link above, but you can see it here.  In the foreground, a tiny Sudanese child is bent forward with his head on the ground, possibly unable to move due to starvation, while a vulture looks on a few feet away, patiently waiting for its opportunity.)

I wrote and submitted the following letter to the editor:

In the article “Everything Is ‘At Stake’,” editor John Dodge rightly praises examples of engineering ingenuity, such as the products of Dean Kamen.  With the problems we face today and our headlong rush to enlist the government to prescribe or proscribe our every action, everything is indeed “at stake.”  

So, let us not badly misidentify the principles and mistake the poison for the cure.

It is not an embrace of altruism that we need today, but its opposite: a rediscovery of the respect for the individual, and the accompanying virtues of independence, honesty, and integrity.  Third world nations do not suffer because there aren’t enough philanthropists; they suffer because they have bad governments.  It is no mere coincidence that in the last century, the governments most dedicated to altruism - the communist nations - slaughtered and starved their citizens.  The wealth and comforts that we enjoy today are due entirely to the institutionalization of Enlightenment principles: reason and a respect for individual rights.

The historical record itself, as well as thinkers from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand, have shown that when men are left free to pursue their own interests, they flourish peaceably and justly, to the benefit of all.  Productivity and entrepreneurship does not (and should not) grow from appeals to altruism and sacrifice.

Liberty and the Designated Hitter Rule

A letter-to-the-editor on the Opinion page of today’s Wall Street Journal made such a good general point about the designated hitter rule in American League, I reproduce it here in its entirety.  Major League Baseball is not a perfect model of capitalism, but the author correctly identified the key economic principle that is at play here.  

[To the editor:]

You correctly identify the designated-hitter rule as the trigger event that has, over time, led to the dominance of the American League. However, I would have expected you to explain the dominance by invoking a key principle of economics: Increasing specialization leads to an overall higher level of performance. In an economy where every family unit has to grow their own food and make their own shelter and clothing, a certain standard of living can be achieved. However, as participants in the economy become more specialized, and these specialists focus on the production of one item alone and cooperatively trade their output for the other items they need, an overall higher level of economic performance and standard of living is achieved.

The DH rule increases specialization in the AL. All the AL pitchers can concentrate entirely on pitching, ignoring the few interleague games. The DHs obviously concentrate solely on hitting. Furthermore, because AL pitchers have to face nine strong hitters each time through the lineup, including a power-hitting DH instead of a weak-hitting pitcher, the pitchers face a higher level of competition, which forces them to become stronger. Overall, the level of competition is higher in the AL, which gives AL teams the advantage when they play the NL. The only way out of this dilemma for the NL is to adopt the DH rule.

Chris Shaver
Naperville, Ill. (Note 1.)

The slight rule change might have seemed fairly minor in 1973 when the American League adopted it, but notice the nature of that rule.  It constitutes a relative freedom that teams of the National League (which chose not to adopt the rule) do not have.  The American League teams are not compelled to use a designated hitter, and there are interesting occasions when it has been advantageous not to do so.  The important point is that they are at liberty to fill the pitcher’s spot in the lineup with a hitting specialist, and that liberty has been exploited marvelously.  As far as I can think of, this single rule is the only difference between the leagues, and the results have been dramatic.

In certain respects, Major League Baseball is a microcosm of a large, complex economy.  Efficiency and performance is critical, and statistics play a huge role; there are so many games, the “law of large numbers” applies.  Across a 162-game season, it makes a huge difference if one out of the nine lineup positions produces a batting average of .290 with 80 RBI instead of .215 with 6 RBI.  Just as companies seek opportunities and funds to expand, American League teams try to fill the designated hitter position with the best hitters they can afford.  Good but aging sluggers whose fielding play begins to decline “go to die” in the American League, which is to say, extend their careers by concentrating on hitting alone – and flourishing because of it.  This makes the AL teams stronger offensively, which in turn builds the demand for good pitchers, pitchers who do not also have to be good hitters.  Thus, the AL builds champions, and just as profitable enterprises attract investment money, the American League teams attract still better hitters and pitchers, continuing the cycle.

Naturally, in a sport there must be rules that set the bounds for purposes of entertainment and recreation, and those rules that are somewhat arbitrary – or perhaps “contrived” is a better word.  This is where the analogy of Major League Baseball with capitalism breaks down.  The “rules” of capitalism – namely, a respect for and lawful preservation of individual rights applied to polico-economic matters – are not arbitrary or contrived, but rest upon man’s nature as a volitional being.  Its purpose is not mere recreation but life itself.  Nevertheless, the designated hitter rule still serves as a concrete demonstration of the benefits that come when men are free to act.

NOTES

1.  Designated Hitters Make American League Stronger, Wall Street Journal, 22 Jul 2008, p.A18.