Wednesday, March 1, 2017

I don’t need anything except this

Joachim Beuckelaer (1533-1574). "The Well Stocked Kitchen" Source: http://www.wga.hu/index1.html

"And that’s it and that’s the only thing I need, is this. I don’t need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that’s all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that’s all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp and that’s all I need. And that’s all I need too. I don’t need one other thing, not one – I need this. The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches, for sure. And this. And that’s all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair."

"The Jerk" (1979). Written by Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb and Michael Elias. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/quotes



Kevin Carter, at the website "Savoring the Past" wrote that:

"we decided to dig through a collection of 18th and early 19th century cookbooks to see which spices were mentioned. We also took one of the more recognized books and looked at the frequency by which the spices appear in the recipes" (Carter 2012).

The 31 spices (and herbs) that were commonly mentioned in those cookbooks were (in alphabetical order):
  1. Allspice
  2. Anise
  3. Basil
  4. Bay leaf
  5. Black Pepper
  6. Caraway
  7. Cayenne
  8. Chives
  9. Cinnamon
  10. Cloves
  11. Coriander
  12. Fennel
  13. Garlic
  14. Ginger
  15. Horseradish
  16. Lemon Zest
  17. Mace
  18. Marigold Blossoms
  19. Marjoram
  20. Mint
  21. Mustard
  22. Nutmeg
  23. Parsley
  24. Rosemary
  25. Sage
  26. Savory
  27. Sorrel
  28. Tarragon
  29. Thyme
  30. Turmeric
  31. White Pepper
This is an interesting collection. It's not too different from what we'd expect to see in a modern spice cupboard (although marigold blossoms are a bit of a surprise). Some are a trifle uncommon: Savory (either winter savory [Satureja montana] or summer savory [Satureja hortensis]), and sorrel (Rumex acetosa) aren't exactly unknown, but I've never actually seen a recipe that called for them. And while mace isn't all that rare, it's much more common today to use nutmeg than the extremely expensive mace.

This list got me to wondering: what constitutes a basic, decent spice cupboard today? What are the essential seasonings (herbs and spices) that a good cook really ought to have?

So I decided to go to the internet, where all knowledge can be found.

And found confusion.

I perused 15 different websites, some well known, some not.1 All of them made suggestions about what constitutes a good, basic collection of spices (and herbs, and spice blends).2

Here are the results:

Spices1BA1RS1MY1CR1PR1PW1PP1GR1VG1SP1FN2SP1JO2FN1FD
Adobo
*
Aleppo Pepper*
Allspice*********
Anise*
Annato*
Apple Pie Blend*
Arrowroot**
Basil********
Bayleaf**********
Black Pepper*************
Cajun Seasoning**
Cardamom*****
Cayenne************
Celery Seed**
Chili Powder**********
Cilantro*
Cinnamon***************
Cloves**********
Coriander*******
Cream of Tartar***
Cumin***************
Curry Powder************
Dill Weed****
Epazote*
Fennel****
Fenugreek*
Filé Powder*
Five Spice Powder***
Garam Masala**
Garlic Powder*********
Ginger***************
Grains of Paradise*
Herbes de Provence*
Italian Seasoning*
Marjoram*
Mint**
Mustard******
Nutmeg***********
Onion Powder******
Oregano**************
Paprika*************
Parsley**
Piment d'Esplette*
Poppy Seed*
Ras el Hanout*
Red Pepper Flake**********
Rosemary**********
Saffron**
Sage*****
Sambar Powder*
Sesame***
Star Anise**
Szechuan Peppercorn
Tarragon****
Thyme************
Turmeric********
Vanilla*****
Zahtar*


Some of these "basic" spices (or herbs, or spice blends) are a bit ... surprising. I have absolutely nothing against adobo, annato, apple pie spice blend, Cajun seasoning, filé powder, grains of paradise, herbes de Provence, Piment d'Esplette (I couldn't possibly have anything against this one, since I've never heard of it before; apparently it's Basque), Ras el Hanout (I love Ras el Hanout), sambar powder (a south Indian spice blend) or Szechuan peppercorns. But unless you're cooking for a pretty unusual crowd, I would never suggest these are "basic" spices.

So, ignoring these idiosyncratic suggestions -- what are the spices (or herbs or spice blends) that seem to be"basic" or essential in the kitchen today?

Here, sorted by the number of recommendations (out of a possible 15), are the results (note that I'm excluding those spices/herbs/blends that had only a single recommendation from this list):
  1. Cinnamon (15)
  2. Cumin (15)
  3. Ginger (15)
  4. Oregano (14)
  5. Black Pepper (13)
  6. Paprika (13)
  7. Cayenne (12)
  8. Curry Powder (12)
  9. Thyme (12)
  10. Nutmeg (11)
  11. Bayleaf (10)
  12. Chili Powder (10)
  13. Cloves (10)
  14. Red Pepper Flake (10)
  15. Rosemary (10)
  16. Allspice (9)
  17. Garlic Powder (9)
  18. Basil (8)
  19. Turmeric (8)
  20. Coriander (7)
  21. Mustard (6)
  22. Onion Powder (6)
  23. Cardamom (5)
  24. Sage (5)
  25. Vanilla (5)3
  26. Dill Weed (4)
  27. Fennel (4)
  28. Tarragon (4)
  29. Cream of Tartar (3)
  30. Five Spice Powder (3)
  31. Sesame (3)
  32. Arrowroot (2)
  33. Cajun Seasoning (2)
  34. Celery Seed (2)
  35. Garam Masala (2)
  36. Mint (2)
  37. Parsley (2)
  38. Saffron (2)
  39. Star Anise (2)
I wasn't surprised at most of the top spices here. Cinnamon, cumin and ginger are just about everybody's favorites (wars have been fought over cinnamon). I did think it was a little odd that black pepper came in fifth, after oregano, but it's possible some authors just assumed that anybody with functional taste buds already has black pepper. I was interested to see Cayenne pepper ranking as high as it did, and slightly surprised that curry powder was in the top ten -- and chili powder wasn't.

All in all, I'd say the top 25 spices (herbs, blends) listed here are a pretty good picture of what most cooks think you ought to have.

Of course, everybody is going to have their own opinions on these matters. I would be sad if I didn't have my New Mexico ground chile, my ground chipotle, and my adobo, but that's me. Your mileage will definitely vary.

Oh, and I think it would perfectly fine to just skip the turmeric.

Really, I think it would okay.

Really, really okay.


Notes

1 Quite a number of these websites mentioned salt as essential in the kitchen. They're right, of course. But if you genuinely aren't aware that salt is essential to decent food (not to mention life itself), you have far greater problems than trying to figure out what herbs and spices you should have in your cupboard.

2 Honesty compels me to note that I have streamlined things a bit. Some websites suggested you need both ground cinnamon and stick cinnamon. Several recommended smoked paprika, rather than regular sweet paprika. One actually recommended Vietnamese cinnamon (Cinnamomum loureiroi) over Ceylon cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) -- a position I do not endorse. But in general this will give you a good idea of what 15 different authors recommend you have in your spice cabinet.

3 Vanilla isn't a spice, herb, or blend; it's an extract. Our friends at Wikipedia define an extract as "a substance made by extracting a part of a raw material, often by using a solvent such as ethanol or water." Real (as opposed to artificial) vanilla extract "is made by macerating and percolating vanilla pods in a solution of ethyl alcohol and water. In the United States, in order for a vanilla extract to be called pure, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that the solution contains a minimum of 35% alcohol and 100g of vanilla beans per litre." Nevertheless, enough websites emphasized its importance as a "basic spice" I felt compelled to include it.


References

Carter, Kevin. 2012. Spices in the 18th Century English Kitchen. Online: https://savoringthepast.net/2012/11/15/spices-in-the-18th-century-english-kitchen/

Websites included in this survey:
1BA: http://www.bonappetit.com/uncategorized/article/must-have-spices-for-your-kitchen
1RS: http://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/herbs-spices/basic-spice-checklist
1MY: http://www.mydomaine.com/best-spices/
1CR: https://www.craftsy.com/blog/2016/02/list-of-essential-spices/
1PR: http://www.prevention.com/eatclean/15-herbs-and-spices-every-kitchen-should-have
1PW: http://thepioneerwoman.com/food-and-friends/how-to-stock-a-basic-spice-cabinet/
1PP: http://www.theperfectpantry.com/2009/06/spice-list-the-perfect-pantry-turns-3.html
1GR: http://greatist.com/eat/must-have-spices
1VG: http://www.vegan-magazine.com/2017/02/20/top-25-spices-every-kitchen-must-have/
1SP: http://www.spicesinc.com/p-477-top-25-spices-every-kitchen-must-have.aspx
1FN: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/articles/basic-pantry-101
2SP: https://www.thespruce.com/herbs-and-spices-for-your-pantry-1808018
1JO: http://www.jamieoliver.com/news-and-features/features/basic-store-cupboard-essentials-for-families/
2FN: http://www.foodnetwork.ca/kitchen-basics/photos/fifteen-must-have-kitchen-spices/#!b0a816086a83b55e2c39c2fb545a0e3b
1FD: http://www.fooducate.com/app#!page=post&id=57A3503C-5A5C-2168-43C5-9ECD8A72063F

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

There's a strangeness in the air you feel too well

J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851) "Snow Storm: Steam-Boat off a Harbour's Mouth," 1842
Source: Web Gallery of Art (http://www.wga.hu/index1.html)

Late last night the rain was knocking at my window
I moved across the darkened room and in the lampglow
I thought I saw down in the street
The spirit of the century
Telling us that we're all standing on the border

Al Stewart, "On the border," from the album The Year of the Cat (1976).


Let me tell you a story about a little town that changed its name.

Somewhere back in the 1920s (the town was never incorporated, so records are a little thin) there was a gas station and restaurant on the road to Las Vegas. It was owned and operated by Pete MacIntyre, and it was apparently called "Bordertown" because it was located on the border between California and Nevada. According to our friend Wikipedia Mr. MacIntyre wasn't making much of a living, so he started bootlegging.

Mr. MacIntyre -- who was widely known as "Whiskey Pete" -- died in 1933.  After that there seems to be some disagreement as to what happened.  According to Wikipedia ownership of the site seems to have passed to a Mr. Dale Hamilton who built a new gas station and put in a bar and some slot machines and called his place "STATE LINE BAR." According to the Las Vegas Sun it passed to Mr. Ernest Jay Primm who "added a 12-room hotel and tiny casino to the property, eventually developing it into the successful Whiskey Pete's hotel-casino" (Thompson 1996).

In any case, by the 1960s (if not earlier) the town was called "STATE LINE" (note that that's two words -- it's important). And everyone seemed content.

And then, in 1996, the name was changed to PRIMM, NEVADA.

Why? Because on the California-Nevada border, on the shores of Lake Tahoe, there's another town: STATELINE, NEVADA (note that that's one word). It was apparently decided (I have no idea who made the decision) that having two towns in the same state named STATE LINE and STATELINE was unacceptable. So one changed.

The odd thing is, this really doesn't seem to have been necessary. There are at least a dozen "STATELINES" in the United States; Indiana and Pennsylvania each have three, and nobody seems to be especially bothered.

According to Wikipedia we have:
  • Stateline, CA (near Lake Tahoe) [38.958333, -119.943889] *
  • State Line, ID (on the Washington border) [47.705, -117.038056]
  • State Line, IN (on the Illinois border) [39.436944, -87.529444]
  • State Line City, IN (also on the Illinois border) [40.196667, -87.527222]
  • State Line, IN (on the Michigan border) [41.758611, -86.250833]
  • State Line, KY (on the Tennessee border) [36.510833, -89.120278]
  • State Line, MS (on the Alabama border) [31.437778, -88.476111]
  • Stateline, NV (on the California border) [38.970556, -119.945833]
  • State Line, PA (on the Maryland border) [39.725, -78.7675]
  • State Line, PA (also on the Maryland border) [39.7225,-77.724167]
  • State Line, PA (on the New York border) [42.248737, -79.767510]
  • State Line, SC (on the North Carolina border] [35.176667, -81.8]
I have to say, this is not a great monument to nomenclatural creativity. But it is a moderately impressive collection of towns (and unincorporated places).

Now not long ago I was browsing reddit.com (my favorite source of cat pictures) and I found a discussion dealing with cities that are named for the territories they border (the original post had been focused on CALEXICO and MEXICALI -- both named for their border location). I got curious.

How many towns in the US are named for their location on a border?

I started looking, slowly and carefully, at the borders between US states. I started finding towns. It was slightly tedious, but I felt a certain pride in my work.

And then I thought of Wikipedia.

Yeah, it turns out I'm not the first to think about this. For a while I was feeling fairly stupid (even more than usual). However, when I looked a little closer I was delighted to find out that I'd found at least two towns that Wikipedia had overlooked.

That's right world-wide highly respected (and occasionally unfairly derided) universal source of knowledge! I beat you! Me! The guy wasting time on this mind-bogglingly trivial task!

SICK BURN!!!

So anyway, here's my list of sixteen proudly named bordertowns:
  1. Alcan Border AK (Alaska-Yukon border) [62°39'42"N 141°09'40"W]**
  2. Calneva CA (California-Nevada border) [40°09'10"N 120°00'32"W]
  3. Cal-Nev-Ari NV (CA-NV-AZ border) [35°18'12"N 114°52'51"W]
  4. Delmar DE (Delaware-Maryland border) [38°27'23"N 75°34'38"W]
  5. Flomaton AL (Florida-Alabama border) [31°0'32"N 87°15'21"W]
  6. Florala AL (also on the Florida-Alabama border [31°0'28"N 86°19'30"W]
  7. Idavada ID (Idaho-Washington border) [41°59'50"N 114°38'29"W]
  8. Marydel DE (Delaware-Maryland border) [39°06'44"N 75°44'40"W]
  9. Marydel MD (Maryland-Delaware border) [39°06'48"N 75°44'60"W]
  10. Texarkana AR (Arkansas-Texas border) [32°25'59"N 94°01'14"W]
  11. Texarkana TX (Texas-Arkansas border) [33°26'14"N 94°04'03"W]
  12. Texhoma OK (Oklahoma-Texas border) [36°30'16"N 101°47'11"W]
  13. Texhoma TX (Texas-Oklahoma border) [36°29'48"N 101°47'07"W]
  14. Texline TX (Texas-New Mexico border) [36°22'41"N 103°01'23"W]
  15. Ucolo UT (Utah-Colorado border) [37°51'39"N 109°03'53"W]
  16. Wyocolo WY (Wyoming-Colorado border) [41°00'17"N 106°43'30"W]***
I thought I'd also mention two other towns that are located on "internal borders":
  • Inyokern CA (located on the Inyo County-Kern County boundary) [35°35'49"N 117°48'45"W]
  • Lineboro MD (located on the Mason-Dixon line) [39°43'09.84"N 76°50'41.03"W]

All right, now that I've found all these towns, what do they have in common?

With the exception of Texarkana TX, they're all pretty small towns (or unincorparated areas). Again with the exception of Texarkana (and possibly Delmar and the two Marydels), they're usually located in the middle of nowhere. These places are essentially named for the only thing that makes them even mildly interesting (and perhaps economically viable) -- the border.

Does that seem surprising? It shouldn't. There are at least eleven different ways of naming places:

  • Associative (e.g. Mill Creek WA)
  • Commemorative (e.g. Houston TX)
  • Descriptive (e.g. Rocky Mountains)
  • Error (e.g. West Indies)
  • Folk Etymology (e.g. Picketwire River CO from the French "Purgatoire" )
  • Incident (e.g. Battle Creek MI)
  • Made-Up (e.g. Truth or Consequences NM)
  • Possessive (e.g. Pittsburgh PA)
  • Praising (e.g. Paradise CA)
  • Relocated (e.g. Cairo IL)
  • Unknown/Miscellaneous (e.g. Oregon)

Naming your town for its only interesting feature is actually pretty reasonable. And I say this as someone who has lived for many years in a place called "La Mesa" -- literally "the table" (because it's a raised flat surface****).

Bordertowns have a kind of mystique -- there have been at least six movies and televisions series called "Bordertown." Authors, from Thomas the Rhymer (1220 – 1298) to Lord Dunsany (Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 1878–1957) to Terri Windling (1958-) have written of the dangers and delights of the borders of Elfland.

I'm fairly certain none of these towns border Elfland. But they may have cheaper gas or lower sales taxes or more liberal liquor laws. And that can constitute a kind of mild delight.


Notes


* Abandoned.

** Also known as Port Alcan. And it's worth noting that this is very like "Calexico," as mentioned above -- a name based on the border of a state and another country. Oh, and one more thing -- NOT ON WIKIPEDIA!! I FOUND IT ALL BY MYSELF!!!

*** NOT ON WIKIPEDIA!! I FOUND IT ALL BY MYSELF!!! Also "Wycolo" and "Wyocolo" seem to be the same place.

**** Technically it's an uplifted marine terrace, typical of an emergent coast (and in the case of Southern California, a tectonically active region).



References


10 Types of Toponyms: Online: http://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/cms/lib5/CA01000508/Centricity/Domain/1814/toponym%20assignment2012.pdf

Ashley, Leonard R.N.  Folk Etymology in the Place Names of the United States. Online: https://www.scribd.com/document/74618230/69-Folk-Etymology-in-the-Place-Names-of-the-United-States

Hannigan, Chris. 2011. Quirky Border Towns of North America. Online: http://googlesightseeing.com/2011/08/quirky-border-towns-of-north-america/

Howard, Marvin ElRoy. 1996. "See ye na yon narrow road?" The search for Elfland in folklore of the Scottish border. MA Thesis, University of Iowa. Online: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=17192&context=rtd

Primm, Nevada. Online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primm,_Nevada

Thompson, Gary. 1996. Primm newest prime property. Las Vegas Sun, December 4, 1996. Online:
https://lasvegassun.com/news/1996/dec/04/primm-newest-prime-property/


Wednesday, February 8, 2017

But you never gave me a goat

"The Return of the Prodigal Son," Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
"Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a goat, that I might make merry with my friends"
Luke 15:29-30 (King James Bible)

Well, I'm back.

It's been quite a while, and I want to make it clear I was not lolling around on a beach, or engaging in debauched hijinks in Las Vegas.

No, instead I thought things over very carefully and said to myself, "Hey, I wonder if it would be fun to become horribly sick?"

So I decided to become horribly sick.

I toasted Christmas with Delsym®, I rang in the New Year with NyQuil®, and I began this semester coughing like a victim of tuberculosis and wandering the University looking like one of the living dead.

I'm better now.

I'm not well, you understand. But drugs (POWERFUL DRUGS) are finally bringing me back to the land of the living.

Expect witty postings soon.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Not unwatched

Hieronymus Bosh (1450-1516) "The Cure of Folly (Extraction of the Stone of Madness)"
Source: http://www.wga.hu/index1.html

Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.

Hamlet Act III, scene 1

It's sometimes said that English has the largest vocabulary of any language.

It isn't true (or perhaps it kind of is, in a way, sort of, but no, not really), and it isn't actually possible to make that kind of statement:
"The simplest problem is inflection. Do we count 'run,' 'runs' and 'ran' as separate? The next problem is multiple meanings. 'Run' the verb and 'run' the noun: one or two? What about 'run' as in the long run of a play on Broadway? Different enough from a jog around the park for its own entry? Different enough from a run in cricket?

"Are the names of new chemical compounds, which could be virtually infinite, words? What role does mere orthographic convention play? Is 'home run' two words, but 'homerun' (as it's often written) one? What sense does that make?  ... many languages habitually build long words from short ones. German is obvious; it is a trifle to coin a new compound word for a new situation, as mentioned here. Are compounds new words? Is the German Unabhängigkeitserklärung, 'declaration of independence,' one word? It's certainly written that way in German" (Greene 2010).
Even if it doesn't have the largest imaginable vocabulary, English does have its delights. One is a gift for euphemisms.

Some of our best euphemisms are borrowed, of course. For example, "bite the dust" (or at least "lick the dust") is Biblical:
They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. (Psalms 72:9)
In case you're curious, the earliest known use of the exact phrase "bite the dust" dates back to 1748 in Tobias Smollett’s translation of “The Adventures of Gil Blas of Santillane," and it was made popular in Samuel Butler’s 1898 translation of Homer’s “The Iliad” (Cunard 2010).

But the fact that we've borrowed euphemisms doesn't mean we're not perfectly capable of devising our own. Some fairly recent examples:
  1. "Workforce imbalance correction" [fired]1
  2. "Courtesy call" [rudeness]1
  3. "Collateral damage" [deaths of civilians]1
  4. "Certified pre-owned" [used]1
  5. "Economical with the truth" [lying]1
  6. "Adult beverage" [alcohol]1
  7. "Assumed Room Temperature" [died]2
  8. "Spend More Time With My Family" [quit]2
  9. "Visually challenged" [blind]2
  10. "Normal involuntary attrition" [fired]2
What I'm specifically interested in right now are euphemisms for "stupid." I'm feeling an urgent need for terms or phrases that can be applied to individuals or groups who are spectacularly, willfully  stupid (or are in the process of doing spectacularly, willfully stupid things).

I've wandered the internet. Here are 100 examples I think may prove serviceable:
  1. A couple of eggs shy of a dozen.
  2. A few ants short of a picnic.
  3. A few beers short of a six-pack.
  4. A few bricks short of a load
  5. A few cards short of a deck.
  6. A few clowns short of a circus
  7. A few feathers short of a whole duck
  8. A few fries short of a Happy Meal
  9. A few gallons short of a full tank.
  10. A few sandwiches short of a picnic.
  11. A few trucks short of a convoy.
  12. A pepperoni short of a pizza.
  13. About as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
  14. All foam, no beer
  15. An experiment in artificial stupidity
  16. An intellect rivaled only by garden tools
  17. As bright as a burnt-out light bulb.
  18. As much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
  19. As quick as a tortoise on Prozac.
  20. Away with the fairies
  21. Bright as Alaska in December.
  22. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel
  23. Crazy as a betsy bug.
  24. Crazy as a peach-orchard boar.
  25. Doesn't have all his cornflakes in one box
  26. Doesn't have all the dots on his dice.
  27. Doesn’t have both oars in the water.
  28. Dumb as a corn cob.
  29. Dumb as a stump.
  30. Dumber than a bag of rocks.
  31. Five cans short of a six-pack
  32. Forgot to pay his brain bill
  33. Four quarters short of a dollar
  34. Golf bag doesn’t have a full set of irons.
  35. Got a brain like a BB in a boxcar
  36. Got a leak in his think-tank.
  37. Hasn't got the sense God gave a goose.
  38. Hasn't got the sense God gave gravel.
  39. Her antenna doesn't pick up all the channels
  40. His belt doesn't go through all the loops
  41. His porch light isn't on.
  42. If brains were chocolate, he wouldn't have enough to fill an M&M.
  43. If brains were dynamite, he couldn’t blow his nose.
  44. If brains were leather, he wouldn't have enough to saddle a junebug.
  45. If brains were taxed, he’d get a rebate.
  46. If he had a brain, he'd be dangerous.
  47. If stupid were a talent, he'd be considered gifted.
  48. If that boy had an idea, it would die of loneliness.
  49. Isn’t firing on all thrusters.
  50. Like a pair of children’s scissors -- bright and colorful, but not too sharp.
  51. Mad as a monkey on a trike
  52. Mind in neutral, mouth in gear.
  53. Mind like a rubber bear trap.
  54. Mind like a steel sieve.
  55. No grain in the silo
  56. Not firing on all cylinders
  57. Not playing with a full deck
  58. Not the brightest light in the harbor.
  59. Not the brightest light on the Christmas tree.
  60. Not the sharpest crayon in the box.
  61. Not the sharpest hook in the tackle box.
  62. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
  63. Not the sharpest pencil in the box.
  64. Not tied too tight to the pier.
  65. Nuttier than a fruitcake
  66. Nuttier than a pecan pie
  67. One Fruit Loop shy of a bowl.
  68. One taco short of a combination plate
  69. One turbine short of an airplane.
  70. One-celled organisms outscore him in IQ tests.
  71. Only got one oar in the water.
  72. Played too much without a helmet.
  73. Proof that evolution CAN go in reverse.
  74. Receiver is off the hook
  75. Room temperature IQ.
  76. Running about a quart low.
  77. Running on empty.
  78. Several nuts short of a full pouch
  79. Sharp as a bowling ball.
  80. Smart as bait.
  81. So dumb, he could throw himself on the ground and miss.
  82. So dumb, she couldn't tell which way an elevator was going if she had two guesses.
  83. So dumb, the only thing he ever read was an eye-chart.
  84. Someone turned the lights out in the penthouse.
  85. Spinning crop circles
  86. Strong like bear, smart like tractor.
  87. Takes him 1-1/2 hours to watch 60 minutes.
  88. The cheese has slipped off his cracker.
  89. The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor
  90. The elevator's stuck between floors.
  91. The lights are on, but nobody's home.
  92. The switch is stuck in the off position.
  93. The wheel's spinning, but the hamster's dead
  94. Too dumb to pull his head in before he shuts the window.
  95. Too much yardage between the goalposts
  96. Two hubcaps short of a Buick.
  97. Useful as a fur-lined sink.
  98. Useful as a screen door on a submarine.
  99. Useful as a wooden frying pan.
  100. Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear.
You'll note that many of these can do double duty -- they can be used to describe someone as stupid or crazy. Or both!

I have a feeling having a portfolio (so to speak) of phrases like these may prove very useful over the next few years.


Notes

1 Van Zanten, Johanna. 2011.
2 Euphemismlist. 2013.


References

Cunard, Corinne. 2010. The origins of "Another one bites the dust." Spotlight. The Daily Bruin, November 20, 2010. Online: https://dailybruin.com/2010/10/15/the_origins_of_another_one_bites_the_dust_/

Euphemismlist. 2013. Terminology Media. Online: http://www.euphemismlist.com/

Greene, Robert Lane. 2010. The Biggest Vocabulary? Johnson. The Economist. Online: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/06/counting_words

Van Zanten, Johanna. 2011. 20 Examples of Great Euphemisms. Boomer Lit Author and Reviewer. Online: https://lynnschneiderbooks.com/2011/12/23/20-examples-of-great-euphemisms/

Miscellaneous Blogs
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060907124005AAnFhKr
http://wordfreaks.tribe.net/thread/4687c659-7d18-4a5a-b47f-0a1047e16279
https://www.yelp.com/topic/oakland-other-ways-to-say-someone-is-crazy
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/thesaurus/words+meaning+crazy,+insane,+weird,+strange+person.html
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/crazy
https://wanderwisdom.com/travel-destinations/Funny-Southern-Sayings-and-Southern-Expressions
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-euphemisms-for-being-crazy.htm#didyouknowout
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/01/synonyms-and-idioms-for-crazy.html
http://www.kaitaia.com/jokes/Funny_Lists/Funny_Lists67.htm

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The wisest men

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."

Roald Dahl, 2007 (reprint edition, 1972). Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. Puffin Books: London, p. 83.1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
US Constitution, Article 2, section 1.
You'll notice that sanity is not actually a requirement for becoming President of the United States. Interestingly enough, I can't find evidence that sanity has ever been a requirement for someone to become a head of state. In fact, there are a remarkable number of rulers -- kings and queens and emperors and such -- who have been utter loons. Here's a sample:
  • Emperor Caligula (12-41)
  • Emperor Commodus (161-192)
  • Emperor Elagabalus (203-222)
  • Emperor Qianfei (449–465)
  • Emperor Justin II of Byzantium (520-578)
  • King Charles VI of France [Charles the Mad] (1368–1422)
  • Henry VI of England (1421-1471)
  • Queen Joanna of Castile [Joanna the Mad] (1479–1555)
  • Tsar Ivan IV of Russia [Ivan the Terrible] (1530-1584)
  • Eric XIV of Sweden (1533-1577)
  • Tsar Feodor I of Russia (1557–1598)
  • Ottoman Caliph Ibrahim I [Mad Ibrahim] (1615–1648)
  • Queen Maria I of Portugal [Maria the Mad] (1734–1816)
  • Empress Anna of Russia (1693-1740)
  • Prince Sado of Korea (1735-1762)
  • King George III of England (1738-1820)
  • Alexandra of Bavaria (1826-1875)
  • King Ludwig II of Bavaria [The Fairy Tale King] (1845-1886)
Of course we won't mention folks like Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Stalin -- their "madness" was woven into their brand of "leadership."

Just in case you were hoping that American democracy might be beyond such things -- sorry, no. A study published in 2006 concluded:
"Eighteen (49%) Presidents met criteria suggesting psychiatric disorder: depression (24%), anxiety (8%), bipolar disorder (8%), and alcohol abuse/dependence (8%) were the most common. In 10 instances (27%), a disorder was evident during presidential office, which in most cases probably impaired job performance" (Jonathan et al. 2006; see also Barclay and Frater 2010; Winch 2016).
Keep in mind, this study only went as far as 1974. Which means there's been 42 more years to accumulate entertaining data.

Is there a relationship between madness and leadership?  Ghaemi argues:
"... in at least one vitally important circumstance insanity produces good results and sanity is a problem. In times of crisis, we are better off being led by mentally ill leaders than by mentally normal ones." (Ghaemi 2012, p. 2).
Gartner, in his book "The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (A Little) Craziness and (A Lot of) Success in America" reported that "One hundred percent of the entrepreneurs I interviewed were hypomanic" (2011, p. 6).

There have been a number of recent works looking at the allegedly positive effects of having psychopathic leaders:
"When you go down the road of [mental] disorders conferring advantages ... it's difficult to conceive of a condition that doesn't pay off -- at least in some form or another. Obsessive-compulsive? You're never going to leave the gas on. Paranoid? You'll never fall afoul of the small print" (Dutton 2013, p. xiv).
However, despite this fantastically optimistic propaganda, it turns out that having insane people as leaders is not always beneficial:
"... corporate psychopaths are reported to be parasitic in that they feed off the good work of others ... [a] psychopathic CEO ... [strengthens] his own position and external reputation while weakening the organisation that employs him, especially in terms of its human resource capability and overall performance" (Boddy 2015).

"Beneath the cleverly formed façade—typically created by psychopaths to influence their targets—is a darker side ... They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win... psychopaths are driven by what they perceive as their victims’ vulnerabilities... they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims ... They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people’s emotional responses. Some lack realistic long-term goals, although they can describe grandiose plans. The impulsive and irresponsible psychopath lives a parasitic and predatory lifestyle, seeking out and using other people" (Babiak and  O'Toole 2012).
In fact, psychopaths are frequently horrible people that destroy any organization unlucky enough to have them. Robert Hare has described them as "snakes in suits" and says they "use arrogance and superficial charm" to get what they want. He has described them as "social predators ... self serving individuals" and "lacking in empathy" (BBC 2004).

Hasson summarized the apparent and the actual characteristics psychopaths manifest:

Source: http://www.salkforum.se/kurs10/Hasson.pdf

Few of us are trained in psychology or psychiatry. How can we determine if we are being lead by the mad?

Stillman (2015) listed 11 things to look for:
  1. Charming
  2. Egocentric
  3. Grandiose
  4. Lack of remorse
  5. Lack of empathy
  6. Deceitful
  7. Shallow emotions
  8. Impulsive
  9. Hot-headed
  10. Thrill seeking
  11. Lack of responsibility
Unfortunately these are rather subjective, and there's no real "scale" -- isn't everybody a little impulsive? Aren't all of us inclined to avoid taking responsibility? Although useful in the sense of raising awareness, a more rigorous way to evaluate the danger is needed.

In 1985 Dr. Robert Hare, a Canadian criminal psychologist, introduced the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), sometimes called the "P-Scan."  It's a simple assessment tool designed to determine the level (or category) of psychopathy in patients. Despite problems (including the need for a trained mental health professional to administer the test and some serious criticisms [see for example Walters 2004; Lewis et al. 2004]) it has become  the standard way to assess criminal psychopaths. More recently, a "B-Scan" test has been developed (it is still in the process of being finalized). It is:
"a measure of behaviors, attitudes and business judgments that are relevant to performance in business situations" (Babiak and Hare 2016).
Though not completely validated, the B-Scan test has been tested. Or rather, the B-Scan tests have been tested. There are two: a self-administered test, and a test which is given to colleagues (the B-Scan 360). People are evaluated on the basis of four "Factors," and there are five items in each Factor (see Whitbourne 2015) :

  • Factor 1: Manipulativeness (lack of ethics)
    • Ingratiates him/herself
    • Is glib
    • Uses charm
    • Claims expertise
    • Rationalizes
  • Factor 2: Unreliability/lack of focus
    • Not loyal
    • No planning
    • Unfocused
    • Impatient
    • Unreliable
  • Factor 3: Callousness/insensitivity
    • Insensitive
    • Rarely shows emotions
    • Cold inside
    • Remorseless
    • No empathy
  • Factor 4: Intimidating/aggressive
    • Intimidating
    • Angry
    • Asks harsh questions
    • Threatens other workers
    • Dramatic

Each item is ranked on a scale of 1-5:
"On a 5-point scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), you would expect the average to be about a 3 (neither agree nor disagree), and that’s what the researchers found for their sample. Therefore, if you find the score of the person you’re rating to be a total of 15 per dimension (5 items times an average of 3 per item, or a total of 60), that’s about average. Bosses who approach 20 or 25 per scale, or between 80 to 100 across all 4, are therefore in the psychopathic ballpark" (Whitbourne 2015).
This, obviously, is still a fairly subjective method -- but we are dealing with human behavior here, not the movement of billiard balls, so perhaps that's inevitable. At least it gives a way to rank behavior, a way to compare, and a scale of madness. So that's something.

In any case, the B-Scan 360 does provide us with a unique tool. Think the leader of a particular country is mad? Well, why not use the test? See what you think. See if you think your world is now run by the psychopaths.


Notes

1 This phrase is used in the 1971 movie version of "Charlie and Chocolate Factory," but it isn't in the book. It is in the sequel, "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator." However, it seems the phrase is much older. The oldest reference in print seems to date from 1823, and was called a "good old couplet." See: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/09/27/nonsense/.


References

All that is interesting. 2016. 10 Insane Rulers You’ve Probably Never Heard Of. Online: http://all-that-is-interesting.com/insane-rulers

Babiak, Paul and Mary Ellen O'Toole. 2012. The Corporate Psychopath. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Online: https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/november/november-2012

Babiak, Paul and Robert D. Hare. 2016. Business Scan (B-Scan). Online: http://www.b-scan.com/

Barclay, Shelly and Jamie Frater. 2010.  Top 10 Truly Insane Rulers. Online: http://listverse.com/2010/10/14/top-10-truly-insane-rulers/

BBC News. 2004. Spotting psychopaths at work. Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4057771.stm

Boddy, Clive R. 2015. Psychopathic Leadership A Case Study of a Corporate Psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics. Online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2908-6

Davidson, Jonathan, Kathryn Connor and Marvin S. Swartz. Mental illness in U.S. Presidents between 1776 and 1974: A review of biographical sources. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 194(1):47-51 · February 2006. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7310931_Mental_illness_in_US_Presidents_between_1776_and_1974_A_review_of_biographical_sources

Dutton, Kevin. 2013. The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success. Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York.

Gartner, John D. 2011. The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (A Little) Craziness and (A Lot of) Success in America. Simon & Schuster: New York.

Ghaemi, Nassir. 2012. A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness. Penguin Books: London.

Hasson, Dan. Psychopathic leaders -- do they exist? Frontiers in Leadership 7,5 HP. STOCKHOLMS AKADEMISKA LEDARSKAPSKOLLEGIUM (Stockholm Academic Leadership College). Online: http://www.salkforum.se/kurs10/Hasson.pdf

Lewis, Dorothy Otnow, Catherine A. Yeager, Pamela Blake, Barbara Bard and Maren Strenziok. 2004. Ethics Questions Raised by the
Neuropsychiatric, Neuropsychological, Educational, Developmental, and Family Characteristics of 18 Juveniles Awaiting Execution in Texas. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 32:408-429. Online: http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/32/4/408.full.pdf

Pappas, Stephanie. 2016. Political Psychology: The Presidents' Mental Health. Online: http://www.livescience.com/55763-political-psychology-the-presidents-mental-health.html

Stillman, Jessica. 2015. 11 Signs You're Working with a Psychopath. Inc.com. Online: http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/11-signs-you-re-working-with-a-psychopath.html

Walters, Glenn D. 2004. The Trouble with Psychopathy as a General Theory of Crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48(2): 133-148. Abstract online: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/48/2/133

Whitbourne, Susan Krauss. 2015. 20 Signs That Your Boss May Be a Psychopath. Psychology Today Online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201509/20-signs-your-boss-may-be-psychopath

Winch, Guy. 2016. Study: Half of All Presidents Suffered from Mental Illness. Psychology Today Online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201602/study-half-all-presidents-suffered-mental-illness

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Always you yourself you hid

I saw the different things you did,
But always you yourself you hid.
I felt you push, I heard you call,
I could not see yourself at all

Robert Louis Stevenson. 1913. "The Wind," in A Child's Garden of Verses: Selected Poems. Lit2Go Edition, (1913), accessed October 15, 2016, http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/59/a-childs-garden-of-verses-selected-poems/4761/the-wind/.

There are things you can't talk about or visualize or even begin to understand until you have the right tools. Until William Morrison and John C. Wharton built the first machine in 1897, you just couldn't get cotton candy.1 What's remarkable to me is that until 1450, when Leon Battista Alberti invented the anemometer, we had no way of quantifying, even roughly, how fast the wind was blowing.

The Greeks were avid meteorologists (since they came up with the word "meteorology," that isn't really surprising).2 When it came to understanding winds, they went to enormous efforts, constructing Athens' octagonal "Tower of the Winds" sometime around 50 BCE (or perhaps earlier) to study the winds.

But keep in mind, when I say "study" I just mean "classify in terms of direction."
Aristotle (c. 340 BCE) recognized 10 wind directions; Timosthenes of Rhodes (c. 282 BCE) recognized 12; Vitruvious (c. 15 BCE) recognized 24; and in the Middle Ages, European mariners recognized 16 wind directions (and sometimes as many as 32).

Wind direction is important, of course. But what about wind speed?

Remarkably enough, the first instrument to measure wind speed wasn't invented until the 15th century. Leon Battista Alberti's (1404-1472) anemometer was about as simple as an instrument can get -- a hinged flat plate was allowed to swing in the wind. The angle of the plate could be measured -- which meant that for the first time ever, wind speed could be quantified.

A simple pressure plate anemometer based on Robert Hooke's (1635-1703) design.

Until Alberti invented the anemometer there just wasn't any way to quantify or compare the speed of the wind.

Or was there?

In 1704 Daniel Defoe (c. 1660-1731 -- yes, the Robinson Crusoe Daniel Defoe) proposed an 11-point scale of the winds (National Meteorological Library 2007):
  • 0 Stark Calm
  • 1 Calm Weather
  • 2 Little Wind
  • 3 A Fine Breeze
  • 4 A Small Gale
  • 5 A Fresh Gale
  • 6 A Topsail Gale 
  • 7 Blows Fresh
  • 8 A Hard Gale of Wind
  • 9 A Fret of Wind
  • 10 A Storm
  • 11 A Tempest
Defoe doesn't seem to have tried to quantify these speeds, but "during the late 17th century sailors were using a fairly standard set of names to describe winds" (Singleton 2016).

In 1759 John Smeaton (1724-1792), a brilliant engineer, architect and inventor, devised an eight point scale for describing the speed of the wind and its effect on windmills.

John Smeaton's 1759 anemometer.

John Smeaton's scale of wind velocity.
Source: Smeaton 1814, p. 64)

Smeaton expressed wind speed in terms of feet per second, and  was primarily interested in the efficiency of windmills.3

In 1779 Alexander Dalrymple of the East India Company (1737-1808) produced a similar wind scale, as did Archibald Menzies (1754-1842) about 1791. Dalrymple (1737-1808), the Royal Navy's first official Hydrographer, became interested in the idea of some kind of standardized way to describe wind speeds, and apparently intended to publish Smeaton's scale in his book, Practical Navigation in 1790 -- but the book was never published. However "there's compelling evidence that Beaufort actually copied [his original] scale directly out of a pamphlet written by Alexander Dalrymple" (Huler 2004, pp. 72-73).

James Capper (1743-1825), a British officer who worked for the East India Company, produced a combined scale of wind speed and descriptions (Capper 1801, p. 226; see also National Meteorolgical Library and Archive 2007):
James Capper's 1801 scale of wind speeds and descriptive terms.

From 1660 British captains were required to keep weather logs (logbooks were valuable -- they gave information about what other ships might encounter). In 1805 Francis Beaufort took command of the HMS Woolwich. In his log for January 13, 1806 he wrote that he had devised a 13-point scale for wind speed, and began to use it to record his weather observations (Singleton 2016; National Meteorological Library and Archive 2007).

From Beaufort's diary c. 1806.
Source: http://cedadocs.badc.rl.ac.uk/259/1/factsheet06.pdf
It's a bit hard to read the diary, but this is the original scale:

Beaufort's original 13 point scale.

What's remarkable about this scale? Nothing.
"If this was the Beaufort scale, then the Beaufort scale wasn't much" (Huler 2004, p. 73)

"The original Beaufort scale ... is merely a scale of wind conditions that was used by sailors to categorize the different sailing conditions" (Wallbrink and Koek 2005, p. 3).
That's right -- the original version of the Beaufort scale was amazingly ordinary. The words are nicely descriptive. And the numeric values are reasonable. But there is absolutely nothing here that adds materially to what Defoe wrote in 1704. It's markedly inferior to both Capper's and Smeaton's scales. So why do we still rhapsodize about Beaufort?

Because the story's not done.

In 1807, while in the harbor at Montevideo, Uruguay, Beaufort wrote an updated version of his scale. For the first time he defined his wind forces in terms of something observable: his ship's sails and behavior (Hulter 2004, p. 73-75). His new scale looked like this:

The 1807 version of the Beaufort scale.
This was a crucial change. Instead of simply assuming that all experienced sailors would mean roughly the same thing when they said "light air" or "moderate gale," there was now a way of describing, categorizing and measuring (in a relatively objective way) the force of the winds: by looking at how the ship responded to the wind.

Beaufort continued to refine his scale. In 1831 Captain Robert Fitzroy asked the Royal Navy Hydrographer to find a suitable naturalist for his ship, the HMS Beagle. The naturalist selected was Charles Darwin. The Hydrographer was Francis Beaufort (Hulter 2004, pp. 121-123). In addition to finding the most gifted naturalist imaginable, Beaufort also provided Captain Fitzroy with the newest version of his scale; the Beagle was the first ship to officially employ the Beaufort scale for its weather observations (Foster and Chesney 1998, pp. 328-329). Beaufort also submitted his still further revised scale of wind forces to the Admiralty. In 1838 it was adopted as the standard for use by all ships in the British Navy.
Official statement from the British Admiralty, adopting the Beaufort Scale.
Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/4/4/Fact_Sheet_No._6_-_Beaufort_Scale.pdf
This is the "classic" 1838 version of the Beaufort Scale:

1838 Beaufort Scale.
Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/4/4/Fact_Sheet_No._6_-_Beaufort_Scale.pdf
In 1874 "Beaufort’s scale of wind force was revised ... to reflect changes in the rig of warships, and expanded two decades later to include particulars of the sail required by fishing smacks"; in 1903 wind speeds (rather than wind forces) were computed using a formula:
V = √ 1.87 * B3

Where V is the wind speed in miles per hour 30 feet above the surface of the sea, and B is the Beaufort number (National Meteorological Library and Archive 2007).

In 1906 the British Meteorology Office published a revised version of the Beaufort scale that now included something revolutionary: observations not of the ship, but of the sea. Ships came in a much larger variety, the age of sail was ending. Now, instead of observing the characteristics of your vessel, you would observe your environment. And not just a marine environment. Now there were descriptions and Beaufort numbers for the land as well:

The 1906 revision of the Beaufort scale
Source: Huler 2004, p. 78.
It's a bit hard to see here, but this goes much further -- now there is a column describing wind speed on land as well -- for example, at Force 2 "Wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary [weather] vane moved by wind"; at Force 6 "Large branches in motion; whistling heard in telegraph wires; umbrellas used with difficulty"; at Force 9 "Slight structural damage (chimney pots and slates removed." What had been a tool for sailors was becoming a tool for everyone.

And the revising went on. In 1921 Captain H.P. Douglas (later Sir Percy Douglas) devised a 9 point "sea scale" to describe wave height and sea conditions:
Degree Height (m) Description
0 no wave Calm (Glassy)
1 0–0.10 Calm (rippled)
2 0.10–0.50 Smooth
3 0.50–1.25 Slight
4 1.25–2.50 Moderate
5 2.50–4.00 Rough
6 4.00–6.00 Very rough
7 6.00–9.00 High
8 9.00–14.00 Very high
9 14.00+ Phenomenal
This could then be combined with a "swell of the sea" scale:
Degrees Description
0 No swell
1 Very Low (short and low wave)
2 Low (long and low wave)
3 Light (short and moderate wave)
4 Moderate (average and moderate wave)
5 Moderate rough (long and moderate wave)
6 Rough (short and heavy wave)
7 High (average and heavy wave)
8 Very high (long and heavy wave)
9 Confused (wavelength and height indefinable)
And then combined with wave length and wave height information:
Wavelength
Short wave 100 m -
Average wave 100-200 m
Long wave 201 m +
 Wave height
Low wave 2 m -
Moderate wave 2-4 m
High wave 4.01 m +
To produce the Douglas Sea and Swell Scale:
Sea and Swell Scale, published 1927.
Source: http://www.awtworldwide.com/products/news/douglas-sea-state-3-london-arbitration-award/
In 1926 the International Commission for Weather Telegraphers adopted the 1906 Beaufort scale as an international standard.

In 1927 Captain Peter Petersen published a "state of the sea" scale with extremely vivid descriptions. of the state of the sea which were correlated with the Beaufort scale (Huler 2004, pp. 198-199; BORDGEMEINSCHAFT D187 2016):
Petersen's sea-state scale (in German).
Source: http://www.d187-zerstoerer-rommel.de/index.php/wellen.html


Sea SurfaceDescriptionWavelengthWave HeightBeaufort
0Mirror-like surface.0-5 m0-0.25 m0
1Small scale-covered ripples without crests.5-15 m0-0.25 m1
2Small waves, short but pronounced. Combs look glassy and do not break.15-25 m0.25-1 m2
2Combs begin to break. Foam mostly glassy, isolated small white foam heads can occur.15-25 m0.25-1 m3
3Waves small but longer. White foam heads common.25-50 m0.75-1 m4
4Moderate waves with a long form. White foam crests everywhere. Isolated spray can be seen.50-75 m2-4 m5
5Large waves start to form. Wave crests break and leave large white foam surfaces. There is some spray.75-100 m3-6 m6
6Sea piling up. White foam breaks into stripes in the wind direction.100-135 m5-7 m7
7Moderately high to mountainous waves with crests of considerable length. Spray begins to blow off the crests. Foarm lies in well-marked stripes in the wind direction.150-200 m7-10 m8
7High mountainous waves. Dense foam streaks in the wind direction. Rolling seas begin. Spray can affect visibility.150-200 m7-10 m9
8Very high waves with long breaking ridges. Seas are white with foam. Heavy rolling seas. Visibility impaired by spray.200-250 m10-15 m10
9Exceptionally high waves, visibility reduced by spray.250 300 m10-15 m11
9Air filled with foam and spray. Sea completely white. Visibility very low, long distance visibility impossible.> 300 m> 15 m12
Petersen's sea-state scale (my translation)

In 1935 the International Meteorological "asked several countries to test the Petersen state-of-the-sea scale, and it was finally adopted in 1947" (Huler 2004, p. 200). The World Meteorological Organization adopted the Beaufort scale, with minor revisions, in 1970:


The modern Beaufort Scale
Source: http://blog.metservice.com/node/1135; see also http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/ocean/beaufort_max.html
And now, after all that, here's what the World Meteorological Society has to say about the Beaufort scale today:
"... while sea state reporting remains a legal international practice, with modern in situ observing techniques we try to avoid using sea state or Beaufort scale as we prefer direct readings from appropriate instruments" (Marine Meteorology and Oceanography Programme FAQ; Online: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/mmop/faq.html#sea_state).
Not really a rousing endorsement, is it? "If you insist you can use; it's legal. But we'd really rather you didn't." Kind of dismissive, in fact.

Not that this means the Beaufort scale is going to be abandoned any time soon. It's incredibly useful to be able to just look at the world around you and be able to say with confidence that when you can feel the wind on your face and leaves rustle that the wind is blowing at about 6-11 kph (4-7 mph).

It's more than just useful. It's empowering.

You can't tell the temperature, or the air pressure, or the humidity just by looking. But you can know the speed of the wind. And that is amazing.

The thing that surprises me is that it took something like 2,000 years to achieve that insight. Vitruvius (Marucs Vitruvius Pollio, 80-15 BCE) wrote about the importance of understanding both wind direction and wind force:
"Wind is a flowing wave of air, moving hither and thither indefinitely. It is produced when heat meets moisture, the rush of heat generating a mighty current of air. That this is the fact we may learn from bronze eolipiles [bronze balls partially filled with water -- effectively, teapots], and thus by means of a scientific invention discover a divine truth lurking in the laws of the heavens" (Book I, Chapter 6).

"... sails that are only halfway up have less effect, but when they get farther away from the centre, and are hoisted to the very top of the mast, the pressure at the top forces the ship to make greater progress, though the wind is no stronger but just the same" (Book X, Chapter 3). 
But Vitruvius never bothered to try and find some way of measuring that force.

Meteorological instruments were invented over an astonishingly long period of time:
  • Leonardo da Vinci invented a kind of hygrometer (to measure humidity) in 1480. 
  • Galileo is usually given the credit for inventing the thermometer (thermoscope) in 1593. However, the earliest temperature measuring device seems to have been invented by Philo of Byzantium some time around 250 BCE  (there is still a class of devices called "Philo thermometers") (McGee 1988, p. 3). 
  • Air pressure (barometric pressure) was first measured by Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647) in 1643. 
  • The first rain gauges were probably invented in India around 2,300 years ago, and in Palestine about the same time. The first actual use of rain gauges for large-scale meteorological research were in Korea in 1441 (Strangeways 2010). 
  • The first device to measure incoming solar radiation was invented in 1825 by Sir John Frederick William Herschel (Coulson 2012, p. 55). 
Weather is something that affects all of us. And it took more than 2,000 years to devise the things we need to understand it.

The real issue isn't technological. The issue is learning to see. Learning to think beyond the way things are, to why things are. There was certainly nothing technologically advanced or exotic about Alberti's (or Robert Hooke's) pressure plate anemometers; any halfway skilled blacksmith in ancient Rome could have whipped one up. But that's missing the point. Until Leon Battista Alberti actually put up a sheet of metal next to a scale, nobody had ever measured wind speed.

What prompted him to do this? It's hard to say. Alberti was a genius, an "author, artist, architect, poet, priest, linguist, philosopher, and cryptographer, and general Renaissance humanist polymath" (Norman 2016; see also Nesfield-Cookson 2010, p. 64), and he lived in one of the most intellectually lively places the world has ever seen. He was a contemporary of artists, architects and scientists, like Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, Donatello, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Giovanni Bellini, Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli and Leonardo Da Vinci; and he worked for Popes Eugenius IV, Nicholas V, and Pius II. When you let geniuses talk to other geniuses -- things happen.

But keep in mind, the idea of measuring something that can't be seen -- like wind -- should not have been all that revolutionary. The hydrological cycle was well known nearly 3,000 years ago:
The sea is the source of water and wind,
for without the great sea there would be no wind
nor streams of rivers nor rainwater from on high;
but the great sea is the begetter of cloujds, winds,
and rivers.
Xenophanes of Colophon, fragment 30 (570-475 BCE) (Lesher 2001, p. 5)
It was Alberti's flash of genius that lead him to finding a way to measure -- in a very fundamental sense, to see -- what could not be seen.

Beaufort's scale was, to start with, fairly trivial. You could use words to describe how fast the wind blew. But over the last century and a half it was made into an incredibly useful tool. An empowering tool. We see the wind. Using Beaufort's (heavily modified) scale, we can see what is unseeable. We can see the wind.


Notes

1 There were cotton candy-ish things -- Persian pashmak, or Turkish pişmaniye, for example -- before true machine-made cotton candy. They aren't the same. At all.

2 Although the ancient Greek "meteorology" was a lot broader than our use of the word. Aristotle in his Meteorology included "all the affections we may call common to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth and the affections of its parts," including astronomy, geology, and geomorphology. See UCMP Berkeley online: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html

3The Smeaton coefficient, developed as a result of his experiments, was actually used by the Wright brothers to calculate lift. The formula is L = kV2 ACl, where L is lift, k is the drag coefficient, A is the area in square feet, and Cl is the lift relative to the drag. Apparently this isn't used anymore -- but it worked well enough to get the Wright brothers off the ground.

References

BORDGEMEINSCHAFT D187 (Board Community D187). 2016. D187 Zerstörer Rommel (D187 Destroyer Rommel ["These pages are dedicated to the ship and its former crew members."]). Online: http://www.d187-zerstoerer-rommel.de/index.php/wellen.html.

Capper, James. 1801. Observations on the Winds and Monsoons. London: C. Whittingham. Online: https://books.google.com/books?id=AppeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Observations+on+the+winds+and+monsoons&source=bl&ots=bW5fGdsc82&sig=3o_HMUHFxOZlI4ZCxT6Cp0LW6p8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj48NWLnerPAhXEzFQKHVS3DHEQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=rous%20&f=false

Coulson, Kinsell. 2012. Solar and Terrestrial Radiation: Methods and Measurements. Academic Press: New York.

Editor. 2012. Beaufort Wind Scales. Online: https://sizes.com/natural/beaufort.htm

Hocking, W.K. 2000. The Instruments of Meteorology. Online: http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~whocking/p103/instrum.html#tag2

Lesher, James H. 2001. Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragements: A Text Translation with a Commentary. University of Toronto Press.

McGee, Thomas D. 1988. Principles and Methods of Temperature Measurement. John Wiley & Sons.

National Meteorolgical Library and Archive. 2007. Fact Sheet No. 6 - The Beaufort Scale. Online: http://cedadocs.badc.rl.ac.uk/259/1/factsheet06.pdf

Nesfield-Cookson, Bernard. 2010. At the Dawn of a New Consciousness: Art, Philosophy and the Birth of the Modern World. London: Temple Lodge Publishing.

Norman, Jeremy. 2016. Leon Battista Alberti Describes "The Alberti Cipher." History of Information. Online: http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3604

Petersen, Peter. 1927. Zur Bestimmung der Windstärke auf See. Für Segler, Dampfer und Luftfahrzeige. Annalen der Hydrographie und Maritimen Meteorologie. March 1927, pages 69-72.

Sigafoose, Jim. 2011. Douglas Sea State 3 - London Arbitration Award. Online: http://www.awtworldwide.com/products/news/douglas-sea-state-3-london-arbitration-award/

Singleton, Frank. 2008. The Beaufort scale of winds: its relevance, and its use by sailors. Weather 83(2): 37-41. Online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.153/pdf

Singleton, Frank. 2016? Historical and Contemporary Versions of the Beaufort Scale. The Weather Window. Online: http://weather.mailasail.com/Franks-Weather/Historical-And-Contemporay-Versions-Of-Beaufort-Scales

Smeaton, John. 1814. The Miscellaneous Papers of John Smeaton, Civil Engineer, &c. F.R.S.: Comprising His Communications to the Royal Society, Printed in the Philosophical Transactions, Forming a Fourth Volume to His Reports. London: Longman, Rees, Orne, and Brown. Online: https://books.google.com/books?id=AL0IAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=john+smeaton+wind+scale&source=bl&ots=U_mhH0D-8-&sig=cUQAt-gUI76wxFlV7QAqEAsKzUM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSq6Guk-rPAhVkilQKHYjFBIEQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=Table%20!V&f=false

Strangeways, Ian. 2010. A history of rain gauges. Weather 65(5): 133-138. Online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.548/pdf

Vitruvius (Marucs Vitruvius Pollio, 80-15 BCE). Translated by Morris Hicky Morgan. 1914. The Ten Books on Architecture. Harvard University Press: Cambridge and London. Online: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/29239-h.htm

Wallbrink, Hendrik and Frits B. Koek. 2005. Historical Wind Speed Equivalents Of The Beaufort Scale, 1850-1950. KNMI publication 210. HISKLIM 13. RECovery of Logbooks And International Marine data (RECLAIM) Project. International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set. Online: http://icoads.noaa.gov/reclaim/pdf/Hisklim13.pdf

Williams, Kim, Lionel March and Stephen R. Wassell. 2010. The Mathematical Works of Leon Battista Alberti. Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin. Online: https://books.google.com/books?id=NBAKwthCGLUC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=vitruvius+anemometer&source=bl&ots=hyjVqal7M_&sig=NqUybnzD4386OUyYGdKtfgl8UaY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS9c-Vpt7PAhXr1IMKHbYsAtcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=vitruvius%20anemometer&f=false