Bard/Gemini Let Me Down

Bard/Gemini Let Me Down

 Steven B. Zwickel

May, 2024

When AI tools first came out, in late 2022, I was curious to see how it would work, mainly because I spent three decades as a writing teacher. I tried using ChatGPT, but decided that I really didn’t want to open a new account with yet another password to remember. So I decided to give Google’s new AI tool, Bard, a shot, since I already had a Google account.

My first attempt at using Bard involved having it write a college-level essay on why Americans are afraid that the government is going to come and take away their possessions. Bard responded with a simplistic essay that could have been written by a high school sophomore and lacked citations (which I had specifically requested). A second attempt, with a better prompt, was a little bit better, but not very impressive. (I know now a lot more about how to prompt these AI tools than I did in 2022.)

I was not impressed, but not quite ready to give up, so I gave Bard another chance. This time I asked it to write an obituary for someone I know very well—myself—and I gave it more helpful prompts: “…including his family background, education, occupations, publications, hobbies, and next of kin.” Good old Bard spat out an incredible piece of fiction—nothing it wrote was true, except for my major in college. The rest was just a complete fabrication. Bard, I realized, was hallucinating!

When I told this story to my granddaughter last week, she had an interesting take. “Why didn’t I try to see if Bard can do fact-checking?” It was a clever idea and worth a shot. After all, it’s now 2024, Google says that Bard is now “improved” and called Gemini, so why not see if it can catch factual errors.

I pulled two paragraphs from a biography from a reliable website:

“John N. Laycock was born in Methuen, Massachusetts on 18 May 1892; he attended primary and secondary school in that city and was subsequently appointed to the Naval Academy in  1910. He graduated in 1914 and then served aboard the battleship USS VIRGINIA. His ship was at Vera Cruz, Mexico, during the occupation of July-December 1914. Following his tour with the VIRGINIA, ENS Laycock began postgraduate work at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and received a bachelor of engineering degree in 1917. On 6 June 1917 he was promoted to lieutenant, junior grade, and transferred to the Civil Engineer Corps.

“During the 1920s Laycock's career was much like that of his fellows; between 1917 and 1927 he performed public works functions at the Naval Air Station, Cape May, New Jersey; the Navy Yard, Charleston, South Carolina; the Fifteenth Naval District (Canal Zone); and the Naval Station, Newport, Rhode Island. In 1927, the President nominated Laycock, now a lieutenant commander, as Treaty Engineer of the Republic of Haiti and the President of Haiti appointed him as such. In this position, LCDR Laycock served as Director of Municipal Engineering from 1927 to 1928, and as Executive Officer of the Public Works Administration of the Republic of Haiti from 1928 to 1931. Laycock was the last such Treaty Engineer and was made a Commander of the Order of Honor and Merit by the Haitian government for his services.”

<https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/seabee/explore/civil-engineer-corps-history/john-n--laycock.html>

Then I re-wrote it and deliberately altered some of the facts (changes are shown in red):

John N. Laycock was born in Madison, Wisconsin on 18 July 1901; he attended Madison War Memorial High School and was drafted into the US Navy in 1918. After the war he was appointed to the Air Force Academy and served aboard the aircraft carrier USS Vermont. His ship was at Cancun, Mexico, during the occupation of July-December 1919. 

Ensign Laycock began postgraduate work in Theology and Criminal Law at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Laycock wrote his dissertation on “The Role of the US Navy in the Battle Of Gettysburg” and received a bachelor of engineering degree in 1917. On 6 June 1917 he was promoted to lieutenant, junior grade, and transferred to the Civil Engineer Corps.

During the 1920s Laycock performed public works functions at the Naval Air Station, Cape May, New Jersey; the Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York; the Fifteenth Naval District (Canal Zone); and the Naval Station, Newport, Rhode Island. 

In 1927, President Roosevelt nominated Laycock, now a lieutenant commander, as Treaty Engineer of the Republic of Haiti and the President of Haiti appointed him as such. Commodore John N. Laycock served as Director of Municipal Engineering from 1927 to 1938, and as Executive Officer of the Public Works Administration of the Peoples Republic of China from 1928 to 1931. Laycock was made a Commander of the Order of Honor and Merit by the Haitian government for his services.

I ran the revised error-filled biography past two AI tools, with a prompt asking them to fact-check it.

The first response, from You.com, was encouraging:

Based on the search results, there is no evidence to support the claim that John N. Laycock was born in Madison, Wisconsin on 18 July 1901, attended Madison War Memorial High School, or was drafted into the US Navy in 1918. The search results provide information about a different individual named John N. Laycock who was born in Methuen, Massachusetts on 18 May 1892 and attended primary and secondary school in that city before being appointed to the Naval Academy in 1910 1 . Therefore, the information provided in the claim is not accurate.

Additionally, there is no information in the search results about John N. Laycock serving aboard the aircraft carrier USS Vermont or being in Cancun, Mexico during the occupation of July-December 1919. The search results do not mention John N. Laycock's postgraduate work in Theology and Criminal Law at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, his dissertation on "The Role of the US Navy in the Battle Of Gettysburg," or his appointment to the Civil Engineer Corps 1 .

Furthermore, the search results do not provide any information about John N. Laycock performing public works functions at the Naval Air Station, Cape May, New Jersey; the Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York; the Fifteenth Naval District (Canal Zone); or the Naval Station, Newport, Rhode Island during the 1920s.

Lastly, there is no evidence in the search results to support the claim that John N. Laycock was nominated by President Roosevelt as Treaty Engineer of the Republic of Haiti, served as Director of Municipal Engineering from 1927 to 1938, or served as Executive Officer of the Public Works Administration of the Peoples Republic of China from 1928 to 1931. There is also no mention of John N. Laycock being made a Commander of the Order of Honor and Merit by the Haitian government 1.

In conclusion, the information provided in the claim about John N. Laycock is not supported by the search results.

<https://you.com>

============

A second response to a request for fact-checking to Perplexity.ai was even better and more specific:

The claims made in the query about John N. Laycock's biography appear to be inaccurate based on the information provided in the search results. Here are the issues:

1. There is no mention of John N. Laycock being born in Madison, Wisconsin in 1901 or attending Madison War Memorial High School in the search results.
2. The results do not indicate that he was drafted into the US Navy in 1918 or that he attended the Air Force Academy after the war.
3. There are no details about him serving aboard the USS Vermont or being in Cancun, Mexico in 1919.
4. His supposed postgraduate work in Theology and Criminal Law at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, writing a dissertation on the Battle of Gettysburg, and receiving a bachelor's degree in engineering in 1917 are not corroborated.
5. The claims about his promotions, assignments, and roles in Haiti, the Canal Zone, China, and as Treaty Engineer are unsubstantiated by the provided information.
6. There is no evidence in the results of him being made a Commander of the Order of Honor and Merit by the Haitian government.

In summary, the biographical details presented in the query about John N. Laycock do not align with the information found in the search results, which focus primarily on Thomas Laycock, a 19th century physician, and the experiences of Black Seabees during World War II. Without additional credible sources, the claims about John N. Laycock's life and career cannot be verified as factual.

<Perplexity.ai>

I decided to give Bard/Gemini a shot at it:

If you can read this, thank whoever taught you to write!

Steven B. Zwickel

April, 2024

 My handwriting was an awful scrawl all the way through my school years. I was taught cursive in grade school (probably Palmer) but executed it poorly. 

In the 1950s children started by writing with pencils and switched to using pens in 3rd or 4th grade. Most people were still using fountain pens, so each pupil in my school had to buy a sheet of blotter paper large enough to cover our desk tops.

I took a typing class in junior high school, but I missed most of a semester due to illness and never really caught up. I could hunt-and-peck with two fingers, but it was slow going and I made a lot of mistakes.

I was OK in high school because I rarely had to write anything longer than a short answer on an exam. For longer papers, I wrote them out in longhand and then read them aloud to my dad while he typed.

I caught a lucky break—a month of free time between finishing high school and starting college—and, since I hoped to do better in my college courses, I decided it was time for me to really learn to type.

I got a book for beginning typists from the library and sat down at the keyboard of our manual Remington.

J-U-G-space. J-U-G-space. J-U-G-space. Over and over. At the end of the month I knew how to type and handwriting was no longer a problem.

My college papers rolled out of the typewriter paten with ease and, thanks to “white-out”, I was good enough and fast enough to become a reporter, and later an editor, of the college newspaper. (I was actually fast enough so that years later when I was “between gigs” I was able to earn money working as an office temp.)

By the time I graduated I had great typing skills but the same lousy handwriting I’d always had. (And my spelling was much, much better!)

Then I spent six months abroad without access to a typewriter. My postcards home were illegible. Family members, and my girlfriend, complained that they had no idea what I had written. They couldn’t figure out what I was trying to say.

Now, in spite of the fact that my penmanship stank, I was a long-time fan of the fountain pen. Perhaps it was some kind of teenage rebellion; my dad worked for a large stationery company and helped introduce the ball point pen to the American business world. And, going against tradition and stereotypes, I got a Cross ballpoint pen for my Bar Mitzvah.

Some time in high school I bought a fountain pen and ink and took them with me to school. Before you ask—yes, they leaked and yes, they stained my pants, and yes, my folks were upset. I should note that those early ball-point pens were not a lot better; they often leaked and also made a mess.

But I was not going to give up. I wanted to write the old-fashioned way with a pen and ink. One time, I recall filling a film canister with cotton and a small amount of ink. I took it to school and, in class, opened the canister and dipped my pen into the ink. Dumb idea! What a mess!

Anyway, while I was overseas I got a ride into town and found a bookstore that sold books in English. On the shelf I found a little paperback by an Englishman who argued, very persuasively I thought, that anyone willing to take the time to learn and to practice, practice, practice, could develop an elegant, calligraphic writing style. No special pen or paper was required, just a desire to write legibly.

I began working on the exercises in the book. After a while, I became fairly good at it. I dropped many of the characters I’d been taught in grade school in favor of more legible ones that looked more like printed text. No more f, s, G, r, Q or Z. I even changed my signature so it looked more legible and a lot more professional.

Eventually my penmanship was so nice that people invited me to write out their formal invitations and to do the lettering on posters. I even got paid for some of this work! When I spent some time in China, I got a lot of compliments from the Chinese—who know great calligraphy when they see it—on my beautiful handwriting.

The debate over whether children still need to be taught cursive writing reminds me of  what I heard  parents saying in the 1980s. Many saw the computer as the tool of the future and they were vocal proponents of teaching “keyboarding” in the schools. I don’t know where this movement went, but  in the 1990s and 2000s some of my college students were still typing with two fingers. The word-processor eventually replaced the typewriter. When people started using Apple computers they used the mouse; later, with Siri responding to verbal commands and the arrival of voice-to-text dictation software, the need for typing skills decreased even more.

 After “keyboarding” we heard loud cries for the schools to teach young people to write computer code. It now seems that computers running on artificial intelligence will soon take over the job of coding.

Is handwriting a useless skill these days, as some argue? Is it worth the time and effort it takes to learn?

The arguments in favor of teaching cursive include scientific studies that concluded that learning cursive helps children’s brain development, it improves their memories, and it makes handwritten documents accessible to them. People who can’t write in cursive have trouble reading things that are hand written. So, if you are having trouble reading this, it may be because you have not been trained to write in cursive. 

All I can say is that learning to write clearly helped me and boosted my self-esteem.

Here’s one last thought about cursive writing. Many, many people who are my age or older have something that I don’t think younger folks will ever have. Somewhere in our homes, maybe in an old shoebox or in the back of a drawer, there is a batch of smallish envelopes, possibly tied together with a ribbon or an old rubber band. Those are love letters—notes people sent to their significant others in the mail. This was something people did for hundreds of years.

Sometimes love letters were written when we were far apart, but also when we just needed to tell our special person how we were doing. Some have X-X-X and O-O-O for kisses and hugs. A few have stains, possibly from tears. These letters were special to us and that is why we kept them. 

Love letters are not really a big deal. Few of them could be considered great literature or poetry. But they conveyed emotions in a truly human way. I just can’t see a text message or a bunch of emojis having the same kind of meaning. Young people don’t know what they have lost.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

{I am not citing sources here, so feel free to type in some keywords and look these studies up online.}

 Thank you for reading this

March, 2024

Steven B. Zwickel

It seems like such a simple thing. Someone gives you something or offers you a compliment and you respond with “Thank you.”

People have different reactions to not being thanked. Some ignore it, but others, myself included, take it as a personal affront.

This topic came to mind when I realized I was angry about someone not thanking me for something. I won’t name names, but I sent a young person a special, valuable gift and got no response. Nothing. Not a word. I know the gift was received because I paid for insurance and tracking.

Now I am not going to rant about young people today having no manners, etc. That has become steady fodder for the advice columnists, after weddings and boundary violations. Perhaps an advice columnist would tell me to gently, and non-judgmentally, contact the donee’s parents. What could I say to them that wouldn’t sound like I’m criticizing their parenting skills? Better to keep silent and wait for the anger to dissipate.

Why does it matter? It matters because giving and receiving are part of an interpersonal transaction. The giving of a gift or kind remark creates a kind of debt, which can be repaid by saying thanks. The debt is cancelled with “You’re welcome.”

I don’t think most of us are natural thankers and I think thanking people is something that must be taught to children. My parents did a pretty good job of teaching me to say thank you and to write thank you notes. 

I have few regrets in life, but I do feel bad about the times I can remember being less than gracious. {The Spanish word for “thank you” is, of course, gracias}. I wish I had done a better job of showing appreciation for a gift or compliment.

Better Than What?

Steven B. Zwickel.

March, 2024 

I think it started years ago when I was shopping at Sears. A young salesman was pitching something to me. He listed the “features” of whatever it was and then told me, “You should buy this; it’s better!” 

I muttered some kind of response and left, but it got me to thinking. Why should I take his word for it that what he had to sell was better? How could he possibly know that what I already had wasn’t adequate for my needs?

Of course he couldn’t know. The whole point of his sales pitch was to make me dissatisfied with what I had so I would buy something “new and improved” from him.

This got me to tuning in to situations where people were trying to get me to buy something. I realized that the vast majority of the ads I saw, heard, and read in different media were all trying to do the same thing, namely make me feel discontented.

I started paying closer attention whenever someone, not just advertisers, used the word better. The more I heard the word, the angrier I became. “Do NOT tell me that something is better,” I wanted to say. “I will be the one to decide what is better for me!”

Here’s an example of what I am talking about: I was content listening to music on vinyl discs, but they got scratched and it was easy to break them. So, when audiotape cassettes became available, I realized that they were better for someone like me. I recorded my LPs on audiotape. The cassettes were small, portable, and, when they did wear out all I had to do was make a new recording.

The arrival of CDs didn’t move me to become a customer, at first. The digital sound, to my untrained ear, had a mechanical quality. I preferred analog. People insisted that CDs were better, but I was unconvinced. It wasn’t until I inherited a large collection of CDs that I decided to buy a machine that could play them. I still don’t think digital is better than analog, but it is more convenient.

I am not anti-technology; in fact, I really love playing with new toys, especially those that provide an outlet for creativity. But I see no reason to jump in just because something is popular. I reserve the right to decide what is better, so you won’t find me on social media or carrying a smartphone. Many people have tried to convince me that I need to do so, but no one has been able to show me that it is really any better than what I already use.

In a similar vein, I have decided to resist reading about anything that an author labels “important.” As soon as I get to the word important, I stop reading. I think I should be the one to decide if an artist, an event, or a publication is important. 

I feel the same way about anything called significant and I am very wary of anything referred to as iconic. Can something be significant or iconic if I’ve never heard of it? I think I should be the one to determine if something is significant or iconic.

After you have read all the way through this important essay, I assure you that your life will be better than it was!

⚾ The Game Broke My Heart

Steven B. Zwickel

February, 2024

Now that the Super Bowl is over, you might have expected me to start getting excited about Spring Training. But, I have a confession to make; I no longer follow baseball.

I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, so you might guess that my first love was the Dodgers, and you’d be wrong. My first love was Willie Mays, the Say Hey Kid. On our black and white TV, he caught baseballs without looking. {See “The Catch”} 

I couldn’t believe it when my dad told me he played for the New York Giants. “Pop, are you sure he doesn’t play for the Dodgers?” “I think he must play for the Dodgers, Pop.” “Are you absolutely positive Willie Mays isn’t a Dodger??” 

Broke my heart, but peer pressure in first grade was too powerful and I became a Dodgers fan.

The photo shows me and my dad at Ebbetts Field on Sept. 21, 1957 at one of the last Brooklyn Dodger games played in that wonderful old ballpark. That Saturday 5,120 fans watched the game. The Phillies won, 3 to 2. 

We got to see the game because my dad worked with makers of mechanical pencils and the new ball-point pens. Companies like Venus courted him and tried to get him to buy their products. In 1957, Venus sponsored the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball pre-game TV show “Happy Felton's Knothole Gang” on WOR‐TV, [Channel 9]. They gave Pop tickets to the show and Pop and I made our first appearance on television, live from Ebbetts Field. The show was 25 minutes long and ran before home games at Ebbetts Field. We had our 15 seconds of fame when we were interviewed by Happy Felton.  I was so excited that, when I was asked how old I was, I had to pause before I could remember to say “7.”

1957 Topps Baseball Card #400 Brooklyn Dodgers' Sluggers: Carl Furillo, Gil Hodges, Roy Campanella, Duke Snider

I got a program that showed the Dodgers as “Dem Bums.” They were originally called “Trolleydodgers” because it was dangerous for fans to cross streets like Bedford Avenue in Crown Heights. I also got a baseball autographed by all the 1957 Dodgers, which I still have. My grandparents lived so close to the stadium that you could hear the fans cheering (sometimes booing) from their apartment windows.

The guys on that team were immortalized in books like The Boys of Summer, a 1972 book by Roger Kahn and Confessions of a Trolley Dodger From Brooklyn by Stan Fischler. 

I watched Johnny Podres and Ed Roebuck pitch; disappointing because I really, really wanted to see Brooklyn’s own Sandy Koufax pitch. Gil Hodges was at first base and Duke Snider was out playing center field.

 The following spring, the Dodgers left town and broke my heart. But I fell in love with the game. Ebbetts Field was demolished in 1960.

That left me with the Yankees and the Giants. Games were almost all played during the day and occasionally there was a twi-light double header or a night game. Baseball was on the radio or TV just about every day of the week. On any night in the summer you could hear Mel Allen or Red Barber calling balls and strikes through the open windows; this was before air-conditioning shut us all off from the world. Then the Giants left town.

I was a teenager when we got another team worth watching. The New York Mets arrived with the World’s Fair in 1964. They were absolutely awful and a lot of fun to watch. We used to sneak out of school early and catch the train to Flushing, Queens to watch the Mets (attempt to) play baseball in Shea Stadium. 

I grew to love the game. I would develop an unexplainable "sore throat" in the fall and have to go home early, usually when there were World Series games on TV. 

When I moved to Wisconsin in 1976, I still considered myself a fan. I followed the successes of the Yankees and the ??? of the Mets for a few years. I never really cared for the local MLB team; the Milwaukee Brewers. I went to a Brewers game in June and nearly froze. The team didn’t seem to make any effort to hit or field the ball—they looked bored, or lazy. I didn’t enjoy it.

The last major league game I saw was in Minneapolis in 1992, when we took our granddaughter to watch the Twins play. That was fun.

Meanwhile, back in Madison in 1982, one of my friends got it into his head that Madison could have its own professional baseball team. He persuaded the Oakland As to bring a farm club to Madison and the Madison Muskies quickly became "my team.” 

The games were fun and for ten years, I went to several Muskie games every summer and did the "fish clap" and cheered, "Go, fish, go!" I got to see Jose Canseco play! Then the A’s shut down the franchise and broke my heart. 

A year or so went by without baseball, until they brought in another farm club, this one for the St. Louis Cards. Their mascot was a cute little mouse and they were called the "Mad Hatters". I went to a dozen games that summer and had a great time. After one season, St. Louis moved the franchise to Illinois and broke my heart.

Another team, this one in the Northern League, came to Madison in 1996. The Madison Black Wolf team was terrific. They brought up some great players, including a left-handed woman pitcher, Ila Borders, and they put on a great show. They lasted until 2000, when the owners moved the team to Michigan and they broke my heart.

In 2001 a new minor league team came to town, the Madison Mallards. I wasn’t all that interested in going, but my granddaughter wanted to see a real baseball game, so I got us tickets to a double header. I was thinking she’d get bored after the first game and we would leave. 

I absolutely hated it. The crowd was more interested in buying food and drinks {lots of drinks} than in watching the game. Most of them spent the whole time staring at their phones or watching the game on the big-screen scoreboard. After every pitch, loud music blasted and didn’t stop until the next pitch. It felt like artificial fun; the way I imagine baseball would be if Disney was producing it.

I stood up to yell at the ump about a bad call and found I was pretty much alone in the crowd. No one cheered. No one booed. No one clapped. I don’t think anyone sang “Take Me Out…” during the seventh-inning stretch. My granddaughter insisted we say for the bottom half. For me it was torture.

That was the last time. I stopped watching baseball cold turkey. I stopped reading the sports pages altogether (when the Packers aren't playing). I watched a movie called “Moneyball” and it made me nauseous. 

I tuned out baseball completely. 

I miss it, but I don't think it misses me. I'd like to break its heart.

1912 Brooklyn Dodgers cap {replica}

Watch Out For Partners!

Lawyers define a partnership as a business enterprise entered into for profit which is owned by more than one person {for legal purposes, corporations are considered to be 'persons'}, each of whom is a "partner." So what happens when you do business with a corporation and you find out later that it has a partner and then you learn that the partner has mishandled personal information you shared with the corporation?

This happened to me this month. I discovered that my health care system, SSM Health, had shared my personal and health information with a company called Navvis. A hacker had gotten into Navvis' system and gained access to my information. 

I received a “Notice of Security Incident” dated 29 December 2023 from Navvis {They are located at 555 Maryville University Dr. Suite 240; St. Louis, MO 63141} <https://www.navvishealthcare.com/>. The Navvis website says "At Navvis, we work with partners across the health ecosystem to do something radically, unapologetically different. We are reimagining new models of care. Helping providers and payers move collaboratively toward value-based arrangements, and delivering the expertise and technology to power change and ensure alignment. It’s a change agenda where everyone wins." I think it's great when everyone wins, except of course if the winnings are shared with a hacker. And I worry about that "unapologetically" bit. Who wants a partner that doesn't apologize?

The letter refers to a “recent incident” detected by Navvis on July 25, 2023 in which “certain files and information…may have been accessed, or acquired, by an unauthorized actor.” The letter included information about how anyone affected by this “incident” could get one year of free identity protection from a company called IDX ("America's leading provider of breach response services" according to <https://www.idx.us/>).

I contacted Navvis directly by phone and I was told that SSM gave my personal and medical information to Navvis without my knowledge or consent. It was OK, I was told, because Navvis was a “partner” of SSM and that my information was used to improve operations with “a comprehensive value-based care solution,” a term with which I am not familiar. The man I spoke to tried to explain a) why it took 5 months to figure out that they had been hacked and b) what exactly Navvis was doing with my personal information.

From the Navvis website, it appears that Navvis is, in fact, a consulting firm that will help clients “Reach the highest level of performance in risk-based models with a solution that brings together deep knowledge of care delivery, analytics, payment models, culture change, and enabling technologies.” Aren't they wonderful? I wonder what that means in English.

I then called SSM Health Privacy/HIPAA Contact and spoke to a woman there. She also told me that SSM and Navvis were in a partnership. She maintained that SSM had the right to share my personal information with Navvis and SSM had done nothing wrong.

I went to the SSM website and read the SSM Patient Rights and Responsibilities. It  says: “You are a key member of your Health Care Team and you have the right to: Privacy and confidentiality regarding your treatment, care and medical record.” Good to know that I am a team player!

Now, before each appointment I have with an SSM healthcare provider, I am asked to sign a “HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices SSM Health”  {Effective Date: July 1, 2015}. I re-read this document and nowhere does it mention Navvis or any other “partnerships” or consultants. 

I dug deeper and, after reading about the “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)”, I found that I may let providers or health insurance companies know if there is information I do not want to share. I can ask that my health information not be shared with certain people, groups, or companies. <https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/index.html>.

So I sent SSM a letter, describing what had happened with Navvis and I concluded by asserting my HIPAA rights: 

As a “key member” of my “Health Care Team” and in accordance with  my rights under HIPAA, I hereby request that none of my personal, medical, or insurance information be shared with Navvis or any other SSM partners or consultants. 

We shall see what comes of this. 

In the meantime, beware of your team's partners! 

 The American Inferiority Complex

Steven B. Zwickel

December, 2023

Why did Colonial Americans feel inferior to Europeans? Do Americans still feel this way? There is no single answer to these questions, but several factors contributed to the American mindset. 

① We are a Nation of Mutts1

Unlike European countries, the United States is a diverse country, racially, and ethnically. 

In the 17th century, the principal component of the population in the colonies was from England and the second largest group was of African heritage, almost entirely slaves. 

During the 18th century, large numbers of German and Scots-Irish immigrants arrived.2 Many of the early Irish immigrants were of Scottish or English descent and came from the northern Ireland province of Ulster. Pushed out of Ireland by religious conflicts, lack of political autonomy, and dire economic conditions, these immigrants, who were often called "Scots-Irish," were pulled to America by the promise of land ownership and greater religious freedom. Many of the Scots-Irish immigrants were educated, skilled workers. Even those who financed their emigration by becoming indentured servants were well equipped to lead successful, independent lives when their period of servitude ended.

Other important contributions to the colonial ethnic mix were made by the Netherlands, Scotland, and France. 

New England was almost entirely English and the English were the most numerous of the settlers of European origin in the southern colonies. In the middle colonies the population was mixed, but even Pennsylvania had more English than German settlers. 

Except in Dutch and German enclaves, English language was used everywhere, and English culture prevailed. The “melting pot”3 began to “boil” in the colonial period, so effectively that Gov. William Livingston, who was ¾ Dutch and ¼ Scottish, described himself as an Anglo-Saxon. 

As the other elements mingled with the English, they became increasingly like them; however, all tended to become different from the inhabitants of “the old country.” By 1763, the word “American” was commonly used on both sides of the Atlantic to designate the people of the 13 colonies.4

Six races are officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes: 

• Alaska Native and American Indian, 
• Asian, 
• Black or African American, 
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 
• White, and 
• People of two or more races.

To Europeans, Americans appear to be mutts. Up until very recently, many Americans also saw themselves as somehow inferior to the “pure-bred” Europeans. In fact, it has only been in the past five decades that Americans have started to feel proud about their mixed heritage, often adding a hyphen to show where their ancestors came from. Thus we have Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, etc.

A 2022 research study concluded that “…mixed heritage individuals who were motivated to assert their ancestry claims did so for two main reasons: First, by claiming a specific ancestry (or ancestries), participants wished to assert a more individualistic sense of self than was typically allowed, given their racial treatment based upon their racial appearance; this could be especially meaningful if those individuals felt a mismatch between their racial assignment by others and their sense of self. Second, a claim to a specific ancestry was a way for individuals to forge connections with family, relatives, or an ancestry group that had not existed before. Overall, while most of our mixed heritage participants reported details of their European ancestries, it was their Black, American Indian, or Asian ancestries that were deemed to be most salient and/or meaningful to who they were.”5

② Bottom of the Barrel

While many of those who emigrated to America came for religious freedom and economic opportunity, ⅓ to ½ of the Europeans in Colonial Era America came as indentured servants, apprentices, or convicts.6 Thus, many immigrants were from the lower classes at a time when Europeans still had very strict boundaries between social classes.

• Indentured Servants7

Indentured Servants signed contracts to work for a master in the colonies for a specified number of years or until the servant reached a certain age. Other than the cost of traveling to America, indentured servants were not paid, but were guaranteed food, shelter, clothing and shoes as long as they worked. 

Approximately 300,000 European workers immigrated to the American colonies in the 1600s as indentured servants, and indentured servitude continued throughout much of the 1700s. 

Indentured servitude in the U.S. began in the early 1600s in Virginia, not long after the settlement of Jamestown. Many early American settlers sought cheap labor to help manage their large estates and farms, and commonly agreed to fund the passage of European immigrants to Virginia in exchange for their labor. 

Some people indentured themselves in order to gain passage to America or to escape debt and poverty. Others, including convicts, were sold into indenture upon arrival. Indentures were used for apprenticeship agreements as well as for service agreements.

Indentured servants could be sold, loaned, or inherited, at least during the duration of their contract terms. Today, indentured servitude is illegal in the United States and most other countries.8 

For many Americans, having an ancestor who was a servant—a class just above laborer—was an embarrassment.

• Apprentices

Apprentices made a contract to work for a skilled person—a master—for a particular period of time (and often for no or low payment), in order to learn that person's skills or to learn a trade from him. The master would feed, clothe and instruct the apprentice in the trade, and the apprentice would provide labor and watch out for his master's interests. At the end of his apprenticeship, the young person received clothes, tools, and became a journeyman who could work for himself.

As part of the contract, an apprentice agreed to keep trade secrets, obtain his master’s permission before leaving the premises, and abstain from vices such as frequenting taverns and the theater. The contract also listed the obligations of the master craftsman to his apprentice. Masters provided basic education (reading, writing, and arithmetic), training in the craft, room and board, and sometimes a set of tools or clothes on completion of the apprenticeship.

Having an apprentice among one’s ancestors was not quite as embarrassing as having a servant.

• Transported Convicts

Those who were convicted of felonies sometimes escaped a sentence of death when they were sentenced to transportation to the Americas. This solved two problems for the government: it provided a much-needed workforce for the colonies, and it got criminals out of the prisons and off the streets. England transported an estimated 50,000 to 120,000 convicts and political prisoners, as well as prisoners of war from Scotland and Ireland, to its overseas colonies in the Americas from the 1610s until the American Revolution began in 1776, when transportation to America was temporarily suspended.9 

England was not the only government that transported criminals to the Americas. Sweden sent political prisoners to New Sweden, now called Delaware; the Dutch sent vagrants and criminals to New York; and the French also transported criminals to New France. England sent vanquished political foes from Scotland and Ireland. The mayors of London and Liverpool regularly gathered up urchins from the streets of their cities to be sent to America and sold into indentured servitude.

Convicts who had been sold into indentured servitude, and who were making good in their new lives, were sometimes politely referred to as "servants" to avoid stigma.10

So many Americans have ancestors who were indentured servants, apprentices, or convicts—all members of the lowest classes in Europe—that it is not surprising that, for many, many years, Americans were deeply ashamed of their family origins.

③ If it’s European, It’s Better

For centuries Americans have been convinced that European culture and society are superior to theirs. Thus, the Europeans had enormous influence in many important areas. Examples include: In science, the most important research papers were written in German, in the fashion world, the language and sensibility came from France, and in the field of music, everything from notation to opera libretti were written in Italian.

German

• German was the primary language for scientific communication for most of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This predominance stemmed from a confluence of factors. German universities held a high reputation for academic excellence, attracting renowned scholars and fostering groundbreaking research. 

German scientists made substantial contributions to various fields, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, and medicine. As a result, German became the lingua franca of scientific discourse, with scholars from other nations often translating their work into German to reach a wider audience.11

French

• French has long been considered the language of fashion. France played a pivotal role in shaping the fashion industry, and during the reign of King Louis XIV, France became the epicenter of fashion, with its royal court setting trends for the rest of Europe. French designers and couturiers were highly sought after, and their creations were admired for their elegance, sophistication, and craftsmanship. French is often associated with luxury, refinement, and good taste. 

Even today, the use of French terminology in the fashion industry further reinforces this connection. Many fashion terms, such as haute couture, prêt-à-porter, lingerie, atelier, and défilé de mode, have French origins. These terms are widely used in the fashion industry, contributing to the language's dominance in the field. Paris hosts major fashion events like Paris Fashion Week, which attracts designers, buyers, and media from around the globe.

English has become more prevalent in the fashion industry due to globalization, but French remains influential.12

Italian

• Italian became the dominant language of music in Europe during the Renaissance, which flourished first in Italy, and it continues to be so today. Wealthy Italian patrons supported musicians, which attracted talented composers and performers from across Europe to Italy, leading to the development of opera and other musical forms. 

Musical notation began in Italy when an Italian monk created the system of a staff and clefs to represent pitches, still used today and that makes it easier for musicians to communicate and share their work. 

Italian language, a direct descendant of Latin, was widely spoken in Europe during the Renaissance, and was considered a language of refinement and culture. Italian is rich in expressive vocabulary and well-suited to describing the nuances of musical expression. Terms like “piano" (soft), “forte" (loud), “adagio” (slow), and “allegro” (fast) are all Italian words. Mozart, an Austrian, had his opera libretti written in Italian. Other operas by Puccini, Verdi, Monteverdi and others were all written to be sung in Italian.

Americans, given a choice, prefer classical music from Europe over works composed by an American.13

• It’s British, so it’s even Better!

So many colonial Americans were of English ancestry that it is not surprising that English language, culture, and social structure became the norm. In fact, England, and everything English was idealized by many of the colonists. Many colonial Americans were of British descent and shared a common language, religion, and cultural traditions with the British. They admired British society and aspired to achieve the same level of wealth, status, and refinement.

The colonial period corresponded to the rise of a new social class—families that got rich from trade and manufacturing. These newly wealthy Englishmen spent their money on lavish symbols to display their affluence such as huge country homes filled with art, antiques, and curiosities surrounded by enormous lawns and decorative gardens. They wore the latest high-fashion clothing, kept up on the most recent English slang and read the newest best-selling books. They sent their sons to the best schools—like Eton and Harrow—and then to the best universities—such as Cambridge and Oxford. Their oldest sons, who inherited all their wealth, became gentlemen who went fox hunting and married into the aristocracy. 

Younger sons, who inherited nothing could buy an officer’s commission and join the English Army, where they wore a gorgeous uniform (paid for by themselves) and rode fine chargers (also paid for by themselves), and ate in the elegant Officers’ Mess (food and drink they paid for themselves).

Colonists were obsessed with keeping up with the English and eagerly awaited the latest news from London14. This powerful desire for news and an increase in literacy led to the creation of printing shops throughout the colonies15. Americans were so enthralled with the upper-class English accent that it became standard in the middle colonies. When moving pictures began using sound, the studios considered the English accent the ideal; many Americans continue to be impressed by British upper-class “plummy” pronunciation.

Colonial men, like George Washington, wanted to dress like English gentlemen and copied English fashions. Washington also modeled his plantation at Mount Vernon after English estates. For most of his life, Washington longed to be an “English Gentleman”. His older brothers were sent to school in England, but George’s father died and there was no money for George to go. He joined the army hoping that the uniform would make the English officers accept him. They continued to treat him like an inferior “colonial”. Washington seethed, but eventually he got his revenge.

When the English began drinking tea16, the Americans followed suit and were soon hooked on it. High taxes on tea meant that social tea drinking could only be afforded by the wealthier classes and a cup of tea became an activity associated with luxury.17

Distance and time made a difference as colonists found themselves having to be more self-reliant and creative to solve their unique problems. Over time, the colonies became less English and more American—distinct in values, attitudes, and ideas from the mother country. And they stopped drinking tea and switched to coffee.

• Americans think Europeans look down on Americans

Europeans and Americans have different cultures and values. Europeans tend to place a higher emphasis on social welfare, healthcare, and education, while Americans often prioritize individual freedom and entrepreneurship. These cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. 

Americans are embarrassed by the way Europeans perceive us. We accept their stereotypes as examples of how “uncivilized” we are: 

Americans… 

• …eat everything with ketchup
• …tear down relatively new buildings instead of respecting them
• …are obsessed with material wealth
• …don’t really know how to appreciate fine arts
• …are always in a rush
• …have no sense of history
• …are loud, talkative, and even arrogant.18

④ Perceptions Matter

Historically, Americans, if they were mentioned at all, were portrayed in European books and plays as unsophisticated country bumpkins. That contributed to the sense of inferiority. Nowadays, portrayals of Americans in the media seem to stress violence and disfunction, which play into the stereotypes of American inferiority.

At present, we hear about American exceptionalism19—the belief that the United States is either distinctive, unique, or exemplary compared to other nations. The phrase has its supporters and opponents. To some it reinforces America as a bastion of democracy, a nation of energetic, intelligent, compassionate people who try to do what is right. To others it smacks of chauvinism and blind loyalty to a country that has made mistakes. 

The lesson from all of this is that how we see ourselves—how we value ourselves and how we feel about our culture—is important.