Of Morality And Marshmallows

The Atlantic reports on a new study suggesting that the famous “marshmallow test” is unreliable as a predictor of future economic instability. Excerpt:

In the case of this new study, specifically, the failure to confirm old assumptions pointed to an important truth: that circumstances matter more in shaping children’s lives than Mischel and his colleagues seemed to appreciate.

This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.

The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

Maybe so. But might it also be the case that children raised in more affluent homes will have been taught the value of resisting their impulses? I say this because one of my own children has had a very demanding sweet tooth from earliest childhood. He is also impulsive by nature. It has taken years of effort on the part of his mother and me to train him to say no to his impulses — not only for sugar, but, as he has gotten older and started earning spending money, his enthusiasms for buying things that strike his fancy. Many times I have pondered the difficulty he is going to have managing his money if he doesn’t get this impulsiveness under control. He’s a very good kid, highly moral and responsible, but impulsiveness is his Achilles’ heel.

He’s not being raised in poverty. We are middle class people, but culturally I guess that puts us with more in common with the affluent than not. Our impulsive child has been raised in a stable household — materially and emotionally — so there are no environmental factors that nurture his impulsiveness. From an Orthodox Christian point of view, this is simply one of his passions, something he has to struggle against. I have my own particular passions (anger and gluttony). Orthodoxy teaches that life itself is a struggle to crucify the passions and order ones desires towards the will of God. There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to eat a marshmallow, but if your reason and your will are overcome by that desire to eat a marshmallow, you are weak, and can fall into sin. The regular fasting that Orthodox Christians do is designed to train the will to desire what God desires for us, not what we desire for ourselves.

Anyway, all of that is prelude to what I want to tell you. Last night, I was at a dinner party with some friends. One of them, N., told a long story about a local carpenter she and her husband had hired to do some renovations on their house. I won’t tell the story in depth, because the story is hers to tell, and she’s a writer. The gist of the story is that N. and her husband have been working with this guy for a long time — it’s a big project — and have gotten to know him well. He’s working class, and economically quite precarious. N. said the man has become a friend, and that she and her husband have been working hard to help him stabilize his life.

N. said — again, I’m summing up, but the details are sort of breathtaking — that the carpenter’s personal life is a study in chaos. He cannot grasp that he has the power to determine future events by the choices he makes today. A sense of moral agency totally escapes him. He sees N.’s ordinary family — they have kids — and thinks that they are simply one of fate’s winners. N. talked about the extraordinary lengths she and her husband have gone to befriend and to help this man, but how ultimately it has been futile. No matter what they say to him, no matter what they do for him, he cannot get it together. And he is leaving all kinds of chaos in his wake (several wives, kids, etc.).

I told N. that my wife and I have been in the very same situation, trying to help someone just like that who had become a friend … and in the end, concluding that it was futile. I wrote about it in the past on this blog: how I had gone to my lawyer, offering to pay him to represent this impoverished friend in a particular case. Lawyer said he would take my money and meet with the friend, but that in his lengthy experience with these cases, he could tell me that I’d be wasting my money and his time, because my friend would not follow through. It’s in the nature of people who get themselves into these kinds of situations, he said, to keep doing what got them into that situation in the first place. I told him I would be willing to take that chance to help her.

Next time I saw this friend, I told her to make an appointment with Lawyer X., that he would be willing to advise her, and that I would pay the bill. She thanked me profusely, but said that wouldn’t be necessary that she had decided to … well, that she had decided to keep doing the same stupid thing that got her into this bind in the first place. The country lawyer’s practical experience in dealing with the poor was wiser than my heart-on-the-sleeve idealism. Not for the first time did I feel like a character in a Flannery O’Connor story. (My future epitaph: “Call me Azzberry”.)

At dinner last night, my friend and I dwelled on the intractability of human nature in cases like this. She said that she had to conclude that a stable family life in childhood provides psychological goods that cannot be given through any other way. There aren’t enough government programs, personal charitable efforts, or anything else to compensate adequately for a chaotic childhood. My friend was certainly not saying that we can wash our hands of the responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare, but she was concluding — accurately — that we have to recognize the limits of our ability to change the lives of others. She was also saying that her experience with the carpenter made her more fully aware of how important it is to do everything she can to give her own children a stable home life.

Notice that I’m not saying — nor did I hear her to say — “affluent” home life. My folks never had a lot of money. We were an ordinary working-class to lower-middle-class family. But the gift my mother and father gave me of an orderly, stable childhood was priceless, I now see. How did they do it? They were both imperfect people who endured their share of difficulties in marriage, caused by their own flaws, as well as a period of economic stress. My father is no longer with us to discuss the matter, but the truth is, neither one of them would have been given over to much self-reflection on the question. They were the kind of people who would have simply said, “We made a vow,” and left it at that. For them, that was reason enough to stay together — that, and they always made it clear that the needs of us kids came before their own. That was just how my folks went through life. Not to get too philosophical about it, but for them, that was the Tao.

That wouldn’t have guaranteed stability in my family’s or my late sister’s, but they gave us such a good model of how family was supposed to work. Again, I don’t want to hold my mom and dad out to have been perfect. I don’t think there are any perfect families, and certainly mine had its particular flaws, some of which had unfortunate long-term consequences. That said, I am so very grateful to my parents for holding things together, and showing my sister and me that it is possible to build that kind of life, even when you don’t have much money.

My father was the chief breadwinner in our household, and, because they were a traditional 1950s-era couple, he was the one who dictated how our financial resources would be handled. I find this interesting with relation to the Atlantic article because having grown up very poor in the Great Depression, he ought to have been shaped by the experience of inconstancy in a particular way. Remember, the Atlantic writer said:

There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

That’s how my father grew up, but that same experience made him far more likely to do what he could to hedge against chaos. He talked to Ruthie and me a lot about these things, relating him to his childhood. His own father was away from home for most of my dad’s early childhood, entirely because he had to work and send money back to support his wife, children, and elderly mother, who lived in the household. That sense of vulnerability made a profound impression on my dad, who was determined that his children would not feel it, if he could help it.

Daddy wasn’t unique in that. What I can’t quite understand today is why his response to childhood poverty and insecurity was so very different from what is normal today. That is, Daddy’s response was to live as an adult in such a way that he was less vulnerable to that chaos, and in which his own children were made less vulnerable to the chaos that would have come had outside pressures broken the family apart. I’ve written many times in this space about how he had deep compassion for people who were poor and suffering victims of circumstance, but also something bordering on contempt for people who were poor and suffering, but who always blamed others, or fate, for their suffering. He would say, “You can’t do nothin’ for people like that.” This was the opinion of a man who had once been poor, and who had lived his entire life in the same community as poor people, and working with them. Kind of like that country lawyer I mentioned above.

It seems to me that aside from his personal qualities, my father was the beneficiary of a local culture that, for better or for worse, had a strong bias against people living morally disordered lives. I should add that my dad had much more hostility towards middle class and wealthy people who lived that way. “They know better,” he would say. “They don’t have an excuse.” In his case, it wasn’t so much a matter of religion — my dad wasn’t particularly observant — as it was a matter of shame and honor. The culture that shaped my father’s code said it was dishonorable for men and women to live in ways that violated its core moral code. I heard my dad say on a number of occasions, “There’s no shame in being poor,” but he also spoke with stern judgment against men who abandoned their families, people who wouldn’t work, and so forth.

That code could be harsh, but it was more realistic about life than a lot of what passes for wisdom today. I think that has a lot to do with why Jordan Peterson is so popular. He gives to young men a sense of moral agency. Peterson is not Moses coming down from the summit of Sinai, but he talks common sense to a culture that has forgotten it. There has never been a society, and never will be a society, in which somebody can live like a fool and not pay the consequences — and for that matter, inflict consequences on others. You can’t not show up for work and expect to keep your job forever. You can’t ignore your kids and expect that they will grow up to be responsible people. You can’t get loaded every weekend and wonder why your roof is falling in, and won’t fix itself. You can’t allow television and social media to raise your children, and expect that they will be good.  And so forth.

“The world doesn’t owe you a living,” my father would lecture me, usually when I hadn’t done my homework, or failed to do something I was supposed to have done. I suppose this attitude is what made my dad a natural conservative. He couldn’t stand people who were ungrateful and lazy. His basic attitude towards us kids was: I bust my ass to provide for y’all, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you waste the opportunities you’ve been given. There was a time in my life when I thought he was so square, but the older I get, the more I see that there really isn’t any other way to live. My dad was keen to help people who were down on their luck, and I see now that he allowed himself to be taken advantage of by some folks with hard-luck stories. Mostly, though, what he was eager to do was to teach people how to help themselves, and to encourage them to do so. For him, this was a matter of natural justice. A society in which people were rewarded even though they did the wrong thing, or failed to do the right thing, was not a just or good society. And doing the right thing always meant subjugating your own desires to the greater good, especially the greater good of your family.

Here’s a funny thing: a few years back, when I was working with the African-American actor Wendell Pierce on his memoir of growing up in south Louisiana, I spent some time speaking with his Uncle L.C. Edwards, the last surviving member of Wendell’s parents’ generation. Uncle L.C. was the same age as my father, and like him, had grown up in rural poverty. I loved the stories of L.C.’s parents (that is, Wendell’s grandparents): poor black farmers who weren’t educated, but who had a very strong religious ethic, and who placed enormous value on education and self-discipline as the only reliable means of self-advancement. Poverty was the enemy of both L.C. and my father, but Lloyd and his siblings also had to deal with Jim Crow. If memory serves, every one of the children of Wendell’s grandparents got educated, and escaped poverty. I’m telling you, the chapter on Papo and Mamo (the grandchildren’s name for L.C.’s parents) is worth the price of the book. Here’s a characteristic excerpt:

One Christmas evening after supper, the Edwardses went to call on their College Point neighbors, to wish them a happy holiday. The kids were startled to go into one house and to see that all that family had eaten for their Christmas meal was potatoes and grits. When they returned home, Papo told the children, “This is what I mean when I tell you it’s important to save for a rainy day. If you put your money aside now, you will have enough to eat well on Christmas.”

Given the man Papo was, if the Edwardses had any food left, he probably took it to that poor family and didn’t tell his own children for the sake of preserving their neighbors’ dignity.

His children remembered Papo as a slow talker but a deep thinker. He never made a quick decision, but acted only after prayer, deliberation, and sleeping on it. Whatever the answer was, he arrived at it through careful reason, not passion. Acting on impulse was the sure way to lose your money, in Papo’s view.

Papo worked for a time in a sugar factory and received his weekly wages in a brown packet. He had a firm rule with himself: Wait twenty-four hours before spending a penny of it. Uncle L.C. said that as a young working man, he thought his father’s rule was silly. You have the money, he figured, so why not enjoy it?

But when he got married and started a family of his own, he understood Papo’s good sense and followed the rule himself. Uncle L.C., who worked at the DuPont chemical plant, has done well through saving and investing over the years. To this day, he credits Papo for teaching him by word and example the importance of being careful with your money and not letting your passions guide your decisions.

Talking with L.C. was like speaking with a black version of my own father. Though he had long been in retirement when I met him, L.C. was always thinking of ways he could make a little money. He told me about how he would take fatherless black boys from a nearby trailer park, and try to teach them something about working to make money and to plan for the future. He told me how sorry he felt for those young men, who had no father in the home to offer them direction, or a sense of responsible manhood.

But his pity had strict limits. Like my own father, L.C. was death on those who wouldn’t work or practice self-discipline. He told me about how his own wife, a retired public schoolteacher, quit her job the very day the last of their adult children no longer needed their help paying for college. She was of a generation for whom education was the most precious thing, their ticket out of poverty and oppression. Today, though, she was worn down by students who wouldn’t work, wouldn’t behave themselves, and parents who blamed the schools and the teachers for their kids’ failures.

American culture is far less friendly to the worldview of those Depression babies like L.C. and my father. Politics and economics are complicated things. You can’t simply apply a moral code to every situation, and expect it to solve the problem. But let’s recognize this: very few Americans in 2018 are as materially poor as my dad and L.C. Edwards were when they came into this world in the 1930s. Is there anybody in America today who is poorer than a black child born to uneducated farmers living in the Deep South under American apartheid? And yet, look what they did with what they had been given! There never will be a society in which family won’t matter, and in which moral self-discipline won’t matter. 

The wealthy, and those with social connections, can absorb a lot more disorder than the less well off can, but money won’t last forever.

The world we have today is wealthier, and in some ways is better able to defray the cost of that disorder. We have more of a social safety net today than we did back then. But this world is much poorer in social capital, which is not something you can raise from Chinese bankers.

There’s a lot of brokenness in this country, and no clear way to fix it. The people my dinner companion and I were talking about last night are white. They live in Charles Murray’s fictional Fishtown. They diverge greatly from the core values and practices of stable middle-class and well-off Americans, in ways that were not true a couple of generations ago. Society has grown far more individualistic and tolerant of non-conformity. This is not entirely a bad thing! But the cost to people who don’t have a lot of social and material capital to begin with has been immense. People love to imagine that if only we brought good jobs back to America, or voted in this or that political party, then these problems would solve themselves. I don’t believe that’s true. That’s no reason not to try to improve opportunities for people, but there are no government programs or private charitable initiatives that can meaningfully compensate for the loss of a sense of moral order and purpose.

Finally, I phrase occurred to me while writing this post, a fragment from something I’d read ages ago. I googled it, and the source turned up here. Here is the excerpt I was thinking about. The writer is talking about the 1950s:

It was a more human world in that it was a sexier world, because sex was still a story. Each high school senior class had exactly one girl who got pregnant and one guy who was the father, and it was the town’s annual scandal. Either she went somewhere and had the baby and put it up for adoption, or she brought it home as a new baby sister, or the couple got married and the town topic changed. It was a stricter, tougher society, but its bruising sanctions came from ancient wisdom.

We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”

The girl was eight months pregnant and had had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.

But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.

The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.

Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.

The author of those words is Peggy Noonan. She published them in, get this, 1992. Some things have gotten better over the last 26 years. For example, when she published this, David Dinkins was mayor of her town, New York City, and the city would record just over 2,000 homicides. Know how many the city recorded last year, 25 years after the column was published? Only 290.  Progress is real!

On the other hand, I can’t get out of my head the words spoken to me by a professor at an Evangelical Christian college. Speaking about the student body, which is predominantly white, he told me that he didn’t think most of them would ever be able to form stable families. I was shocked by this.These were not kids from the blighted projects or wretched rural trailer parks. Why not? I asked.

He said, “Because they have never seen it done.”

We live in a society in which the moral code that we applaud and the people we celebrate all say: Take the marshmallow now, and don’t worry about the future. This is going to cost us.

Read more from The American Conservative…

Global Layer Pads Market: Surging Requirement of Customized…

The global layer pads market has been comprehensively evaluated in a publication authored by Future Market Insights which provides an uncomplicated dashboard view and understanding of the vendor ecosystem. The valuable vendor landscape information presented in the publication includes market share analysis of important companies operating in the industry, such as KARTON SpA, KapStone Paper and Packaging Corp, International Paper Company, DS Smith Plc, and Smurfit Kappa Group.

Read more from Online Shopping…

Sailors compare piloting Navy hovercraft to flying planes, driving race cars

Flying a Navy hovercraft requires intense focus, but crews thrive on that pressure, according to one of the sailors who trains them.

The cabin of a landing craft air cushion, or LCAC, looks a lot like the cockpit of a cargo plane, and the controls to fly it are also similar.

The pilot, or “craftmaster,” uses rudder-peddles to control the direction of travel and hand controls to move bow thrusters and adjust the pitch of two giant fiberglass propellers.

Petty Officer 1st Class Christopher Marcial, formerly a navigator with the Japan-based Naval Beach Unit 7 who trains hovercraft crews stateside, said the vessels do everything full-size ships do but at a higher rate of speed. They can also can move in six directions, like an aircraft.

“I can’t get tunnel vision,” he said when describing the pressure of a mission. “I have to log every turn and change in speed while plotting a course around other boats. People’s lives are in your hands, and if I make the wrong decision, I can severely damage the boat.”

It takes months to train sailors to fly hovercraft, and the Navy requires them to get quarterly and annual certifications and maintain a set number of flight hours.

Each hovercraft has a crew of five: the craftmaster, an engineer, a navigator, a loadmaster and a deck engineer. All attend the same technical school and learn to operate the craft as a unit, although the length of schooling for loadmasters and deck engineers is shorter than the eight months required for the other jobs.

It takes weeks to integrate a new crew, and the Navy tries to leave them together as long as possible to build comfort levels, said Chief Petty Officer George McLain, a craftmaster with Naval Beach Unit 7.

McLain compared flying a hovercraft to being a pilot.

“Our jobs are a lot more similar to the aviation side of the house, versus the surface side,” he said.

Constant communication is needed to safely operate an LCAC. The headphones that each crew member wears broadcast two separate lines of communication. One ear listens to internal crew chatter, while the other hears chatter from other boats.

This task is complicated by the reports that each crew member is required to give. They take turns flipping a switch on their headsets that allows them to communicate either internally with the crew or externally with the fleet.

“At the schoolhouse they can teach you to navigate and do the technical aspects of your job, but they can’t teach you to multitask,” Marcial said.

McLain compared his job to that of a NASCAR driver.

“Flying these boats is an absolute blast,” he said, recalling the first time he saw one of the hovercraft skim across the bow of the USS Ronald Reagan a decade ago.

“From that moment on, I knew where I wanted to go,” he said. “And once I got bit by the bug, it was over.”


© 2018 the Stars and Stripes

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read more from American Military News…

Why do pit bulls attack? The answer is complicated.

Pit bulls make headlines when they attack humans because the injuries they inflict are typically severe and sometimes fatal. Two pit bulls attacked a 76-year-old woman in Gulfport on Wednesday when she opened the fence and went into owner Emily Craft's yard. The woman, who many in the neighborhood describe as "the can lady," died from her wounds. That wasn't the first time one authorities were called about Craft's dogs. Craft was arrested Wednesday morning after the mauling on an outstanding warrant on charges of having a dog at large and having a vicious animal after an incident last summer…

Read more from Free Republic…

Big Sky High School Student Suspended for Repeatedly Wearing Confederate Flag Sweatshirt

A Big Sky High School student was suspended from school Tuesday for repeatedly wearing a Confederate flag sweatshirt, despite the administration’s requests that he take it off.

Mitchell Ballas, 17, said he’s wearing the sweatshirt to stand up for students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. After one of his friends at Big Sky was asked not to wear a Confederate flag hat, Ballas bought the sweatshirt and began wearing it to school every day.

“I know what the school is doing is wrong,” Ballas said. “I’m doing everything in my legal right to wear this sweatshirt. The school is in the wrong for saying they can dictate me wearing this sweatshirt. They’re saying it’s offending kids and it’s derogatory and all that, but it’s not. It’s my First Amendment right.”


Big Sky Principal Natalie Jaeger said {snip} that in the last month several students have been displaying the Confederate flag on clothing and cars. Each time, other Big Sky students have reported it to the administration because they felt “alarmed,” Jaeger said.

In total, about 30 students have come to the administration feeling anxious or afraid because of the Confederate flag displays, Jaeger said. {snip}


Ballas said he began wearing his sweatshirt last Wednesday, and was asked to take it off. He said he did, but then wore it to school the next day, when he was again asked to take it off. When he wore it to school again on Friday, he said he was given detention for two days.

When he didn’t stop wearing it, he was given in-school suspension, which he attended wearing the sweatshirt. In response, he was given out-of-school suspension on Tuesday.


Ballas said he looked through the school handbook and dress code and found nothing prohibiting him from wearing the symbol. Jaeger said she consulted with Missoula County Public Schools Superintendent Mark Thane and the school district’s attorney, Bea Kaleva, to make sure she was within her rights.

Kaleva did not respond to a telephone message seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.


School policy states that if a student’s “behavior or its ramifications constitutes a disruption of the learning environment, administrators reserve the right to discipline students who threaten and/or harass their classmates regardless of where or how the specific behavior occurs.”

Ballas said that to him, the flag represents the apostle St. Andrew, who was crucified in the shape of an X because he didn’t feel worthy of being crucified the same way Jesus was. “That hits home for me,” he said.

“I don’t wear it to threaten people, I don’t wear it for white supremacists, I wear it because it’s my First Amendment right, I have the right to wear it, I’m doing it to show the school that you cannot dictate our First Amendment rights.”

Ballas went home and researched several Supreme Court cases, including the Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 decision that {snip} ruled 7-2 in favor of the students who were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, saying in order to censor speech, school officials must be acting on more than a “desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

The majority opinion went on to say that school officials can, however, censor speech if they show that it “materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”


The issue becomes more complicated with symbols that are racially charged, Rate said. There isn’t a clear way for administrators to decide what substantial interference with school function looks like.

In 2013, in Hardwick v. Heyward, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sided with school administrators in South Carolina who prohibited a student from wearing a Confederate flag sweatshirt because of its potential to cause a disruption at the school, which had a long history of segregation.


The post Big Sky High School Student Suspended for Repeatedly Wearing Confederate Flag Sweatshirt appeared first on American Renaissance.

Read more from American Renaissance…

The Bottom Line: The Complicated Legacy of ‘The Phenom’

Belfort’s pro MMA debut came before Kobe Bryant’s NBA debut. Gerald Ford was still President. OK, the last one isn’t true. The point: Belfort has been around forever. More than just longevity, Belfort was a noteworthy figure. His looks and …

Read more from Gerald Ford …

If William McKinley’s statue gets removed, which president with a complicated legacy is next?

To the editor: With all the ado about removing statues of past figures, including presidents, I am reminded of Mark Antony’s oration: “The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.” (“When the fight to remove statues …

Read more from William McKinley …

Picasso’s nude painting of young girl sells for $115 million in the #MeToo era

Getty/Hector Retamal

Getty/Hector Retamal

Pablo Picasso's 1905 painting "Fillette à la corbeille fleurie" sold for $115 million at Christie’s auction house on Tuesday night. Breaking several world auction records, the purchase has been described by some experts experts as "the sale of the century."

But little is known about the young girl at the center of the nude Picasso portrait. In the era of #MeToo, the enormous sale – and its subject's lack of identity and age – raises important questions about where we draw the line between consent and exploitation in esteemed art.

"Many critics call this painting a masterpiece, and that may be true. But it poses a question: Why we are willing [to] overlook inhumane, monstrous behavior when it comes to artists?" Mia Merrill, director of talent at The Wing, wrote in an email to HuffPost. "We want to know why Picasso chose to paint this naked child and what he was trying to convey by doing so."

"Fillette à la corbeille fleurie" was painted during Picasso's Rose Period, the years between 1904 and 1906 in which the Spanish artist used a palette of oranges and pinks in contrast to more somber tones, such as blues. The subject's pale, naked body jumps out from the subdued, periwinkle backdrop. Her eyes are like darts, and her face is stern, frustrated even – aged far beyond her pubescent body. She carries a basket full of bright red flowers. The famous painting was mentioned in Ernest Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast" and was also once owned by Gertrude Stein.

Picasso referred to the young girl as "Linda," according to Christie's website. Linda was a poor, teenage girl, who supported herself through the selling of flowers and her body, the auctioneer writes. Her exact age is unknown, but in the painting, her body is childlike: flat-chested, thin and hairless.

But Picasso was 21 years old when he painter Linda. In a feature essay about Picasso on Christie's site, she is believe to have "died sadly young. We do not know what became of Linda, but the long-term odds of evading a similar fate were not in her favor."

"Linda’s is a paradoxical position many women deemed 'muses' occupy, their images iconic and their identities irrelevant," HuffPost reported. "For centuries, women like Linda, who pose for and collaborate with powerful male artists, have been seen but not heard, objectified rather than humanized."

When Antonio Banderas, who plays Picasso in the second season National Geographic's anthology series, "Genius," recently stopped by Salon, the actor said that it is important to contextualize the nature of one's "genius."
"It could be a pathological problem," he said on Salon Talks, "because you are very good for certain things. But, at the same time, you can be very awkward and be very bad for the people that are surrounding you."
Banderas continued, "You require their energy to fuel you own creative process."
The Spanish actor did not specifically name misogyny or the abuse of women as part of Picasso's legacy, although allegations against the artist have been raised. But, Banderas said Picasso's "personal life took him to very complicated places with his friends, with woman and with his own family."

Read more from Salon.com…