Suppose it were perfectly certain that the life and fortune of every one of us would, one day or other, depend upon his winning or losing a game at chess. …

The chess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance. …

My metaphor will remind some of you of the famous picture in which Retzsch has depicted Satan playing at chess with man for his soul. Substitute for the mocking fiend in that picture, a calm, strong angel who is playing for love, as we say, and would rather lose than win — and I should accept it as an image of human life.

Well, what I mean by Education is learning the rules of this mighty game. In other words, education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, under which name I include not merely things and their forces, but men and their ways; and the fashioning of the affections and of the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with those laws. For me, education means neither more nor less than this. Anything which professes to call itself education must be tried by this standard, and if it fails to stand the test, I will not call it education, whatever may be the force of authority, or of numbers, upon the other side.

— Thomas Huxley, “A Liberal Education and Where to Find It,” 1868

The true test of happiness is whether you know what day of the week it is. A miserable man is aware of this even in his sleep. To be as cheerful and rosy-cheeked on Monday as on Saturday, and at breakfast as at dinner is to — well, make an ideal husband.

— W.N.P. Barbellion, The Journal of a Disappointed Man, 1919

From the Journal of Belles Lettres, 1838, an anecdote about Henri François d’Aguesseau, three-time chancellor of France:

The chancellor, observing that his wife always delayed ten or twelve minutes before she came down to dinner, and being loth to lose so much precious time daily, commenced the composition of a work, which he prosecuted only whilst he was thus kept waiting. The result was, at the end of fifteen years, a book in three volumes quarto, which has gone through several editions, and is much esteemed.

D’Aguesseau seems to have been an industrious man — Voltaire called him “the most learned magistrate France ever possessed.”

This is dismaying. Suppose that men and women are equally sexist, and imagine a group that’s 80 percent men and 20 percent women. If 20 percent of people (represented as squares above) will make sexist comments to people of the opposite gender, we might expect that the women will receive four times as many sexist comments as the men. In fact they receive 16 times as many. Computer scientist Ian Gent explains:

With 20% women the gender ratio is 1:4. So there are 4 times as many men to make sexist remarks, so 4 times as many sexist remarks are made to women as to men. But there are 4 times fewer women to receive sexist remarks, so each individual woman is four times as likely to receive a given remark than an individual man is. These effects multiply, so in this example the mean number of sexist remarks per woman is 16 times the number per man. This holds in general, so with a gender ratio of 1:r, women will receive r² times as many sexist remarks as men.

Above, after 70 sexist remarks (arrows) are made at random to members of the opposite gender, the women have received a mean of 5.6 remarks each, the men only 0.35. Gent first described the effect in 2013; the mathematical model was devised by computer scientist Karen Petrie.

Why is there so little money in politics? If a government subsidy is worth, say, a billion dollars to certain stakeholders, then we might expect them to spend nearly that amount in lobbying and bribes to secure its success.

Generally, this doesn’t happen. The potential beneficiary of a policy will typically spend only a small fraction of its value to bring it about. Economist Gordon Tullock first pointed this out in 1980; the reasons for it are still debated.

We have more respect for a man who robs boldly on the highway, than for a fellow who jumps out of a ditch, and knocks you down behind your back. Courage is a quality so necessary for maintaining virtue, that it is always respected, even when it is associated with vice.

— James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791

A “prayer to the local deities” offered by Socrates in Plato’s Phaedrus:

Beloved Pan, and all ye other gods who haunt this place, give me beauty in the inward soul; and may the outward and inward man be at one. May I reckon the wise to be the wealthy, and may I have such a quantity of gold as a temperate man and he only can bear and carry.

“Anything more? The prayer, I think, is enough for me.”

“A few precepts to repeat whenever you are in need of comfort,” by Gabriel Hanotaux, French minister of foreign affairs from 1894 to 1895:

1. Anything can happen.
2. Everything is forgotten.
3. Every difficulty can be overcome.
4. No one understands anything.
5. If everyone knew what everyone said about everyone, no one would speak to anyone.

“Above all things, never be afraid. The enemy who forces you to retreat is himself afraid of you at that very moment.”

(Via André Maurois’ The Art of Living, 1939.)