I’m still busily thesising so posting will continue at a homeopathic rate over the next 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, here is another exercise, this time taking about half an hour.
The first part is to watch this talk (which is interesting enough regardless of my post) and note your reaction about the speaker:
For myself, I noted that the talk was interesting although the whole thesis (that women and girls are disproportionately affected by poverty) was too trivially obvious for a talk. I did have a few problems with the examples used and what they supposedly show, and I did think she overstated the case for how far your donation to the average aid organisation goes. As for the speaker I quite liked her but did note that she was more formal than most TED speakers, perhaps even nervous.
The second stage in this exercise is to scroll through some of the YouTube comments. I know YouTube comments are known to be of infinite inanity, but in this case it’s instructive. Here are some of my selections:
sexist….a freaking total waste of my time. All about girls girls girls, what about the boys in similar situations. I would not give a penny to her charity.
i’d like this talk much more if it wasn’t sexist. There are boys growing up in the SAME CONDITIONS.
Gender survival is an issue of genetics – some societal but predominantly genetics. Shes generalising, and implying causation from correlations
this lady is a liar.
Fuck the matriarchy we live in. Fuck the falsely self entitled whores we call modern women.
And here I was, all ready to donate my $13. Ah forget it, this bitch can give it for me.
WHAT A BS!!! Totalitarianism is STILL the biggest threat AND BY FAR the one growing more each day! No offense to the fight that certainly has to fought for gender discrimination BUT : In the 21st century WE DO NOT HAVE FREE PRESS ANYMORE, WE HAVE POLICE STATES EMERGING IN THE WESTERN WORLD, WE HAVE CRIMINALS AS POLITICIANS WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR JUSTICE! WE ARE SCREWED AS A WHOLE, not just women!
this women needs get laid
All she’s got here are a few sappy stories and some feminist rhetoric. This speaker isn’t up to the TEDTalks standards…. Our century’s greatest injustice??? what a bunch of BS!
You have inspired me to stop beating women up…
She’s too serious to be taken seriously.
@hollium Look, if you’re truly being objective, you’ll realize that she only speaks from her perspective – which is the female perspective. Btw, I’m not even criticizing for her gender-biased viewpoint; All I’m saying is that she thinks she actually knows all about females around the world just because she’s a female. That’s bullshit and condescending to us males (since she is trying to sell her credibility to us).
This lady is pretty retarded, her first example was not about gender inequity, it was about poverty in an newly developed industrialized country. That is what happens you fucking moron to any person of any gender. Why go to school that cost money when you can work in the fields and at least provide a minimal living. That’s called reality, not gender inequality. I can’t watch past 3 minutes and 30 seconds of ignorance. Go get a degree in Developing Communities and learn something bitch.
The point that we always need to remember is that when you don’t like what someone is saying, you are more likely to perceive the person negatively, and think they have negative social attributes (eg. being unpleasant or condescending). Of course here this is exaggerated to a laughable degree, but it’s important to note that everyone does it — I think our brains must be super-trained in the ad hominem. As a more nuanced example, the general consensus in my university discussion group (which while being atheist don’t care much for Gnu Atheists) is that Richard Dawkins is very reptilian and almost inhuman, possibly autistic*. And because I agree with much of what Dawkins says, I don’t find this — to me he is at worst slightly stodgy in the manner of old-style British academics. But even this would not be his defining quality.
I do however note that I have very similar feelings to William Lane Craig, probably because I disagree with him so strongly. Possibly because of all the debates I’ve heard with him reciting almost the same word-for-word speech, which makes me think of an automaton.
Are there any cases where you notice your social reaction to a person as being related to whether you agree with them or not?
*This connection between autism and being inhuman is very bigoted but that’s the implication I got from the conversation.
As follow-up to yesterday’s post about the added benefits of podcasts, here are the ones I usually listen to in case some tickle your auditory fancy. Favourites asterisked:
The Geologic Podcast*: The wonderful rantings and ravings of George Hrab — drummer, songwriter, general musician, skeptic, snark-emitter, sketch-writer, atheist extraordinaire.
Declaring Independence Radio*: Ed Brayton’s lovechild: covers American politics especially constitutional and legal issues, civil liberties, religious fundamentalism and general wingnuttery.
The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe*: Very extensive 5 people panel discussion show covering all aspects of skepticism, science, critical thinking — with modes ranging from jokes, banter and quiz questions all the way to the most serious of things. They’ve been doing it for 5 years. Hosted by Steve Novella, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, Rebecca Watson and Evan Bernstein.
Reasonable Doubts*: three academics take a critical look at religion from a slightly more philosophical/detailed perspective, but still very conversationally. Their specialties in general psychology and psychology of religion make it particularly unique and interesting. Hosted by Luke Galen, Jeremy Beahan and David Fletcher. Jeremy is also the producer of Declaring Independence Radio.
The Amateur Scientist*: News, sketches, parodies and tomfoolery from a very snarky skeptical perspective. Hosted by Brian Thompson.
Savage Love*: The podcast version of Dan Savage’s sex and relationships advice column. Also covers some politics where they intersect with sexuality (ie. everywhere!)
The Atheist Experience* Austin-based live public TV call-in show. Theists call in to debate or berate, atheists to discuss. They’ve got the record in having done this show for 13 years. The current frontman Matt Dillahunty is a force of nature in deconstructing all types of religious claims/arguments.
All In The Mind: Interview-based podcast by the ABC, dealing with psychology, cognitive science etc. Hosted by Natasha Mitchell.
Philosopher’s Zone: Interview-based podcast by the ABC, dealing with a new philosopher or philosophical issue every week. Hosted by Alan Saunders.
Astronomy Cast: Fraser Cain and Pamela Gay discuss in detail one astronomy topic per show — very lively and easy to follow for us plebs.
Blogging Heads: This is Robert Wright’s online TV channel, basically like a more intellectual version of TV talking heads. Shows are 1hr one-on-one conversations and come at a rate of about 1-2 a day, of which at least one a week I find worth downloading. Topics include science, philosophy, religion, news and affairs, politics, media. Very rotating cast of characters, has included some top people in most fields.
Conversations From The Pale Blue Dot: Podcast by Luke of Common Sense Atheism. Generally a detailed 1 hr interview with an academic dealing with some fairly involved philosophical/theological topics.
Rationally Speaking: Science and critical thinking by Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef.
I Should Be Writing: Mur Lafferty’s podcast for wannabe fiction writers. Interviews, discussions, tips and writer rants.
Little Atoms: UK interview-based show promoting the spirit of the enlightenment and the values of the secular progressive left. Have had some very prominent people on over the years.
Point of Inquiry: The official podcast of CFI. Also interview-based. Now hosted by a rotating cast of 3: the pottymouthed skeptical linguist Karen Stolznow, the curmugeonly Bible scholar Robert Price and the extremely-controversial-in-the-atheist-and-skeptical-blogosphere Chris Mooney.
The Psych Files: One new psychology topic every podcast. Easy for us plebs to follow. Hosted by Michael Britt.
Skepticality: One of the first podcasts ever! And one of the best. Interviews a wide variety of people. Hosted by Derek Colanduno and Swoopy (Robyn McCarthy)
The Skeptic Zone: Australian-based skeptical podcast with plenty of true-blue larrikinism.
Skeptoid: Skeptical show by Brian Dunning, each episode is about 12 minutes and focuses on a single topic in popular myths/frauds.
The Straight Dope: 5 minute podcast answering obscure trivia questions posed by viewers. Podcast version of a site by the same name.
Why yes, that is a huge number of things to listen to! I wish I didn’t need luxuries like sleep…
Not that they’re under attack really. But it does seem topical after I listened to a talk by Nicholas Carr about his book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Here’s the article that was the catalyst to the book. I haven’t read it since I just listened to the talk (which ties in nicely with my position on podcasts!).
The basic premise is that the internet is overloading us with constant distractions and interruptions and making it harder to engage in sustained, focussed, private thought (like the kind you engage in while reading). Usually I find cries of “OMG what’s technology doing to our brains?” to be hysteria. Especially when they get to the cheap rhetorical device of “INSERT TECHNOLOGY is rewiring the brains of our children!!” — since of course every experience rewires everyone’s brain.
However Carr did make some good points backed by actual scientistical research. Online activity seems to increase cognitive load. For instance, the mere presence of links inside a blog post is distracting enough to reduce reading comprehension even if you don’t click on the links. Also, being online tends you to multitasking (or pseudo-multitasking since we mainly just rapidly switch between tasks losing time on the overheads of switching). And as Carr mentioned, those who perform online “multitasking” a lot are actually worse at multitasking!
This is usually interpreted as just being anti-technology. As Carr points out though, there are definite cognitive benefits to online activities. The optimum would therefore be to have both modes of thinking in your life: the breezy online mode and the calmer more contemplative reading-style mode. As well as other modes, for they probably exist. The main problem with the online mode is that because of its ubiquity, it tends to expand into more and more areas of our life. When your dog has a blog AND a Twitter account, this leaves little room for you to engage in anything over and above superficial multitasking.
On the other hand, just like there’s been a perception for over 2000 years that “today’s” youth are the most disrespectful hoodlums ever and the world’s about to collapse, I think the perception that “nobody can concentrate any more” is also just a constant of our perceptions. I would think even before mass media not everybody read books all the time. And perhaps the replacement of TV with the internet is actually getting us closer to contemplative thinking not further. But I’d agree that there is a potential problem if concentrated activities go on the decline. So, do keep reading.
This is where podcasts come in. I realised while listening to the talk that Carr is engaging me in some quite concentrated, linear thought through podcasts. Podcasts retain the breeziness of online media (including following me into my car, public transport and so forth with more ease than the intertubes). But on the other hand they’re very linear! In fact I wouldn’t be surprised that listening to podcasts might be better than reading since (1) the information is presented more slowly and you don’t get to skim (2) you probably form a closer emotional connection with the content when it’s presented through voice.
And so, yay podcasts! Not just because they’re great but for all sorts of Important Cognitive Reasons. Tomorrow I’ll list the ones I listen to in case any catch thy eye.
Yet another example of seing silliness from within: it’s now tax return season in Australia. So I am hearing from friends and family that they got this and that in tax returns (often to the sum of several thousand dollars). Last week I do my tax return and since it’s through an application that communicates with the tax office over the internet, it gives me an estimate straight away. I have to pay them about $350.
“Crap!” I think, “I was already planning how to spend that money”. But then the obvious hit me (which it also did a few years ago when I also got a negative tax return): this is just a classic case of loss aversion. To a human, losing $100 is a lot more painful than gaining $100 is pleasurable so just by changing how a scenario is framed you can solicit entirely opposite intuitions. In this case, I had of course already gotten my tax refund of several thousand dollars, just spread over the entire year due to not paying that tax in the first place! It’s those who have the highest tax refunds that are worst off since they have been screwed over by the pay-as-you-go system. The rational response when getting a $5,000 tax return is: “Crap! I could really have used this money over the course of the year”. But the brain is wired differently.
Of course there is some value in having some extra enforced saving through small overpayments during the year with a lump sum cashback at the financial year’s end. But even that is only valuable because of other human foibles: if we didn’t have these cognitive bugs about money we’d be perfectly fine putting away those crumbs ourselves into a savings account to get an even bigger lump sum at year’s end.
Ultimately it seems to me that the tax return is just a case of tax systems taking advantage of loss aversion to reduce the negative feelings towards the tax system. In reality a positive tax return should be viewed with annoyance. It’s also interesting to note that there’s a natural reaction to defend a cognitive bias. For instance I’ve done it in the previous paragraph by appealing to tax returns as an idea of saving. Even though I dismissed this it’s useful to note how our brain may just be confabulating to justify its irrationality. Evolutionary arguments (loss aversion was useful and hence selected for) are I think in the same category. Yes it might have been selected for, but the whole point is that what was selected for was not optimal. The optimal thing would be a mechanism that does a more thorough analysis of each situation to get the best out of it.
Speaking of which, here’s a wonderful recent TED talk. It outlines research into monkeys that suggests they have pretty much the same loss aversion (and risk aversion) as humans. The main difference is that we haven’t yet discovered any methods monkeys might employ in post-hoc rationalisations of how their loss aversion was actually good, even in this particular case where they missed out on more grapes.
Going on a work ski trip today so for the rest of the week I shall be plundering other people’s talents for scheduled posts. Yesterday I heard this talk by the always-amazing Greta Christina. It floored me — I almost never hear a 1 hr talk where absolutely everything that the speaker says is unimpeachable and faultless. I couldn’t nitpick about or disagree with a single thing — and so it would be pointless to comment.
Just watch the video if you’re at all interested in either the atheist or the LGBT movement (or anything, really), mmkay? If you’re impatient like me, this site will convert a YouTube video to an MP3 so you can put it on your portable amusement device.
Pirkei Avot (the Ethics [lit: Chapters] of the Fathers) is one of the most popular of the 63 tractates of the Talmud. Unlike the other 62 which generally deal with law and aren’t very accessible to the average Jew, Avot simply quotes the ethical maxims, sayings and proverbs attributed to the Talmudic sages. As such, they’re often studied in Hebrew school and even recited as part of the prayer service. Here is one paragraph that I’ve always found interesting, because of a phrase I’m bolding. It comes in chapter 5 which gives miscellaneous lists of 10:
Ten things were created at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath:
the mouth of the earth (Numbers 16:32);
the mouth of the well (Numbers 21:16);
the mouth of the ass (Numbers 22:28);
the rainbow;
the manna;
Aaron’s staff;
the Shamir, writing;
the inscription on the tablets of the Ten Commandments;
and the tablets themselves.
Some also include the evil spirits, the grave of Moses, the ram of Abraham; and others add the original tongs, for tongs must be made with tongs. [Avot 5:9]
The point of that little hook is that to make tongs out of cast iron one must use something to grasp them with — the previous tongs! Therefore, the original tongs must have been created by YHWH during that fateful first week of the universe 5770 years ago. Beneath that profound (and I think jokey) statement lies the epitome of theism. As I found in an online article about this: “In its modest and whimsical way, Rabbi Judah [the compiler of the Mishna] was employing the same method of proof that was adopted by the great philosophers in order to speculate about such weighty questions as the origins of the universe or the existence of God. For each observable phenomenon, these thinkers would persist in asking what was its cause or what set it into motion. Eventually, as it was no longer possible to keep posing such questions ad infinitum, they were forced to posit the existence of an Unmoved Mover, an Uncaused Cause, or a similar hypothesis, in order to account for the existence of the world.”
This is part of the distinction the philosopher Daniel Dennett makes between skyhooks and cranes. In the religious view, things are supported by giant hooks that come out of the sky. Complexity, design and purpose must be derived from something greater, namely a god. The opposite to this view is a crane, where something is supported by a stable bottom-up foundation that gradually grows to the desired height. This is what made Darwin’s idea so powerful — it provided a mechanism for cranes and explained why tongs need not be made of tongs. No wonder a 19th century critic called the theory a strange inversion of reasoning.
In fact, it really is. Us humans are naturally hard-core creationists and believe in tongs made from tongs. As I commented in this post, the whole science-and-reason enterprise requires us to undergo this strange inversion of reasoning and to literally turn our naive faculties upside down. And it’s important to remember that such a huge number of religious arguments (design arguments, first cause arguments, possibly transcendental arguments and probably more) are just rearticulations of the same raw intuitions evolved in these strange apes called us.
Picture me this: a maths graduate student comes up with an amazing proof for one of the great unsolved problems in mathematics. He/she submits this to a supervisor, who checks it thoroughly and points out an error. On page 137, an extra minus sign popped into the proof out of nowhere, possibly from a typo or a markup error. “Bloody hell!” fumes the grad student to their SO. “I can’t believe such a wonderful proof got canned because of a technicality. It should definitely have been accepted.”
Of course this strikes all of us as ridiculous because in the precise world of maths there’s no such thing as a technicality, there’s no such thing as a proof being right “in spirit” — it’s either right or wrong and the fact that the difference may rest on a single minus sign is just how it is. Here’s a perfect illustration:
When I was very young – I think thirteen or maybe fourteen – I thought I had found a disproof of Cantor’s Diagonal Argument…So I found this counterexample, and saw that my attempted disproof was false, along with my dreams of fame and glory…I resented the theorem for being obstinately true, for depriving me of my fame and fortune, and I began to look for other disproofs. And then I realized something. I realized that…I made a mistake. That was all. I was not really right, deep down; I did not win a moral victory; I was not displaying ambition or skepticism or any other wondrous virtue; it was not a reasonable error; I was not half right or even the tiniest fraction right. [Source]
But I think this idea actually extends much further — most of the time people are talking about technicalities or loopholes it’s a similar situation. Although legal systems aren’t exactly maths, people who talk about technicalities are making a similar mistake. This was pointed out to me by an old roommate when she was studying law. “I can’t stand it when people get upset about someone getting off on a ‘technicality’,” she said referring to populist ire against someone being acquitted of a crime because of say an illegal police search. “There’s no such thing as a technicality, it’s either legal or not.”
Yes, there are many legitimate debates about philosophy of law and the law is a human institution without the same level of preciseness of maths. Still, I can’t see a distinction between a ruling made on a technicality and a ruling made on “real” legal issues. Of course when someone complains that a defendant was acquitted because of the “technicality” of an illegal search, they are saying that how the search was conducted is a trivial matter that should not have affected the legal outcome. But I suspect in most of these cases, such a person simply hasn’t thought about the reasoning behind the “technicality” for more than 5 seconds. At the very least, the rhetoric should be adjusted to saying “this person was acquitted for poor reasons and therefore the law should be changed altogether”. But again, to be consistent the populist must now insist on getting rid of the concept of a legal police search.
Why do I bring this up? Because of yesterday’s post about the Cordoba House (aka the “Ground Zero Mosque”). The best analysis I’ve seen by far is a brilliant post by Will Wilkinson. Money quote selections:
The sanctity of private property and religious liberty are of course essential elements of the traditional American creed. But to actually apply these principles misses the point [in the eyes of conservatives]…I suspect that Bloomberg’s appeal to property and religious liberty will appear to many as a shady, lawyerly attempt to assert the American creed against the interests of American identity.
Exactly. So many of the hysteria I’ve seen seems drenched with the idea that “sure, they technically have the property rights to build the centre, BUT bla bla bla”. There are many things that drive me insane about this whole thing but this is the biggest one. To many who oppose the centre, property rights and religious freedoms are only a “technicality” — but of course only because they are being applied to “them” and not “us”. But as Amanda Marcotte pointed out in New York especially, “they” ARE “us”!
So, methinks this shows why there are no technicalities or loopholes — just laws and legal details, some good and some bad. And you could do a whole lot worse than the 1st ammendment, which I wish existed in my backward country.
(WARNING: Today’s post is a semi-coherent rant.) By now I’m sure you’ve heard of the Cordoba “Mosque” controversy. For the ivory-towered, there has been much populist and conservative anger at approval for the construction of an Islamic centre because it’s two blocks from the World Trade Centre site in NYC. People have suggested this is kow-towing to extremism, have compared it to (I believe) a monument to Hitler outside Auschwitz, have claimed Islam is not a religion and hence should not get the protection of religious freedom and have pledged to use eminent domain to boot the project.
The hero of last week was Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC. It’s sad how rare it is for a politician to unambiguously stand up for what’s right against popular sentiment and be so unapologetic about it (I’ve abridged the statement):
Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.
In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
The local community board in Lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City. [Source]
Here’s my 0.02:
It is so depressing to see virtually everyone who’s outraged about this unable to differentiate between whether the organisation has a legal right to build the centre (and whether it should have been approved) and whether they were being “sensitive” by building it within 2 blocks of the WTC. The more someone is outraged, the more they seem to have some kind of mental block with respect to this difference.
The ridiculousness of the principle becomes even more apparent if we were to think about how it would apply consistently. How big a radius should there be around the WTC for this mosque-free zone? Which building is the centre? Are Muslims allowed to pray in private apartments within the zone? Who is as a Muslim for the purposes of this ban: should we allow a Shia mosque because they’re seen as infidels by al-Qaeda? What about sects that consider themselves Muslim but aren’t considered Muslim by “orthodox” Muslims? What about Sufis? What about religious buildings by non-Muslim groups that openly celebrate September 11th (eg. Fred Phelps’ church)?
It is completely irrelevant that this supposed centre is supposedly a centre for “moderate” Islam that aims to promote inter-faith dialogue and “healing”. It then becomes a red herring because the debate becomes about whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam and so forth ad nauseum. It is actually cancelled out from the situation in this way: if it really is moderate and about reconciliation, to object to the sentiment is to then take on the same insensitivity to the attacks that the centre is accused of. If on the other hand they openly celebrate the attacks, why bother trying to stop it by telling the organisers that your feelings will be hurt?
Another huge red herring is the supposed symbollic value this mosque will have to Islam. This is the same sentiment that fuels ridiculous bans on minarets in Switzerland (they’re symbollic of Islam’s superiority over lower buildings around them). The sentiment is not based on the religion of the people making the objection. It’s based on Islam, a religion that the same people claim is full of shit! Who cares? Anyone can feel symbolically powerful and superior over anything. Imams should rule that Muslims should buy cars because it symbolises the dominance of Islam over the infidel — then the same people will attempt to ban cars using the same principle. I’m a Pastafarian and whenever I see an Italian restaurant it reminds me of how the Flying Spaghetti Monster will smother to death all unpastafarian infidels with his Noodly Appendage. Once again, who cares?
Also those youngsters should cease and desist from the patch of grass outside my habitation. End of transmission.
