Weekly Secret

PostSecret

I can relate.

Humans Are Not Vulcans

This is a fascinating presentation by Dan Ariely.



This also brought to mind one of my favorite new blogs, You Are Not So Smart, which sets about debunking common knowledge that we take for granted.

The more we learn about ourselves, the more interesting we become. Stuff like this makes me think about how easily we can be manipulated in all sorts of subtle ways. I also found myself thinking about how I wasn't like this. I'm rational. I'm not like the mindless sheeple. And then I had to tell myself that, unfortunately, I'm human, too, and prone to this as much as anyone else. The important thing, of course, is to be cognizant of it, to do what we can to recognize our weaknesses and our failings and take steps to mitigate them.

If you are, you know, one of those weak-willed suckers that is.

Pathfinder Giveaway

Let's see...

1) I like Pathfinder.
2) I like free stuff.

So, when I found out that Troll in a Corner was doing a drawing for three Pathfinder rulebooks, I had to sign up. For those not in the know, Pathfinder is the spiritual successor to the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rule set. I have a pdf of the core rulebook and I love it (even though I haven't had a chance to play it).

My current group is playing Dark Heresy, but I'm hoping that when the current campaign wraps up, we can get some Pathfinder action going. Perhaps some shiny new books (*crossesfingers*) would be added incentive.

Quote of the Day

"We are more far more afraid of being racist than we are of being good human beings. And that is fucking cowardly." -Adam Serwer

The Differences in Educating Girls vs. Educating Boys

These are two fascinating studies.

He found that students who attended high school with high-achieving peers performed better at graduation, passing more of their final exams than students who went to the same school in a different year, when the crop of classmates was weaker. Intriguingly, the effect of high-achieving peers was much more positive for girls than for boys. Jackson's results suggest that boys may, in fact, pass fewer exams when surrounded by high-achievers, while girls' graduation exam pass rates are helped by having bookish classmates.

Essentially, it is very good for girls to be surrounded by smart classmates. It is good for boys, too, as long as their classmates aren't too much smarter than they are. Being surrounded by poor performers has a negative effect on both genders.

Studies like these are crucial for education and a way to guide educators in how to make their programs more effective. I read stuff like this and think about the possibility of separating boys and girls into different classrooms. Girls can be thrown together for the most part regardless of level. Boys, however, should be grouped with other boys on a close scale of ability so that no one of them is that much better than the others cutting down the gap between the "best" and the "worst."

Unfortunately the trends seems to be more toward teaching for tests in reading and math and not worrying about anything else. I'm curious to see if Race to the Top will produce anything good, but I'm skeptical that it actually will. For as much money as we spend on education and for as important as it is, you would think that there would be more willingness for bold experimentation especially as we see our country falling behind other developing nations in terms of student achievement.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

MSM Fail

Thank you, Jake Tapper, for bringing this important story to light. Did the President Go to the Wrong Ice Cream Store?"

I will sleep better tonight knowing that ABC is on top of this.

Eulogies

Here are two stories that brought a touch of warmth to my cold, cynical heart.

A married couple dies within hours of each other. "Lou, I love you. I had a wonderful life. I'll see you in another place."

Author John Scalzi writes about the passing of the family dog. "And both times I did the same thing. I petted her head, slid out of the chair and on to the floor, and held my dog while I cried, letting her be the one to share both my joy and pain, so I could go on to what I had to do next."

Shocking Grandma

I have written about stuff like this before. A cop in Oklahoma tased an 87-year-old woman who wanted to commit suicide.

And so we meet Lona Varner, an 87-year old woman from the central Oklahoma town of El Reno, bedridden and respirating with the aid of an oxygen machine. In late December, her grandson called the police in fear that Ms. Varner was in the process of suicide. But the cops discovered that she retained an acute desire to take anyone who tried to stop her into the Void with her.

Newser reports that Ms. Varner kept a knife underneath her pillow and pulled it when the police entered her home. “If you try and get the knife,” she warned, “I will stab you and kill you. I killed four Japs in World War II, and I would not bat an eye killing you.” An ugly remark at an ugly moment, to be sure.

It was followed up by compounded ugliness. One of the officers reached for a Taser and used it on Ms. Varner, burning her to the point where she would require hospitalization. According to her lawyer, the police also “treated the frail woman brutally, ripping the flesh on her arms as they grabbed her.” Police have the right not to be harmed, without question. But is there a policeman alive who can’t disarm an 87-year old bedridden woman without the use of a stun gun?

One of the reason that stories like this make me mad is that it makes people (such as me occasionally) who carry Tasers look bad. The Taser is a great tool, but like any tool it needs to be used properly. And using it on an bedridden 87-year-old woman on oxygen is not the proper use of it, not when she only has a knife. If she had a gun, it could probably be justified. But this woman didn't. If an officer gets a cut on his arm getting a person like this under control, then he can chalk it up as part of the job.

Does that suck for the officer? Well, yeah. But it is the job of law enforcement to serve and protect. That carries risk. And this officer did not protect this woman. As Ackerman writes in the article "[t]here’s something about non-lethal weapons that encourages abuse." It's because they are easy to use. Point, shoot, and your target is on the ground, muscles locked, and screaming in pain. Anyone carrying a Taser needs to learn that they can't be used anytime the officer feels like it. There has to be justification. And you can't tell me that a bedridden old lady with a knife is a serious enough threat to justify an electric shock.

Fear in the Media

Greenwald has some questions about standards in the media.

So common is this appellation that a NEXIS media search reveals that the word "disgraced" appears extremely close to the phrase "Eliot Spitzer" (within two words) a total of 394 times:

The problem is that conservatives don't get the same treatment.

By blindingly stark contrast, ever since he got caught hiring prostitutes to wrap him in diapers while campaigning on the basis of Family Values, the word "disgraced" appeared within two words of the name "David Vitter" a grand total of 4 times -- all from small blogs:

[Newt] Gingrich was so described a grand total of 5 times, none from major news outlets:

Alberto Gonzales, who was forced to resign as Attorney General in the wake of a major Department of Justice scandal, and who was revealed as one of the earliest authors of pro-torture memos, has had that term applied to him a grand total of 17 times.

Glenn wants to know "[w]hat accounts for this extreme discrepancy." I think it boils down to fear. The media is scared of being portrayed as having a liberal bias, so they go out of their way to demonize people on the Left while soft-pedaling conservative politicians. The noise machine from the Right led by Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity make MSM media outlets cower in fear, worried that attacks from them will diminish their quickly dwindling audience. They don't realize that their extreme cowardice demonstrated in issues like this and their changing the use of the word "torture" is a bigger reason for their decline, not attacks from right-wing bloviators.

Polanski Won't Be Extradited

Switzerland announced today that they will not be extraditing Roman Polanski for his crimes committed here in the states. This is ridiculous, but not really surprising unfortunately. I struggle to understand it, though.

Why do so many stars support him? Why do so many people think that just because he is a great filmmaker (and he is) he should get a pass? Why does the horrific murder of his wife and unborn child mean he can commit a crime and get away with it? Why is the fact that he has been living in self-imposed exile from the US (to hide from the authorities) count as "punishment enough"?

I am appalled that anyone can support him. I have enjoyed his films, but seeing him get a standing ovation at the 2002 Academy Awards made me squirm. The applause was clearly not for the film, but for him as a person. He committed a crime; he should pay the price. If there were problems during the trial, that is what the appeals process is for. He pled guilty!

The other thing I would like to briefly address is the victim's wish that Polanski be forgiven and the case dropped. I can't imagine what this must be like for her and I have no doubt that she would like to put the entire matter behind her. The problem is that doing so only adds incentive for other criminals to run. Why stick around and potentially go to prison when you can run for thirty years and hope that all will be forgiven? Even if you do end up going to prison, that's a few decades of freedom to enjoy.

This whole case is a travesty of justice and we all lose when this happens.

But They Do It, Too!

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Glenn Beck and political discourse with Matt Lewis.


It's a good talk, but I really have to take issue with one thing Lewis says. At one point, after Friedersdorf says that he thinks it's a problem when people on the Right like Beck demonize the Left and make them out as being not people they disagree with, but people allied with our enemies. Lewis then says that it's not much different than what liberals were doing when Bush was around. In other words, "B-b-but they do it, too!"

You know who else makes arguments like this? Kids. My daughters do it all the time and I smack them down every time. Just because someone else has done something wrong, I say, does not mean it is okay for you to do it. I know other parents don't let their kids get away with this, either. So, why is it okay for adults to get away with this? Why can't Lewis or anyone else debating something one side or the other has done in politics instead say, "You're right. They shouldn't be doing that and I don't support that." Doesn't that sound more mature than pointing fingers at other wrong-doers?

I also wish that Friedersdorf had been stronger on the dangers of making someone you disagree with politically into the scary other. These people-one-step-removed-from-Hitler are people that we have to live with, work with, and, yes, compromise with. We don't live in a nation where one group always gets what they want. We have to be able to live together and accept that no one (no matter where you may be on the political spectrum) gets to have everything they want in terms of policy. And, if by some chance you (yes, you) get a piece of legislation that you think is perfect, just wait. Control of Congress will change and your favorite legislation will get changed, watered down, or repealed.

So, instead of making political opponents your enemies, how about we respectfully disagree, work on persuading them of the rightness of our actions (rather than the wrongness of theirs), and learn how to work together like adults.

Yeah, I know that sounds about as likely as "Imagine," but that doesn't mean it's not something we should strive for.

HT: Andrew Sullivan

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Religious Studies Does Not Equate to Being a Minister/Priest/Pastor

A friend of my mother's asked me today if I was still majoring in Religious Studies. I said I was and she asked me if I planned to teach it when I got my degree. I said I might, but that there were other options I wanted to explore, as well. She proceeded to tell me about several members of her family who were ministers of some sort or had been to some sort of Divinity school. While she didn't come right out and say it, the implication was that she thought I might be interested in that, too.

Uhm, no.

In fact, I often tell people that my major is History because many people make the assumption that I want to lead a church when they hear Religious Studies. While I admire those who have that calling, I most certainly do not. In fact, I think I would make a rather poor preacher. I do have very strong personal beliefs, but they are just that. Personal. I don't even really share most of my beliefs with those closest to me.

My interest is in studying religion itself and how it works and what people do in its name. I find it fascinating. History is close enough to that so I don't quite feel like I'm quite lying (history of religion?) even if I do feel a bit guilty when I say that. I'm just trying to save them some confusion when I have to attempt to explain that my major is secular.

Faith vs. Science

Dreher writes about the problems with having blind faith in science.

We should be responsibly skeptical of authority -- not only religious authority, but scientific authority. We live in an age of Scientism, in which many people invest science with the power of ideology. Wendell Berry calls this "modern superstition," because people have given science the powers they used to give to religion. Berry wrote a fantastic book defending the integrity and value of art and religion as ways of knowing, against the idea that Science should be the undisputed master of all. He doesn't oppose science, but he thinks that all three ways of knowing -- art, science, religion -- must be understood as limited. The trouble comes when any one is elevated as supreme above all others, and their spheres.

I agree 100% that we should be skeptical of authority of all types. I don't think there is ever anything wrong with asking questions, with not accepting anything blindly. We have brains for a reason (to reason...hahaha...nevermind). No one who espouses any sort of thought about something should be upset with someone else asking them, "Why do you think that?"

However, I'm not sure it's accurate to say we live in an age of Scientism. More accurately we do live in such an age, but it's only different from every other period in human history in terms of what we have blind faith in. Having a skeptical, questioning nature is hard. In fact, it seems to go against human nature. We are wired to accept certain things and we don't want to think that our belief (in religion, in science, in whatever) could be wrong. That's scary. So, we blindly accept a premise, however we've come to it, and then cling to it with a fearful fury. Certainty is much more comfortable than its opposite.

In my mind, school is where we should learn to get away from this. School should be less about facts and more about thinking, reasoning, questioning. I would much rather have a kid graduate knowing the bare minimum of facts about say, the American Revolution, but with a strong ability to critically examine the entirety of it, its pros and cons, its consequences, and what it meant. The ability to think critically is a much more useful skill than rote memorization of facts.

One last thought on skepticism. Being critical of everything does not mean not believing in anything. It means being able to explain why you believe something, not just what you believe.

America's Rules

Glenn Greenwald kindly sums up the way things work here in America.

* If you torture people or eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, you receive Look-Forward Imperial Immunity.

* If you shoot and kill unarmed rescuers of the wounded while occupying their country and severely wound their unarmed children sitting in a van -- or if you authorize that conduct -- your actions are commended.

* If you help wreck the world economy with fraud and cause hundreds of millions of people untold suffering, you collect tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.

* If you disclose to the world evidence of war crimes, government lawbreaking, or serious corruption, or otherwise embarrass the U.S., you will be swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face decades in prison.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading that, but either way, it's patently absurd. We are living in America, right? Right?

Touching is Important

Here is a fascinating article from Discovery on how what we touch affects our judgment.

First off, in two experiments reminiscent of another study I’ve written about, Ackerman showed that holding a light or heavy clipboard can affect a person’s decision-making. In a study of 54 volunteers, those who clutched the heavier board rated a job candidate more highly based on their resume, and thought that they displayed a more serious interest in the job. They even rated their own assessments as being more important! However, the boards didn’t affect the recruits’ judgments on areas unrelated to importance, such as the candidate’s ability to get along with others.

In a second test with 43 volunteers, those who held the heavier boards were more likely to call for government funds to be spent on serious social matters like setting air pollution standards, over more trivial affairs like public toilet regulations. Again, the mere feeling of weight appears to influence the importance we give to matters.
...
Ackerman also looked at the influence of an object’s hardness. He asked 49 volunteers to touch either a hard block of word or a soft blanket, under the pretence of examining objects to be used in a magic act. Afterwards, when they read an interaction between a boss and an employee, those who felt the wood thought the employee was stricter and more rigid than those who touched the blanket (but no less positive). It doesn’t have to be the hands that do the touching either – when he repeated the same task with 86 volunteers who sat in either a hard, wooden chair or a soft, cushioned one, he found the same results. “We primed participants by the seat of their pants,” he writes.

The chair experiment also gave Ackerman the opportunity to test the effect of hardness on decision-making. He asked his recruits to place two offers on a $16,500 car, the second following a straight refusal of the first by the dealer. While the volunteers offered the same average amount at first, those who sat on the softer seats offered far more on their second go than on their first. That’s consistent with the idea that hardness has connotations of rigidity and stability. People who feel hard sensations are less likely to shift in their decisions. Harder chairs made for harder hearts.

This is really neat stuff and I can see companies and marketers using this to influence in all sorts of ways we won't realize.

Interestingly, just a few days before I read this I was thinking about the growing prevalence of hands-free devices. I began wondering how that would impact our understanding of and feeling toward these technologies. There is something about touching an object that helps us connect with it. Think about your car, the feel of the wheel in your hands, the gas pedal as you press it down, the gentle rumble (or not depending) of it as you drive it. This makes the car come alive in a way making it more than just a metal husk taking you from A to B.

I also wonder where this will lead. If we become more and more reliant on hands-free devices, how will that affect our relationships with other people? Will we value more the physical contact we make with loved ones (hugs, handshakes, and more) or will we place less emphasis on these as we become used to interacting with things without actually touching them? I don't know, but is something to think about while I physically press the keys on my laptop to type this.

Happy Fourth of July!

Montana Republican Party Fail

The Montana GOP just released their 2010 platform. It contains this doozy of a line.

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Aside from the fact that their is no way to "keep" homosexual acts illegal in Montana since they were decriminalized in 1997, I am baffled by conservative action against consenting adults. Aren't Republicans constantly railing against government intruding where it shouldn't? Don't they want smaller government? How does that square with outlawing homosexual acts?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be outlawed. I don't like, burqas, toe jam, or bad rom-coms. I also don't think they should be illegal. Conservatism is supposed to be about dealing with the world as it is, not how you want it to be. Gays are here, they want relationships, and it doesn't hurt anyone. Someday these people will have to accept that.

HT:From Here to Eternity

Super Mario Crossover

Some clever soul recreated the original Super Mario Brothers video game as a flash game. The kick is that you can play through as other classic 8-bit characters such as Link, Simon Belmont, and Mega Man. It's so awesome, I can't believe no one else has done it before. Check it out here. Fair warning, though: don't click through if you have other things to do because this will consume a few hours at least.