Tuesday, May 31, 2005
|
IS OUR SOCIO-ECONOMIC PARADIGM HARD WIRED IN OUR BRAINS?
Thought provoking, no? Ok, I need to clarify. I did mangle the meaning for my own ends. It's not a very clever mangling, which just goes to show I'm not cut out for ship doctorship. Maybe I should stick to accounting.
Enough dithering; on to why I'm posting. Thanks to a fabulous book, A User's Guide to the Brain, by John Ratey, I've been turned onto a new idea. Ok, may new ideas (it was a dense book that make for a long, hard read). If you've got a copy, refer to page 306 for the source of the following material.
It appears that the human brain is genetically predisposed towards detecting cheaters. For instance, thanks to research done at UC Santa Barbara, people seem to be better at detecting cheaters than people who act altruistically. Additionally, people are better able to recognize violations of social contracts when there is cheating than when there isn't. Just what does that mean? Here's an example.
Scenario 1: Joe and Adam are partners and will be paid $100 at the of the week. They decide to split it 50% - 50%. Yet, when Friday comes, Adam gets there first and takes $60 with him. It's pretty easy to see that Joes been cheated.
Compare this to...
Scenario 2: A young band approaches one of the member's uncle for a loan to buy equipment and studio time. The uncle agrees to lend the band $5k in exchange of a percentage of the band's revenue. The band turns out to be the next U2 and, over the course of their 20 year career, pay the uncle $10M. Is this unfair?
I don't think most people would jump up and scream "BULLSHIT!!!" over scenario 2 in quite the same way they would for scenario 1. Why is that? The research suggests that our brains are structured to notice #1 over #2.
This leads to my punch line: when all of us anti-Shrub-ites look at Alabama and wonder (in disbelief) how they can vote Republican, we may need to look no farther than our brains. Bush may dramatically mis-represent himself, his politics, and the fate of the known world - but he has not blatantly lied or cheated to get there. (At least not in a similar way to scenario #1 above.) Which maybe why so few people who consider themselves "conservative" are able to see the through their bias to the bullshit that lies at the core of G W Bush.
Thought provoking, no? Ok, I need to clarify. I did mangle the meaning for my own ends. It's not a very clever mangling, which just goes to show I'm not cut out for ship doctorship. Maybe I should stick to accounting.
Enough dithering; on to why I'm posting. Thanks to a fabulous book, A User's Guide to the Brain, by John Ratey, I've been turned onto a new idea. Ok, may new ideas (it was a dense book that make for a long, hard read). If you've got a copy, refer to page 306 for the source of the following material.
It appears that the human brain is genetically predisposed towards detecting cheaters. For instance, thanks to research done at UC Santa Barbara, people seem to be better at detecting cheaters than people who act altruistically. Additionally, people are better able to recognize violations of social contracts when there is cheating than when there isn't. Just what does that mean? Here's an example.
Scenario 1: Joe and Adam are partners and will be paid $100 at the of the week. They decide to split it 50% - 50%. Yet, when Friday comes, Adam gets there first and takes $60 with him. It's pretty easy to see that Joes been cheated.
Compare this to...
Scenario 2: A young band approaches one of the member's uncle for a loan to buy equipment and studio time. The uncle agrees to lend the band $5k in exchange of a percentage of the band's revenue. The band turns out to be the next U2 and, over the course of their 20 year career, pay the uncle $10M. Is this unfair?
I don't think most people would jump up and scream "BULLSHIT!!!" over scenario 2 in quite the same way they would for scenario 1. Why is that? The research suggests that our brains are structured to notice #1 over #2.
This leads to my punch line: when all of us anti-Shrub-ites look at Alabama and wonder (in disbelief) how they can vote Republican, we may need to look no farther than our brains. Bush may dramatically mis-represent himself, his politics, and the fate of the known world - but he has not blatantly lied or cheated to get there. (At least not in a similar way to scenario #1 above.) Which maybe why so few people who consider themselves "conservative" are able to see the through their bias to the bullshit that lies at the core of G W Bush.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
|
IRAQ STILL MATTERS
Dahr Jamil is an American journalist who has worked in Iraq - independently. Take that to mean that he is not part of the corporate media universe. It means he was lived on his own, away from the protection of US Military minders and highly paid, corporate funded private security guards. He was close to Iraqi daily life "at the edge of Empire". Here he talks about his sense of dislocation upon returning to America after months in Iraq. It's powerful stuff.
His also maintains a website. Check it out. He is a refreshing, if solitary, voice.
Dahr Jamil is an American journalist who has worked in Iraq - independently. Take that to mean that he is not part of the corporate media universe. It means he was lived on his own, away from the protection of US Military minders and highly paid, corporate funded private security guards. He was close to Iraqi daily life "at the edge of Empire". Here he talks about his sense of dislocation upon returning to America after months in Iraq. It's powerful stuff.
His also maintains a website. Check it out. He is a refreshing, if solitary, voice.
Monday, May 23, 2005
|
I CAN'T ALWAYS BLAME CONSERVATIVES
The race issues polarizes. Proponents talk furiously past each other - each sure the other is wrong, or oppressive, or hateful. But to say that extremism can be found on all sides grants an undeserved veneer of legitimicy. UGH!!! Don't embrace such weak-minded, watered-down horeshit! We should be enraged by Shear Winstons teachings that,
"as a black father I teach my children that white people are the natural enemies of black people."
Just as we are engaged by KKK, so should we condem such Black-perspectived racism. And it is racism. Don't belive me, check out these definitions:
Answers.com
International Council on Human Rights
I can understand why the average white guy feels disenfranchised when shit said about him is accepted but his saying the very same shit about others is called "RACISM"! It's this past-each-other talk that gives rise to this scary picture.
The race issues polarizes. Proponents talk furiously past each other - each sure the other is wrong, or oppressive, or hateful. But to say that extremism can be found on all sides grants an undeserved veneer of legitimicy. UGH!!! Don't embrace such weak-minded, watered-down horeshit! We should be enraged by Shear Winstons teachings that,
"as a black father I teach my children that white people are the natural enemies of black people."
Just as we are engaged by KKK, so should we condem such Black-perspectived racism. And it is racism. Don't belive me, check out these definitions:
Answers.com
International Council on Human Rights
I can understand why the average white guy feels disenfranchised when shit said about him is accepted but his saying the very same shit about others is called "RACISM"! It's this past-each-other talk that gives rise to this scary picture.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
|
A STERN REBUKE
Operation Truth, a website for soldiers who served in the Evil Empires most current ill conceived adventures, has published an "After Action Review" from a "boots on the ground" perspective. It is illuminating. It goes to show that criticism of the how Afghanistan and Iraq have been handled is not just for the anti-Shrubers. The list of problems reads like a laundry list of the White House Press Secretary's denials. For instance:
1) Addressing Troop's Mental Health
2) Armor Shortages and other Supply Problems
3) Problems for the Guards and Reserves - Training & Support
4) Inadequate Training
5) Private Contractors
6) Support in transitioning home after the tour of duty
7) Flawed Intelligence
Operation Truth, a website for soldiers who served in the Evil Empires most current ill conceived adventures, has published an "After Action Review" from a "boots on the ground" perspective. It is illuminating. It goes to show that criticism of the how Afghanistan and Iraq have been handled is not just for the anti-Shrubers. The list of problems reads like a laundry list of the White House Press Secretary's denials. For instance:
1) Addressing Troop's Mental Health
2) Armor Shortages and other Supply Problems
3) Problems for the Guards and Reserves - Training & Support
4) Inadequate Training
5) Private Contractors
6) Support in transitioning home after the tour of duty
7) Flawed Intelligence
Sunday, May 15, 2005
|
READ THIS!
Read it, damn it! Via a circuitous romp through economics, this post by Bradford Delong cuts right to the heart of many of my political rants. It also further bolsters Pope Maurice's thoughts that liberation from subsistence living does not bring happiness. We humans don't know how to be happy if we have time think about it. After all, idle hands are the devil's plaything.
KEY TAKE AWAYS:
1) SOCIAL MOBILITY IN AMERICA IS WORSE THAN MOST OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES
It's worse than Canada, France, Sweden - to name a few. If you're poor, you're likely to stay poor. Our culture has ossified, class lines have hardened.
2) MATERIAL ABUNDANCE DOES NOT LEAD TO HAPPINESS
To borrow from the article's quote of Paul Krugman, "(people) judge themselves relative to their reference group". In Krugman's example, contemporary academics live in superior comfort to older generations of academics, but if they never receive a noble prize or job offer from Harvard, they are dissatisfied. Delong posits that "happiness is achieved when you achieve your dreams and solve your problems". I whole heartedly agree. Notice that material accumulation is nowhere in that statement.
Now, tying this back to my pet topics - Americans tolerate a grossly uneven economic distribution on the basis that we "live in the land of opportunity". The numbers (see Delong's article) give lie to this. We live in a land where the rich are richer than any comparable group in the history of humanity. Our poor are as bad off as the poor in many developing countries, think Brazil & China (that's counter intuitive, no?).
See where I'm going with this? Our national narrative brainwashes most of us. We believe that success comes from hard work - that riches are earned. But if those born rich are likely to stay rich and those born poor are likely to stay poor, what is the quality of the American Dream? Shit, putrescenes...and other fowl things.
I really wish I could jettison my sense of fairness. I wish I could accept our current social arrangement as right and just. But it isn't. You don't need to apply Rawl's Theory of Justice to see this.
Read it, damn it! Via a circuitous romp through economics, this post by Bradford Delong cuts right to the heart of many of my political rants. It also further bolsters Pope Maurice's thoughts that liberation from subsistence living does not bring happiness. We humans don't know how to be happy if we have time think about it. After all, idle hands are the devil's plaything.
KEY TAKE AWAYS:
1) SOCIAL MOBILITY IN AMERICA IS WORSE THAN MOST OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES
It's worse than Canada, France, Sweden - to name a few. If you're poor, you're likely to stay poor. Our culture has ossified, class lines have hardened.
2) MATERIAL ABUNDANCE DOES NOT LEAD TO HAPPINESS
To borrow from the article's quote of Paul Krugman, "(people) judge themselves relative to their reference group". In Krugman's example, contemporary academics live in superior comfort to older generations of academics, but if they never receive a noble prize or job offer from Harvard, they are dissatisfied. Delong posits that "happiness is achieved when you achieve your dreams and solve your problems". I whole heartedly agree. Notice that material accumulation is nowhere in that statement.
Now, tying this back to my pet topics - Americans tolerate a grossly uneven economic distribution on the basis that we "live in the land of opportunity". The numbers (see Delong's article) give lie to this. We live in a land where the rich are richer than any comparable group in the history of humanity. Our poor are as bad off as the poor in many developing countries, think Brazil & China (that's counter intuitive, no?).
See where I'm going with this? Our national narrative brainwashes most of us. We believe that success comes from hard work - that riches are earned. But if those born rich are likely to stay rich and those born poor are likely to stay poor, what is the quality of the American Dream? Shit, putrescenes...and other fowl things.
I really wish I could jettison my sense of fairness. I wish I could accept our current social arrangement as right and just. But it isn't. You don't need to apply Rawl's Theory of Justice to see this.
Friday, May 13, 2005
|
DON'T MISBEHAVE IN FLORIDA
As of Tuesday (5/10/05) Florida enacted a new law that makes the sunshine state a little less appealing. The new law extends the castle doctrine to anywhere an individual has a right to be, which basically means your home, car, or work. That sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong!
When confronted, Floridians are no longer required to retreat before responding with force. Basically, the law now allows a person to use force to "defend against another's imminent use of unlawful force". What the hell does that mean?!? In fairness, this isn't quite a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation, but it's damn close.
P.S. - if your interested, you can read a friendly analysis of the bill penned by a Florida Senate staffer or a general discussion about the types of defenses to a crime.
As of Tuesday (5/10/05) Florida enacted a new law that makes the sunshine state a little less appealing. The new law extends the castle doctrine to anywhere an individual has a right to be, which basically means your home, car, or work. That sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong!
When confronted, Floridians are no longer required to retreat before responding with force. Basically, the law now allows a person to use force to "defend against another's imminent use of unlawful force". What the hell does that mean?!? In fairness, this isn't quite a "shoot first, ask questions later" situation, but it's damn close.
P.S. - if your interested, you can read a friendly analysis of the bill penned by a Florida Senate staffer or a general discussion about the types of defenses to a crime.
