We need to stop calling a business successful if its employees don't earn a living wage. It's a perversion of genuine accomplishment.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Political Support of Laziness
When politicians voice their opposition to something that enhanced the greater good because it might "hurt business" or "will cost jobs" I often wonder why their opponents don't chime in with something positive about businesses by claiming that their owners and managers have certainly proven they are smart enough to make adjustments without all that predicted damage. If it's truly not possible, then the voiced opposition is really all about unconditional protection for unqualified or lazy owners and managers who likely don't care about their employees anyway, only how much money can be extracted from them.
Friday, May 30, 2014
The Dark Side of Learning to Write
One of our greatest past achievements may have been created as a tool to do evil that continues to this day.
From Guns, Germs and Steel by Jarod Diamond, p. 235: “The intended restricted uses of early writing provided a positive disincentive for devising less ambiguous writing systems. The kings and priests of ancient Sumer wanted writing to be used by professional scribes to record numbers of sheep owned in taxes not by the masses to write poetry and hatch plots. As the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss put it, ancient writing's main function was 'to facilitate the enslavement of other human beings.'”
This plays into the idea that “information is power” because writing is information. Therefore, possession of reading and writing skills meant more knowledge and power. Looking at the current state of corporate and government actions in our information age, we now have a society that is largely based on a constant battle between people trying to get information and those trying to keep it from others, a conflict that certainly continues to have evil effects.
From Guns, Germs and Steel by Jarod Diamond, p. 235: “The intended restricted uses of early writing provided a positive disincentive for devising less ambiguous writing systems. The kings and priests of ancient Sumer wanted writing to be used by professional scribes to record numbers of sheep owned in taxes not by the masses to write poetry and hatch plots. As the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss put it, ancient writing's main function was 'to facilitate the enslavement of other human beings.'”
This plays into the idea that “information is power” because writing is information. Therefore, possession of reading and writing skills meant more knowledge and power. Looking at the current state of corporate and government actions in our information age, we now have a society that is largely based on a constant battle between people trying to get information and those trying to keep it from others, a conflict that certainly continues to have evil effects.
The Fertile Crescent and The Garden of Eden
What role did the Fertile Crescent play in the writing of the story in Genesis about the Garden of Eden?
This crescent-shaped land area that included a large part of ancient Mesopotamia and is considered the first place on earth where crops were grown by humans on a large scale contains the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the ones mentioned in the Garden of Eden story. It strikes me that this story could be based in part on legends of this area—to the east, as described—which is where a more lush area of the Fertile Crescent was located. (For comparison, the area of the Fertile Crescent that contained ancient Canaan was a much narrower band of land along the Mediterranean coast with no major rivers.)
There were likely stories told to the Hebrews in Canaan about that area that must have made it seem like paradise when compared to where they lived. Plus, there was desert directly between Canaan and the Tigris and Euphrates region, making the tales even more intriguing and difficult to prove wrong.
The question had to have been asked—if our god(s) loves us and is so powerful, why are we stuck here? If this question did come up, it's anyone's guess as to when it was asked in relation to the other myths of Abraham's family religion. But, the answer that was given might have come in the form of the Garden of Eden story; they were in the garden at first, but an ancient ancestral couple blew it for them, getting them all banished. But if the Garden of Eden was a real place, why couldn't they go back? Ah, cherubim are guarding the gate—we can't get in, so there is no use in trying. The remaining contradictions can be sloughed off to fancy tales of lying travelers.
The tale was born, and of course molded over time, as happens for all myths. I also wonder if the Hebrews claim of a "promised land" in Palestine instead of Mesopotamia was due to this story. If their origin was the Tigris and Euphrates region, why else would they not battle their way back there instead of Palestine?
 |
| Image found here: http://www.pbase.com/daveb/image/42673320 |
There were likely stories told to the Hebrews in Canaan about that area that must have made it seem like paradise when compared to where they lived. Plus, there was desert directly between Canaan and the Tigris and Euphrates region, making the tales even more intriguing and difficult to prove wrong.
The question had to have been asked—if our god(s) loves us and is so powerful, why are we stuck here? If this question did come up, it's anyone's guess as to when it was asked in relation to the other myths of Abraham's family religion. But, the answer that was given might have come in the form of the Garden of Eden story; they were in the garden at first, but an ancient ancestral couple blew it for them, getting them all banished. But if the Garden of Eden was a real place, why couldn't they go back? Ah, cherubim are guarding the gate—we can't get in, so there is no use in trying. The remaining contradictions can be sloughed off to fancy tales of lying travelers.
The tale was born, and of course molded over time, as happens for all myths. I also wonder if the Hebrews claim of a "promised land" in Palestine instead of Mesopotamia was due to this story. If their origin was the Tigris and Euphrates region, why else would they not battle their way back there instead of Palestine?
The Failure of "Tradition" Justification
Those who use try to use “tradition” or “custom” to justify and action (or non-action) should not be allowed to get away with doing so because that idea can support literally anything. In Chapter 2 of the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond there is a section talking about a South Pacific population called the Maori and their overtaking a neighboring population called the Moriori. From the book:
“A Moriori survivor recalled, '[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep...[We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed—men, women, and children indiscriminately.' A Maori conqueror explained, 'We took possession...in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these were killed, and others were killed—but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom.'”For those who use the "tradition" justification for any action have offered the worst kind of rationalization. Without something considerably more substantial to support a position, the use of "custom" should be rejected.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Wrong If I Don't Get It
There is a New Scientist magazine article from 2010 entitled "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" that gives some insights that I think can be used to help explain some of what's happening today concerning all types of "deniers."
The article explores the surprisingly large group of scientists from all over the world who were against the Theory of Relativity in the wake of Einstein's discovery. The article's author, Milena Wazeck, notes the main reason was not based on a routine scientific dispute:
One of the many opponents of relativity was described as having an attitude about the advancement relativity represented that was a danger to science itself because "nothing better symbolised the modern specialisation and incomprehensibility of science than relativity." In other words, science was leaving behind those unable to understand its newest findings.
This attitude seems very similar to those who deny in today's world things like climate change, evolution, and the effectiveness of vaccinations. This attitude of something being wrong because it's not easily understood also seems to be included in many of the claims of fundamentalist religious believers who push the idea that their religious doctrines trump new discoveries. They attempt to make arguments that try to include scientific objections, but I think their most detailed anti-science arguments generally reveal a lack of understanding instead.
Conspiracy theorists are just one of these modern attempts to undercut science. They make the attempt by trying to poke holes in scientific findings and assertions in which they hope people will insert their conspiracy theories as the only valid alternatives, even though their objections often fall short of being scientifically viable--letting alone the invalid nature of the conspiracy theory itself. This strategy can only work for people who do not understand the science in play and can easily substitute something they think they do understand.
One final point is that religious-based objections are likely to challenge science being okay with information yet to be discovered. Religion is more comforting to many believers because it always has a god figure to fill any gap of information. Since science doesn't provide a way to automatically put something in the place of missing knowledge, it is too difficult to understand and, therefore, rejected.
The article explores the surprisingly large group of scientists from all over the world who were against the Theory of Relativity in the wake of Einstein's discovery. The article's author, Milena Wazeck, notes the main reason was not based on a routine scientific dispute:
Einstein's opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasingly mathematical approach of theoretical physics collided with the then widely held view that science is essentially simple mechanics, comprehensible to every educated layperson.
One of the many opponents of relativity was described as having an attitude about the advancement relativity represented that was a danger to science itself because "nothing better symbolised the modern specialisation and incomprehensibility of science than relativity." In other words, science was leaving behind those unable to understand its newest findings.
This attitude seems very similar to those who deny in today's world things like climate change, evolution, and the effectiveness of vaccinations. This attitude of something being wrong because it's not easily understood also seems to be included in many of the claims of fundamentalist religious believers who push the idea that their religious doctrines trump new discoveries. They attempt to make arguments that try to include scientific objections, but I think their most detailed anti-science arguments generally reveal a lack of understanding instead.
Conspiracy theorists are just one of these modern attempts to undercut science. They make the attempt by trying to poke holes in scientific findings and assertions in which they hope people will insert their conspiracy theories as the only valid alternatives, even though their objections often fall short of being scientifically viable--letting alone the invalid nature of the conspiracy theory itself. This strategy can only work for people who do not understand the science in play and can easily substitute something they think they do understand.
One final point is that religious-based objections are likely to challenge science being okay with information yet to be discovered. Religion is more comforting to many believers because it always has a god figure to fill any gap of information. Since science doesn't provide a way to automatically put something in the place of missing knowledge, it is too difficult to understand and, therefore, rejected.
Self-Defense of Beliefs
In a recent Time article called "How to Win Every Argument" there is a 2004 study cited that I have wished for a long time would be completed and hadn't realized it had been done. The study is a little different from my reasoning for doing it, but not by much. In this study, an MRI was done when people's political positions were challenged. It turns out that the areas of the brain where reason and logic are handled shut down when this happens. Instead, the study's authors assert, "...the parts of the brain that handle hostile attacks — the fight-or-flight response — lit up."
To me this makes perfect sense because it falls in line with an idea I hold that our beliefs can be so central to our sense of self that any attack on them is perceived no differently than a physical attack. I have said before that I thought the brain's perception of the self in this expanded way can provide insights into how we react when strongly held beliefs are challenged. If a person were to put up no defense when a staunch belief position is impugned, it would be just about the same as doing nothing when being physically assaulted.
In addition, for those of us who have incorporated strong beliefs into the definition of our self, to change those beliefs voluntarily is the equivalent of commuting suicide (or for conceptual reasons, a partial suicide), something we also strongly resist.
For me, the solution to this problem is to be taught (or teach ourselves) that belief itself should be seen as detrimental. Instead, we should look to always keep the door open to new information that will adjust what we think about literally anything.
The protection of our self is so primary to our nature of existence that our basic instincts come into play when we detect a threat, and the challenge to something we inflexibly hold to be true causes us to do whatever we can to eliminate the perceived jeopardy in which we find ourselves no differently than a material danger. We need to recognize this fault in ourselves (our selfs) and minimize it the best we can.
Also from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers: "Superstar lawyers and math whizzes and software entrepreneurs appear as first blush to lie outside ordinary experience. But they don't. They are products of history and community, of opportunity and legacy. Their success is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky—but all critical to making them who they are."
A recent article from Brain Pickings has two passages that also hint at this idea of self-protection being more than physical. One quote, from B.F. Skinner, includes the passage: "You tend to protect a bubble you’ve created and nurtured your entire life... Another, from the article's author: "The mind’s delusory tendencies, [David] McRaney explains, are just as vital as the automatic self-preservation processes of the body."
To me this makes perfect sense because it falls in line with an idea I hold that our beliefs can be so central to our sense of self that any attack on them is perceived no differently than a physical attack. I have said before that I thought the brain's perception of the self in this expanded way can provide insights into how we react when strongly held beliefs are challenged. If a person were to put up no defense when a staunch belief position is impugned, it would be just about the same as doing nothing when being physically assaulted.
In addition, for those of us who have incorporated strong beliefs into the definition of our self, to change those beliefs voluntarily is the equivalent of commuting suicide (or for conceptual reasons, a partial suicide), something we also strongly resist.
For me, the solution to this problem is to be taught (or teach ourselves) that belief itself should be seen as detrimental. Instead, we should look to always keep the door open to new information that will adjust what we think about literally anything.
The protection of our self is so primary to our nature of existence that our basic instincts come into play when we detect a threat, and the challenge to something we inflexibly hold to be true causes us to do whatever we can to eliminate the perceived jeopardy in which we find ourselves no differently than a material danger. We need to recognize this fault in ourselves (our selfs) and minimize it the best we can.
In Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell hits on this point this way in describing one example of a deep cultural behavior that needed to be overcome: "To
become a success at what they did, they had to shed some part of
their own identity..."
Also from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers: "Superstar lawyers and math whizzes and software entrepreneurs appear as first blush to lie outside ordinary experience. But they don't. They are products of history and community, of opportunity and legacy. Their success is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky—but all critical to making them who they are."
A recent article from Brain Pickings has two passages that also hint at this idea of self-protection being more than physical. One quote, from B.F. Skinner, includes the passage: "You tend to protect a bubble you’ve created and nurtured your entire life... Another, from the article's author: "The mind’s delusory tendencies, [David] McRaney explains, are just as vital as the automatic self-preservation processes of the body."
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Comedic Truth
There are an unlimited supply of examples of comedy providing an insight into some truth we have failed to see, but can humor also be a mask to hide the truth or promote a lie? It's hard for me to think of something that's actually funny (instead of mean or insulting in the attempt) that boosts a falsehood. (There are probably examples, but I think they must be rare.) Can the level of true humor derived from a revelation be a kind of truth-detector?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Proof For Non-Existence
If a company truly can't exist if paying workers a wage so they can, that is proof the company should not exist.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Practically Unfair
It often said in many different ways that the problem of violence against women should not include (or not have to include) learning how to minimize their risks. Instead, the thinking goes, our efforts should be aimed at teaching men to end their bad behavior. While this sentiment certainly has an appropriate ethical basis, it's too idealistic for current conditions and ignores relevant practical considerations. For the same reasons that motorcycle riders are taught (or learn) how to take what should be unnecessary steps to reduce their risks of injury or death from others on the road who don't follow the rules, those who are at risk from any unethical behavior by others need to accept and act upon the unfair reality in which we live. While we should certainly put the bulk of our efforts in teaching people to respect one another and not engaging in destructive behaviors, to ignore the unfortunate and current need for potential victims to take precautions is a practical necessity until things change.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
The Myth of Mythical Differences
For those who support the supernatural idea of a "collective unconscious" between all humans (and maybe even all forms of life) the basis for the claim is at least partly based on the idea that it would be impossible otherwise for different ancient populations to have developed similar myths. They assert that the lives of these separated groups were too different to have resulted in myths that have so many commonalities. I find this an untenable position that overlooks the fact that human life on this planet is necessarily similar in most major respects. Here are a few:
1) All humans tend to live for about as long as everyone else. There are no cases of individuals, or groups of individuals, living for hundreds or thousands of years.
2) The sky contains the sun, the moon, stars and planets no matter from where it is viewed.
3) We all know that fire destroys, provides light and produces heat.
4) Water is always located in rivers, lakes and oceans that all have the same basic traits.
5) Water falls from the sky everywhere; clouds are missing from no place on the planet.
6) The experience of a steady cycle of light and darkness is universal.
7) Animals are easily divided between those that swim in water, fly through the air, and walk on the ground.
8) There are constant threats of injury or death from other humans and animals.
9) No human population as a unique birth process.
10) All animals have blood.
11) There are always two sexes.
12) Every human (and other animals) needs to sleep regularly.
13) Some plants are poisonous to us; some are hallucinogens.
14) We all have hair.
15) We all discovered the usefulness of tools.
16) We all are susceptible to getting sick--and getting better.
17) We all walk on two legs, upright.
18) We all argue and fight.
19) Children grow up at about the same rate.
20) We all experience wind and changes in temperature.
21) We all figure out what floats and what sinks in water.
22) We all dream.
23) We all have some sort of marriage/family structure that is recognized by everyone else.
24) We all need to eat and drink to survive (also experiencing thirst and hunger), and do so on a similar schedule as everyone else.
25) No one is exempt from pain.
26) When someone is noticeably different from the rest of the group, that difference is not ignored.
27) We all use language.
28) Objects fall to the ground (don't float or move sideways).
29) We all have sex drives and go through puberty.
30) We all have parents.
Given these commonalities (among many others), it would be bizarre if our ancestors' myths were any less common than they are. There are obviously differences between groups of people, too, but we have many more basic things in common--many of them so simple and basic that we often don't notice them--making the commonalities between myths no mystery at all.
1) All humans tend to live for about as long as everyone else. There are no cases of individuals, or groups of individuals, living for hundreds or thousands of years.
2) The sky contains the sun, the moon, stars and planets no matter from where it is viewed.
3) We all know that fire destroys, provides light and produces heat.
4) Water is always located in rivers, lakes and oceans that all have the same basic traits.
5) Water falls from the sky everywhere; clouds are missing from no place on the planet.
6) The experience of a steady cycle of light and darkness is universal.
7) Animals are easily divided between those that swim in water, fly through the air, and walk on the ground.
8) There are constant threats of injury or death from other humans and animals.
9) No human population as a unique birth process.
10) All animals have blood.
11) There are always two sexes.
12) Every human (and other animals) needs to sleep regularly.
13) Some plants are poisonous to us; some are hallucinogens.
14) We all have hair.
15) We all discovered the usefulness of tools.
16) We all are susceptible to getting sick--and getting better.
17) We all walk on two legs, upright.
18) We all argue and fight.
19) Children grow up at about the same rate.
20) We all experience wind and changes in temperature.
21) We all figure out what floats and what sinks in water.
22) We all dream.
23) We all have some sort of marriage/family structure that is recognized by everyone else.
24) We all need to eat and drink to survive (also experiencing thirst and hunger), and do so on a similar schedule as everyone else.
25) No one is exempt from pain.
26) When someone is noticeably different from the rest of the group, that difference is not ignored.
27) We all use language.
28) Objects fall to the ground (don't float or move sideways).
29) We all have sex drives and go through puberty.
30) We all have parents.
Given these commonalities (among many others), it would be bizarre if our ancestors' myths were any less common than they are. There are obviously differences between groups of people, too, but we have many more basic things in common--many of them so simple and basic that we often don't notice them--making the commonalities between myths no mystery at all.
Solo Relationships
We now live in a world where we often hear life-advice that pushes the idea that we need "to love ourselves first" before any real happiness can be attained--or something similar. I've always had a problem with this maxim because it trows out the basic truism that our existence is always going to be infused with other people, meaning that learning to love and support others is mandatory for a happy life. It would be like trying to learn to fly while ignoring the necessity for air.
With that in mind, here is a rare article that covers this topic in a way that makes much more sense than the way so many others promote shunning or minimizing strong and intimate relationships in order to be happy. This is in opposition to supposed gurus who mainly look at relationships--if they look at them at all--in the narrow and selfish context of how others will benefit them. (It also seems that those who promote this individualistic vieware usually wealthy enough to not need others to survive.)
With that in mind, here is a rare article that covers this topic in a way that makes much more sense than the way so many others promote shunning or minimizing strong and intimate relationships in order to be happy. This is in opposition to supposed gurus who mainly look at relationships--if they look at them at all--in the narrow and selfish context of how others will benefit them. (It also seems that those who promote this individualistic vieware usually wealthy enough to not need others to survive.)
Saturday, May 24, 2014
House, Woman, Donkey
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or
anything that belongs to your neighbor. --Exodus 20:17
Including women in a list that includes houses and donkeys should make it clear that women are also to be seen as mere objects literally belonging to men, making it hard to understand how people still claim the ancient code from where this came can't be discarded in favor of any number of improvements since then.
Including women in a list that includes houses and donkeys should make it clear that women are also to be seen as mere objects literally belonging to men, making it hard to understand how people still claim the ancient code from where this came can't be discarded in favor of any number of improvements since then.
Intelligence? I Think Not
It has been said in various ways that the more intelligent one becomes the less confidence one has in any finding or assertion of fact. Given that thought, it should be no surprise that increasing brainpower is not pursued by more people.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Hiding Relationships With Language
It would probably improve our perception of the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the animal kingdom if we used the same words to describe similar behavior. For example, instead of using forms of the word migration to describe movements of non-human animals, we should try using forms of the word nomad, the word we use to describe similar movements of human hunter-gatherer societies.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Return of The Monty Hall Problem!
Well, this is back again...causing arguments! If you don't agree with the conclusion in the video, I hope the way I see it helps...
Try looking at this in a group format with two groups, A and B. Group A has a single door (the one the contestant chose) and group B has the remaining two. It should be clear that there is a 1/3 chance the prize is in group A and a 2/3 chance the prize is in group B. When the host eliminates one of the doors in group B, the contestant is being done a favor by being told the reaming door in group B has the 2/3 chance of having the prize that could formerly only be applied to the group as a whole.
Try looking at this in a group format with two groups, A and B. Group A has a single door (the one the contestant chose) and group B has the remaining two. It should be clear that there is a 1/3 chance the prize is in group A and a 2/3 chance the prize is in group B. When the host eliminates one of the doors in group B, the contestant is being done a favor by being told the reaming door in group B has the 2/3 chance of having the prize that could formerly only be applied to the group as a whole.
Praising Nastiness
Wherever profits can be made they will always be sought with uncaring diligence, meaning that the things making up a society's core structure should be off limits to that unfortunate human trait so every individual has a solid foundation from which to pursue happiness.
"The great merit of the capitalist system, it has been said, is that it succeeds in using the nastiest motives of nasty people for the ultimate benefit of society." --E. A. G. Robinson
"The great merit of the capitalist system, it has been said, is that it succeeds in using the nastiest motives of nasty people for the ultimate benefit of society." --E. A. G. Robinson
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
The Past Fails as Standard-Bearer
"Trash heap of history" and "ash heap of history" are a few of the versions of a common saying that doesn't look upon our past favorably, yet we also have many people who try to bring it back by seeing them as "the good ol' days" or something similar. Our past should be seen critically, using it as a teaching tool integrated with a goal of continuous improvement for all of us. While not all of history should be seen as part of a garbage heap, looking to emulate the past is foolish.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
#Prayers
Hashtag campaigns seem to be similar to prayers: They allow people to feel like they're doing something without actually having to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
