Society « The Ramblings of An Eternal Student of Life

Saturday, April 30, 2016

◊ Integrative Complexity In The Public Restroom

Current Affairs ... Politics ... Society ...

Philip Tetlock is a professor and researcher at the at the University of Pennsylvania, and his specialty is a combination of psychology and political science. One of Tetlock’s noted concepts is called “integrative complexity“, which is the degree to which a person’s thinking and reasoning integrates and acknowledges a wide variety of perspectives and possibilities regarding an important issue. Tetlock’s research shows that American politicians whose positions and speeches demonstrate a LOW level of integrative complexity tend to be more successful. I doubt if Donald Trump is included in the research behind Tetlock’s conclusion, but Trump sure does nail the point home!! The fine art of looking for the complex truth and the middle ground in an increasingly complex world is increasingly being disregarded in the way that we now choose our leaders and make our societal decisions.

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the recent controversy about tran-gender rights especially with regard to use of public rest facilities. I’m going to assume that the reader is familiar with the current situation whereby certain local governments have triggered a political dust-up by responding to demands from LGBT activists that public bathrooms which are designated by sex (i.e., the great majority of restrooms, given that unisex restrooms are a fairly recent social development) be available for use on the basis of psychological identification of sex, and not exclusively upon the user’s biological sex. The recent case in point was in Charlotte NC, which enacted ordinances saying that all sexually-designated restrooms in town that are available to the public (whether in a government facility or in a private establishment like a store or restaurant) can be used based on “identity” and not on the biological sex at birth. This would assure that a trans-gendered person would not get into trouble by using the rest room of the sex that they identify with, as opposed to the sex of their birth (and usually the sex of their bodies, barring a sex-reassignment operation, which around 25 to 30 percent of transgendered people obtain).

That move triggered the State of North Carolina to enact a law blocking such local actions, and specifying that all sexually assigned public facilities will be used based on sex of birth. Other states and towns are now » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 11:13 pm Read Comments (6) / Leave a Comment

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

◊ Is Religion Becoming Extinct?

Religion ... Society ... Spirituality ... Technology ...

I recently posted a blog about an article that I came across via Real Clear Science regarding whether the human race could become extinct in the foreseeable future. Now I want to ponder another recent article from Real Clear Science regarding extinction. This time the question is whether religion is on the way to becoming extinct, courtesy of the wonders of modern science. The article was written by RCS editor Ross Pomeroy, a zoologist and biologist. OK, with those credentials, you can assume that Pomeroy knows a thing or two about extinction, and about the wonders of science. But is he right that science will inevitably become humankind’s new religion? To me, this smacks of “scientism“, which I have already expressed my reservations about.
‎
Pomeroy claims that science will become the new “faith of humankind”. He notes the writings of Sir James George Frazer, who said that religion, science, and magic are similar conceptions, providing a framework for how the world works and guiding our actions. Frazer said that humanity moved through an Age of Magic before entering an Age of Religion. So, Pomeroy asks, “is an Age of Science finally taking hold?” At the end of his article, he concludes that

One of science’s primary aims is to seek out knowledge that will hopefully better our world and the lives of all who live on it . . . so not only does science dispel religious belief, it also serves as an effective substitute for it.

Given that Pomeroy is a scientist himself, we expect that he will provide empirical evidence to support his claim. And indeed, he does offer some interesting statistics » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 7:44 am Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

◊ Is War About More Than Blood and Mud?

History ... Society ...

Every now and then I come across an historical speculation article that ponders the question of what would have happened had Germany had won the First World War. One of the more interesting of these articles appeared several years ago on the Guardian web site. The article raises an interesting and thought provoking question — was WW1 really about anything? Here’s a quote from the article:

[We are] likely to witness plenty of debate about . . . whether the war achieved anything. At present, argument about the war mainly consists of two mutually uncomprehending camps. On the one hand, there are those who, as Margaret MacMillan put it recently, think the war was “an unmitigated catastrophe in a sea of mud”. On the other, there are those who insist that it was nevertheless “about something”.

Hmmm. So what WAS World War 1 about? What is any war about? For most of history, wars were ultimately about a nation or tribe trying to increase its strength and economic well-being at the expense of some other nation or tribe; or conversely, trying to keep its strength and economic well-being from being taken away by some other nation or tribe.

Nonetheless, there is sometimes a “higher theory” behind a war. Often in the past, this has involved religion. The fight was for God! One group assumed that the other group had an improper and dangerous concept of what God is and what God demands of us, e.g. the Crusades or the many European Protestant-Catholic battles in the 16th and 17th Centuries (and yes, modern radical Islamic violence, with the current day poster-child being ISIS). Occasionally, one side assumes that its opponents entirely and wrongfully deny the existence of God, e.g. the 40 year “Cold War” which pitted the enlightened West against “Godless Communism” (let’s not forget that the war against Communism became pretty hot » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 2:27 am Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, February 25, 2016

◊ Bernie and The Donald: YUGE !!

Politics ... Society ...

I’m not a philologist or etymologist, but when you read a lot of stuff about politics on the internet like I do, you notice the occasional word trend or catch-phrase evolving. The latest fashion in language appears to be a spelling substitution . . . instead of using the word “huge”, the trendy editors are writing “yuge”. For example, in this CBS News article, Bernie Sanders thanked his supporters after his victory in the New Hampshire Democratic primary two weeks ago, saying “Tonight, with what appears to be a record-breaking turnout, because of a ‘yuge’ voter turnout — and I say ‘yuge’ — we won”.

Now, why did the editor of that article believe that Senator Sanders intended the new “Y” variant of the old adjective “huge” to be used? I’ve read that that this new spelling variant is a take-off on Donald Trump, who often uses the word “huge” in his speeches and comments. Because of his New York accent, Trump stresses the “YE” sound at the beginning of the word. Perhaps he also adds this lilt for impact and emphasis. That would be very Donald Trump-like. And actually, Sanders is also a native Brooklynite despite his Vermont credentials, so it’s possible that his pronunciation is similar. In print, “yuge” attempts to capture the accent, along with the political urgency behind the usage.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of the “yuge” movement. The English language is famous for the fact that most words are not spelled phonetically. And perhaps that is for the best, given all the accents and variations with which the language is verbalized. For example, in Boston, a “car” would be spelled » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:21 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

◊ John McWhorter or Ta-Nehisi Coates?

Current Affairs ... Society ...

If you want to be a respected and respectable liberal today and your racial heritage is Euro-Caucasian, it’s pretty clear that you need to support Ta-Nehisi Coates (even if he wasn’t looking for your support; I suppose that fact makes it seem all the more real). Earlier in my life, I definitely wanted to be a respected and respectable liberal. But at the same time I was never a guy who likes to follow a crowd; and at some point in my life, it occurred to me that liberals like to follow trends as much as conservatives do. And they often made up complicated but questionable reasons to act like lemmings, post hoc. Just like any other tribe, little or big.

So, as you might guess, I’m not necessarily in awe of the writings and views of Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding modern American racial matters. I’ve been reading The Atlantic Magazine for about 20 years now, and thus I’ve been familiar with Mr. Coates’ writings for quite some time. He originally wrote small pieces reflecting on the American Civil War and its implications for black history — and how those implications weren’t always as sunny and positive for blacks as many non-black Americans might think. Eventually he was allowed to publish longer pieces addressing more modern racial issues, and his tone at first seemed to balance challenge with reserve. However, within the past two years or so, he’s come into his own, offering wholesale indictments of white America (see his recent blockbuster book, “Between the World And Me“), along with sentencing recommendations (i.e., his call for reparations).

There was a recent dust-up when Democratic-Socialist presidential nomination candidate Bernie Sanders rejected Coate’s reparations idea, and Coates immediately attacked Sanders (in an intellectual fashion, of course). It’s interesting to see that » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 9:21 pm Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, December 31, 2015

◊ Teaching Children to Code, Down Under

Current Affairs ... Society ... Technology ...

I recently read about how some western nations (including Great Britain and Germany) are teaching elementary school students computer coding and programming as part of their required curriculum. Back in September, Australia made computer coding and programming a required part of the school curriculum from 5th grade on up. These lessons aren’t an occasional project or a one-semester deal; starting from the age of 10, computer programming skills become an integral part of the Australian student’s school-day. In order to make time for this, the Australian schools are cutting back on their geography and history lessons; these topics will no longer be “stand alone” subjects. A new “Humanities and Social Sciences” subject will merge the existing topics of history, geography, economics, business and civics and citizenship into a single learning area from the 5th grade on.

I don’t know all of the details of Australia’s plan, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that I don’t like it. I consider myself a science and computer geek, and I’m all in favor of using our education system to prepare today’s children for the world in which they will live (and try to make a living). And that clearly means more emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math (“STEM” as the popular acronym goes). And yet . . . we can’t shortchange the classic mission of preparing our youth to be thinking citizens who can appreciate and defend the noble and yet frail ideal of civilization. Perhaps I’m wrong, but the general drift of the new Australia plan seems to put less emphasis into “humanities and social sciences”, by placing a greater share of school resources into science, tech and computer skills.

In my humble opinion, teaching 10 year olds the ins and outs of do-loops and IF/THEN statements and database queries and object instantiation is not going to guarantee them a place in the modern high-tech world. Sure, some introduction into computing logic at that age is needed; schools need to build the learning foundations that future computer people will need. But really — like an 8th grader should or even could become ready for a job with Apple or Google? Or be able to » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 10:56 pm Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

Sunday, November 22, 2015

◊ Driverless Cars . . . A Bumpy Road to Revolution

Current Affairs ... Society ... Technology ...

Driverless cars are now being developed by a number of high-tech enterprises that are out to make a buck . . . eventually (this is not an easy way to get rich quick). The most famous driverless car venture is probably led by Google, which has set-up a small fleet of prototypes and has actually been trying them out in the real world. Some people think that driverless cars will start being sold and regularly used between 2020 and 2025 (5 to 10 years from now). That’s going to be interesting.

I’ve seen a number of articles (e.g., here and here and here and here and here) about the moral quandaries that the designers of driverless cars will need to face. When you make and sell a regular car controlled by a human, you don’t worry so much about the moment-to-moment decisions being made by the driver (although increasingly, automated systems in the car constantly monitor what the driver is doing, and try to warn the driver when they or someone else near them does something really bad . . . like when they are about to ram someone else’s vehicle while backing up in a parking lot, or when they start making a left while an oncoming truck is getting too close). When you design and sell a driverless car, by contrast, you have to program all of the driving decisions into the vehicle. So, in effect it’s you, the builder of the car, who makes the big decisions (through the computer program that you put into the vehicle to run it).

As such, people such as philosophy professors are pointing out that those who program these cars will need to decide what to do in morally conflicting situations. E.g., say your driverless car is cruising down the road, and it detects that a group of four people have suddenly run out into the road » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:33 am Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, November 5, 2015

◊ Some Tribal Thoughts

Brain / Mind ... Society ...

“Let me let you in on a little secret,” said [former Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice, a Stanford Graduate School of Business professor. “There is no such thing as an international community. There are self-maximizing, self-interested states that will push their interests as far as possible.”

This quote comes from a recent article about Russian President Vladimir Putin on the Bloomberg site. The article says some interesting things about Putin, but the grander implications of Rice’s quote have attracted my attention. That is, for the human race as a whole, tribalism trumps one-world mentality.

The question of whether humans are hopelessly tribal or are moving (however slowly) towards a “one humanity / one planet” mentality is an important one; it ultimately forms the foundation on which every nation, especially the most powerful ones, build their foreign policies. It sets the tone on how we act in getting along with other peoples from other nations. Can we proceed with ultimate trust, or do we need to forever stay on the defensive? The question applies not only at the international scale, but in our own lives today, as we increasingly interact with peoples and groups who have different customs and cultures than our own (whether they currently live within or without our national boarders).

Obviously then, the tribalism question has become a political one. Liberals say that tribalism is not destiny. Here’s a good quote from Rosabeth Moss Kanter in the Huffington Post:

Some social scientists say that in-group/out-group biases are hard-wired into the human brain. Even without overt prejudice, it is cognitively convenient for people » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 9:06 pm Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

Thursday, September 17, 2015

◊ Big Gods for Big Government?

Religion ... Society ...

A recent book written by an anthropologist says that as humans transitioned from small hunting and gathering tribes (up to around 15,000 years ago) to bigger and more organized societies (based at first around agriculture, and later also on crafts and trade), they needed to develop “big gods”. Big gods who always keep an eye on us were supposedly needed to inspire people to cooperate with the social and governmental networks that started to develop around the year 8000 BCE. Eventually, one really big “God” was imagined, and monotheism was in business. As was the growth of earthly empires. Other researchers have been pondering this idea, but argue that perhaps societies only needed mini-gods (e.g., magic or nature spirits, or personal superstitions) to keep societies growing. The monotheistic God of Islam and Judeo-Christianity arguably came about by some other process.

The overall idea here is that growing social networks with increasing centralized power (i.e. led by kings and pharaohs) invents god and religion so that it can foster voluntary cooperation among the masses, an internal mental policing to build and maintain trust. The king and his men can’t keep an eye on you all the time, so they rely on a popularly-imagined “big power in the sky” to make sure you stay in line, by threatening you with a cursed life here on earth, or eternal damnation in the next life, if you don’t play nice.

Hmmmm. Interesting idea, one very popular in today’s academic climate where evolution is believed to have the power to explain every social and personal behavioral pattern and belief. THE PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY: unless “big god / big religion” is simply a social meme that was cleverly invented and intentionally promoted by those trying to start big government structures (kingdoms, Pharaohs, etc.) — possible, but were the ancient rulers really all that smart? — it goes against the principle in evolutionary genetics that individuals are NOT selected for traits that cause them to sacrifice for the group (i.e., the disfavored theory of “group selection“). This idea is expressly rejected » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 5:22 pm Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

Sunday, August 9, 2015

◊ Structural Racism . . . Everywhere and Nowhere

Current Affairs ... Public Policy ... Society ...

The New Yorker recently published perhaps the first personal profile of former Ferguson, MO Police Officer Darren Wilson since he shot and killed 18 year old Michael Brown. Wilson obviously met with and cooperated extensively with writer Jake Halpern, who gave a detailed overview of Wilson’s life and career experience leading up to the Brown shooting, and since that time. At first, I found the article to be fair and quite informative, a well-needed focus on the perspective of Wilson, given that he unwittingly became involved in an incident where the media overwhelmingly focuses upon the victim and the many reactions from the public. In the end, however, I was disappointed by this article. Halpern had an agenda after all, a very familiar one for media such as the New Yorker; basically, to use Wilson as exhibit 1 in explicating the faults of whites in general, and white police officers in particular, in dealing with African Americans in an organizational context.

Halpern spoke in some detail about Wilson’s choice to work in North County outside St. Louis, as it was a more challenging environment for a police officer than a quieter, more affluent suburb. While working for a different but near-by police agency prior to his employment in Ferguson (in Jennings, MO), Wilson made the acquaintance of Mike McCarthy, another white officer (a field-training officer). McCarthy seemed to have a better understanding than Wilson did of the minority communities they were patrolling, and thus Wilson asked him for guidance in how to best deal with the people living in these areas. Wilson admitted to “culture shock” while addressing McCarthy, who agreed to help Wilson. Halpern seems to indicate that McCarthy’s efforts weren’t in vain, and that Wilson appeared better able to work in relatively high-crime minority communities because of it.

Halpern obviously asks McCarthy how he felt about the Brown killing. McCarthy’s reaction was that Wilson was basically doing his job, doing what any police officer in that situation would have to do, and that the tragic outcome did not have to do with Brown being black and Wilson being white. But of course, Halpern was not satisfied with this, so he pushed McCarthy further. Was it possible, Halpern wanted to know, » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 3:40 pm Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment

TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »