Categories
Things I think

religion and emotion

Update: fixed those typos in there. /shrug Sorry you had to read it like that. 😛

I heard on This American Life recently a story about the original Hell House. A hell house being like a haunted house put on by a church to show ways of getting to hell in an attempt to scare people, usually the young, into joining the flock. In the story they describe how the hell house being covered did scenes of rape, suicide, and school shootings. It sounded pretty intense and graphic.

These scenes generate intense emotional states. I don’t deny that religion can have strong emotional appeal. After just witnessing the senseless murder of a beautiful young person full of potential it seems a natural emotional response would be to want to believe that the evil doers get punished and the innocent get rewarded.

Hell houses put paying visitors through an emotional ringer, specifically designed to manipulate people into being primed for the finale, where they are asked to pray with the church, and join. Those who don’t agree to, have to walk past those who do, so they can be identified and shunned. This is a very powerful use of emotional and social pressure. In this instance the church asks you to abandon reason and thought and bow to your emotions and the will of those around you.

But they don’t always encourage such behavior. The church tells you to ignore the emotional and social pressures to have sex, for example, except in very special circumstances from which they profit. Many of the teachings of the church are about controlling ones emotions and going against one’s nature. It is natural to have sex out of wedlock, it is natural to covet, it is natural to kill. I mean, when you’re very angry if you ignored reason and went with your emotions, don’t you think you might have killed someone by now?

This is called internal inconsistency and it’s a bad sign. Any time you come across a belief system of any sort that doesn’t promote or discourage the same basic beliefs in all circumstances you should be worried. It means either that what you think is the core belief isn’t, or that the organization is just changing the rules as is convenient. In the case of the church, it’s the former. The church doesn’t actually support making decisions with your emotions. That’s just a tool they are using against reason. It supports making decisions with the church.

As Glenn Beck or someone else on Fox would say, tricking children into believing what you want them to is despicable, and it reminds me of the Third Reich.

Categories
Things I think

GMO

GMO apparently stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. For the purposes of this post I really only care about the crop type of organism. Any sort we eat, so I guess cows could count, or whatever.

I’m making this post cause I had a discussion with Lauren about the subject. She asked the questions and I angrily spewed the answers. She’s in Europe, where people are most afraid of GM anything, so that’s why she got to ask the questions.

So, I think GMO’s are good, and that the Europeans opposed to them are douche bags. Let’s try and explain why.

Issue #1: We don’t know the long term effects!

Response: So? I suspect that won’t be satisfactory for many, so I’ll elaborate.

First, we don’t know the long term effects of anything. The Europeans accept cell phones and pills and food additives like the rest of the modern world, so what’s the deal? The stuff in GM food is not completely foreign. Usually it’s just more of the stuff that was there before. Possibly it’s something from another food, like fish proteins in tomatoes, or whatever. But it’s safe in a fish, what’s the big deal with eating it in a tomato.

Second, if you’re worried about the environmental impact, which frankly makes more sense than personal health risk, there are many strict regulations about the development and production of GM crops, to attempt to eliminate any negative environmental impacts. But even if they fail, the impact of not having GM crops is not zero. GM crops reduces the amount of land humans need to occupy with farms, so it’s good for the environment in that regard. Also, GM crops can be grown in more varied climates, allowing food to be grown closer to where it is needed, reducing the impact of transporting the goods. GM crops resist pests on their own, meaning farmers don’t have to spray pesticides, a far more efficient and environmentally friendly way of maximizing crop yields. GM crops can last longer on shelves, meaning less waste, also environmentally beneficial. Oh, and btw, lots of people are starving and GM crops could fix that, so a risk to the environment might be worth taking.

Third, it’s not like there’s no testing going on as to the safety of the these foods. GM foods are regulated by more agencies in the US than anywhere, and subject to stricter standards than any other type of thing we put into our bodies. Those of us who eat GM food have been doing so without noticeable impact for more than a decade, so that’s something, right?

Fourth, it’s not like non-GM food is exactly natural. We’ve been using artificial selection to modify the genetics of our food since well before we new the earth was round. Cows don’t exist in nature. The seedless grape is basically an evolutionary impossibility, if it weren’t for us tinkering. We’ve done it the old way for millennia and we’ve survived, and the old way is dangerously inefficient and messy. In trying to positively affect a few traits we may be negatively affecting hundreds of others without even knowing, which just can’t happen with the new GM technologies.

Issue #2: What if I’m allergic?

Response: The only way you’d be allergic to a GM food is if they transferred a gene that’s product you were allergic to already into a new food, which could technically happen. They will try really hard not to do that, though, because the goal is to make food more edible, not less. In fact, with GM technologies, they’ll soon have allergen free versions of the foods most commonly causing serious allergic reactions.

You are less likely to be allergic to GM food than anything else you eat that you’ve never tried before. Oh yeah, and millions of people are starving, maybe you could suck it up.

Issue #3: There’s already enough food, it just doesn’t get distributed correctly.

Response: Resounding SO? Who cares if there is enough food? Fact is, if there were more, it would be easier to distribute, and cheaper to buy. Also, just cause there’s enough food now, doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to plan ahead. There’ll be an extra 3 billion people on the planet pretty soon, and I bet they would like to eat the same amount as I would. Not to mention potential problems caused by climate change.

We should work on figuring out how to move food around better, but that’s a separate issue from whether GM foods are a safe and good idea. And GM foods could help with the issue, making foods that travel better, grow in more locations, and increasing the amount of food we have available to move if we need to.

Issue #4: The problem is that food is too expensive, and GM seeds are the most expensive of all.

Response: Well, this also has nothing to do with it’s efficacy and safety, but I’ll address the concern anyway.

First, not always true. If it was then GM food would be more expensive than normal food, and it’s not. If it was more expensive, then nobody would care, and this whole discussion wouldn’t even exist.

Second, in the cases where it is true that poor farmers can’t afford the seeds the fact that Europe is not buying the product of those seeds can’t be helping. The purchasing power of Europe, also it’s proximity to many poor nations, could have a dramatic impact on the cost benefit calculation. Also, European trade policy has several unfavorable implications for nations that try and export GM foods that act as further disincentives against the poor to take the initial risk and grow the crops they could use to feed their less fortunate countrymen, or yield enough to finally move beyond subsistence living.

Douche baggy Europeans, and the hippy Americans buying “organic” have used their wealth to opt to spend more to irrationally avoid “weird” GM crops and in so doing have chosen for others to starve to death. And now, as the financial price of their decision grows, they are beginning to flip, revealing that they are not willing to sacrifice more than a few mocha lattes a week for your “principles”, proving they either didn’t have any to begin with, or that they don’t really hold them strongly. Certainly not strongly enough to justify contributing to the whole starving children problem.

So, in conclusion, there are millions of people starving to death and GM crops would help. I win.

Categories
Things I think

Why isn’t it ok to use reason to prove that reason is reasonable?

Last week I was watching the trailer stuff on Collision, here‘s a bunch of it, and there’s a clip (about halfway through the second video) in which Douglas Wilson, he’s the God exists guy, says something to effect of, it’s not fair for you to use reason to justify basing your world view of reason if I can’t use the Bible to justify basing my world view on the Bible. Now, obviously one can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible is right, that’s clear circular reasoning, so what’s wrong with this statement.

The question becomes, why isn’t it ok to use reason to prove that reason is reasonable? And the answer, of course, is that it is ok, because he’s making the logical fallacy of the false analogy. Reason is not the same as the Bible, or any book. Reason is a system of thought, a methodology, whereas the Bible is just a book, a reference. Reason is like the verbal equivalent of math. One can use math to prove more math, in fact, that’s what mathematics is. That’s what those mathematicians do all day, and that’s part of why society is getting better at building bridges and rockets and cotton candy makers.

In attempting to make his arguments, Douglas Wilson is forced to appeal to reason, because it is the only way of getting to the truth. In raising the issue I’m addressing here, he appealed to reason, trying to use reason to disprove reason. Even if he made sense, in his success he’d only be hindering his own argument. He’s trapped in a catch 22 because he’s unwilling to get rid of unreasonable beliefs but is incapable of abolishing reason.

If he really wanted to base everything on the Bible, he’d have to retort any argument with a quote from scripture. He doesn’t do that because there’s isn’t enough Bible to do so, and even if there was, if you hang your whole world view on a single reference, one need only discredit the Bible, which is ridiculously simple, to discredit the worldview.

It’s somewhat difficult to understand what reason is because it is so fundamental, and it is appealing to accept Mr. Wilson’s analogy initially because there is the similarity between reason and the Bible in that those on each side of the debate frequently refer to each. However, upon just a little reflection the analogy clearly falls apart. The Bible itself uses reason throughout trying to convince it’s readers of it’s claims. Reason is the method by which arguments are presented and trying to find an answer or present an idea without reason is ludicrous. Take away the Bible and two people can still debate whether there is a higher power. Take away reason, and the conversation turns into something like,

Statement: “Nuh uh!”

Retort: “Ya huh!”

Statement: “Nuh uh!”

Retort: “Ya huh!”

or

Statement: “I believe in a supernatural higher power because bubblegum is chewy.”

Retort: “I disagree and I can prove my way of thinking because I’m hungry and I hate asphalt.”

So, if you disagree, feel free to comment. Remember though, no using reason in your argument.

Categories
Things I think

Titling the last two posts identically was an accident

I was recently struck by the idea that sci fi isn’t very realistic. I actually think this all the time. Whenever I see non-cyborg humans and stuff, I’m like, why wouldn’t they just have robots doing that, and such. But this time the thought lead me to a different conclusion.

You know how we have first world problems? Like, right now I have the problem that because I mounted my TV on the other side of the living room I can only use wireless to hook my PS3 to the network so I can’t watch HD streamed from the computer without it being kinda choppy. It’s just ruining my evening. See how that’s a lame problem compared to fighting for survival in my cave, or doing battle w/ swords, or all the problems they had back in the day? That issue will only continue into the future. So really sci-fi plot arcs should revolve around issues that seem ridiculously meaningless and shallow to us. Like maybe someone’s ipod femto breaks for 2 minutes or something and the main character has to listen to the sounds around him. And he gets so upset he sues Apple for a bajillion credits for damages, etc etc.

It’s the future!!

Categories
Things I think

Thesis: Emotional loop theory

It’s kinda an emotional time for those around.  Lots of leaving and graduating and separating happening.  I’m not a very emotional person.  I think more than I feel, at least as a general rule.

So, I was thinking about how I think and don’t feel and about this study I didn’t actual read more than the abstract of that said that writing reduces emotional response.  Apparently writing about your feelings decreases how much you feel them.  It doesn’t matter what kind of feelings, btw, so Pro Tip: only write about bad stuff.

Anyway, I get the sense that I feel less because I use thinking to kinda distract from feeling.  This provides the instant response repression function, but maybe it has other effects as well.  My default response to emotion is to analyse that emotion, so feelings provide their own counter for me.  Perhaps this is the mechanism for the emotion decreases effect of writing.  It makes intuitive sense.  Writing about how one feels forces one to think about the feeling and analyse it to some extent.  Once something’s been analyzed it is in the past, at least I think that’s how we perceive things.  In my head, stuff is the present until I’m done thinking about it, and then it’s the past until I forget about it, at which time it can become the present again.

I try often to help others to be more like me cause I think I’m pretty great.  In my lifetime of experience I find that responses to my techniques are usually somewhere between neutral and hostile.  I think the basic principle that it’s a good idea to identify and understand oneself and one’s feelings is sound, since it’s not exactly solely my own, but my teaching technique and delivery need tweaking.

I also think that the thinking about one’s feelings isn’t enough.  I mean, everyone thinks.  Most people think about themselves even more than I do.  And I know I’m not just faster than everyone, at least not to such a noticeable extent.  One possible hold up is loops.  Back in the days of Kait, she used to like me and trust me and be around me enough to pretty completely explain her thoughts to me, and often I found her thinking ran in cycles.  And she did too, I think, but she didn’t stop the cycles.  At least not as quickly as I would have.  And it’s not just a constant loop of emotion, it’s a loop of thought, the emotion builds.  It’s like if every time I think x I get a dose of anger.  The longer the loop goes the harder it is to see the loop and/or fix it since one is feeling ever more rage.

Most of these thoughts are pure conjecture, but I submit to you some small pieces of evidence.  I have observed two types of behavior that seem to compliment the loop theory.  A typical person who is experiencing an emotion they wish to reduce, obviously usually a negative emotion, exhibit a wide range of behaviors, but they can, at least mostly, be reduced to two categories.

Most are in the distraction category.  Many of the classic favorites are here.  The binge eating, the rebound, alcohol consumption are all ways of slowing the progression of the mind, slowing the loop.  Slowing the loop slows the rate of emotional change.  At least, if there is a loop, such distraction methods would have a perceived positive effect.  However, the effect would be temporary and imperfect, much as how the behaviors given as examples are.

The other behavior is the clean slate method.  People sometimes choose to wipe the slate clean, by going to sleep or passing out, but more often they are forced to it by the extent of the emotion.  I think of weeping as a slate cleaning behavior, or a violent outburst.  Such behaviors release large amounts of emotion, and then kinda serve as a reboot of the thought process after they are complete.  Often these acts are more useful than the distraction behaviors, but they are not perfect in that it often takes several iterations of these behaviors before the person is emotionally stable.  This fits with the loop theory on several levels.  The loop theory predicts ever increasing emotion which logically reaches some threshold beyond which it cannot be contained, resulting in these instinctual reset actions.  These resets are more helpful because they basically start the emotional level afresh, so the affected individual feels normal for a short time immediately after.  Additionally, since they trigger a reboot, there is opportunity for self evaluation to break the loop, so eventually a reboot breaks the cycle.

Now, if we accept this loop theory, what conclusions can we draw from it?  One of the important ones is the destructiveness of the distraction methods.  Not only do these behaviors tend to be negative or unhealthy in themselves, but they don’t serve a useful emotional healing purpose.  They slow the progression of loops, thus increasing the total level, when considering time, of emotional distress.  Further, they delay the date of eventual emotional restabilization.  This is plain if you imagine it takes n loops to return to normalcy, since distraction increases the time between loops, obviously employing distraction techniques will increase time before n loops occur.

The contrapositive of this is that the reset behaviors are good, or at least not bad.  I’d describe it as natural.  It’s ok to cry would seem correct.  At least when exhibiting those behaviors there is a chance to make progress.  Still, just because one is exhibiting the behavior does not mean, for a certainty, that one is making progress.  There is some key that, I think, is linked to the reset behavior, but does not require it.

I’m not sure, but I think that key is self evaluation through rational thought.  This should be coupled with realistic optimism for maximal effect.  Looking for the silver lining would be the appropriate colloquialism.

Obviously, even if any of this is correct, it brings up lots of questions.  One of interest to me is the idea of “talking about it”.  Women seem to talk about it, but I’m aware of one study in teen-aged girls that showed that talking about their problems made them last longer and affect them more negatively.  Misery loves company, and my own experience has told me that those in pain seek comfort from others in as similar a pain as they can find.

It seems logical to me that talking about it isn’t inherently bad, but that teen girls are just bad at it.  Probably not just teens either.  I’d guess that the type of “talking about it” that has a detrimental affect is the kind where each party involved plays on the other.  If the parties are involved in very similar emotions, then they can accelerate each other’s loops, and perhaps intensify the highs and lows.  This effect alone could be negative, since extreme emotional swings seem to have many undesirable side effects, but there could be more at play.  The talking might decrease the chance of breaking a loop, as it might require both/all parties to get out simultaneously.  What I mean is, if Person A has the revelation that would help them break the loop, but Person A is talking to another Person B and their relationship or conversation is such that Person A cannot leave the emotional state without Person B and Person A has little or no ability to help Person B reach the same revelation, then Person A might be pulled back into the loop, or be less likely to make the afore mentioned revelation at all.  Such a relationship would exist most easily, it seems to me, in cases of asymmetrical power distribution, or cases of extreme dependency between the parties.

However, it seems likely that a relationship scenario could exist that would have the opposite effect.  If the relationship between the parties is such that if either reaches the revelation point they can transfer that revelation to the other, that, over the system, would decrease the emotional suffering.  Alternatively, if the talk is with an unaffected or third party, this neutral party might be able to identify loops or critical elements that could lead to a revelation much more quickly than one could through biased and emotionally charged self evaluation.

So, in conclusion, my tips for people, especially friends, in emotional distress are:

  • Think about the emotions and why you feel them.  Think precisely.  Delve deeper.
  • Look for loops and break them where you find them.
  • Avoid distraction behavior.
  • Don’t be afraid or ashamed of resets.  Just make sure you don’t hurt yourself or others.
  • Writing can help.
  • Talking can probably help, but make sure it’s with someone who can help you, or else it’s probably hurting.

This is much more than I meant to write on the subject.  I’m tired.  Pretty sure I’ve said/heard this all before, but, I like to present things in my own way.

Future research/ponderings should:

  • Identify tactics for finding and breaking loops
  • Address the “talking about it” controversy more carefully
  • Identify and expand on errors, problems, and over simplifications found in the above model

Categories
Things I think

We’re too nice for the alt, though.

Categories
Things I think

On beyond zipper

I tired of zippers.  Shouldn’t there be something better by now?

Categories
Things I think

Why?

The screen that your computer shows, when nothing is open, the one with the Recycling Bin on it, it’s called the desktop.  The picture on top of the desktop… it’s called wallpaper.

… Why?

Categories
Things I think

Without much cause

I’m a rebel.  I’m not the classic TV rebel, in that I don’t wear leather, smoke, or drive a motorcycle.  Still, I think I qualify because when given a command my immediate inclination is to do the opposite, or at the very least, not comply.  I think this stems from my deep rooted aversion to doing things solely because others want it, or even being seen as doing such, but that’s not the topic of this post.

This topic comes up because I hang out with opinionated self sheltering young females accustomed to issuing commands on a bi-secondly basis.  Inevitably some are directed at me, and unfortunately I apparently went over some limit today and was a tidbit snippy with one of the females.  Not really bad at all, but the event prompted the thought process I’m expelling in this post.

Some commands are worse than others, in that they inflame some other sensibility of mine beyond my gut level dislike of orders.  The one that prompted all this is, “You’re done.”  This is pretty new to me, but it’s how these females try to end conversations they don’t like.  It usually comes up whenever I mention nipples, tongues, bodily fluids, the fact that sex exists, dismemberment, stuff like that.

This is a problematic command.  First, it’s a command.  Second, it’s a censorship.  I understand people have the right to try to shape their environment, which includes trying to stop me from exposing them to reality, but I also have free speech rights, so suck it up.  Third, it offers nothing itself.  I recognize that I sometimes utter sentences that could be interpreted to be very similar in tone to the command I’m currently dissecting, but, I think, mine differ.  Usually, I try to steer conversations with sentence types other than order, like query, or tangent, or non sequitur, and usually these conversation manipulations include some rationale for the interference, and/or commentary on the subject.

Here’s the simple version.  I don’t like being bossed around.  I don’t like being bossed around by 50-year-olds with big brains and doctorates, guys twice my size, people with guns, badges, or official titles, people with large bank accounts, people with hordes of followers, military training, or “contacts”, so it’s not surprising that I don’t like being bossed around by pipsqueak coeds.

Categories
Things I think

Case Analyses

I have two case studies due in my computer ethics class tomorrow.  I don’t really know what format he wanted, but I think I fulfilled the stated requirements.  I’m going to post what I have in full for you to enjoy if you want.  You have until tomorrow at around 3 to inform me of grammar and spelling mistakes.