Unsightly Mental Blemishes

Deb reports 3 unwelcome visits by this gentleman today.

It’s been a year.  We miss you.

Another reader responds to an earlier remark:

Sounds like your reader works at a corporate entity filled with Twits.  Are business types more likely to be twits?  Perhaps.  In general, I’m mostly appalled at how incredibly ignorant and stupid most (i.e. > 50%) people are, everywhere.  The older I get, the more I observer that even people I’ve known and somewhat liked for decades are actually short-sighted blowhards who don’t significantly examine their own beliefs and motivations to any great extent.  Without rationally and continually challenging one’s own preconceived notions or even what one remembers as established facts (since science and general knowledge continue to move forward at a rapid pace), one ends up being ignorant.  And that tends to lead to becoming a Twit as well, although being a Twit seems to involve a certain amount of over-confidence egotism.  🙂

I try to pick away at foundational assumptions of all sorts of things; I’m not sure how much time I’m wasting vs how much of value I’m learning when I do that.  But as my correspondent mentions, knowledge continues to expand at a rapid rate, and even though much of it is not of importance to the general public (how many need to know the nature of a NAND gate?), the simple balloon of knowledge where the important stuff is on the surface will continue to expand at an exponential rate.

There are days when I’m convinced people are not … stupid, not devotedly ignorant, but simply unable to keep up.  Tired.  Other days, I’m convinced the smarter, more socially awkward people aren’t socially awkward for some inborn reason, but simply because they didn’t have the time to learn and practice the social graces – being smart takes a tremendous amount of time in just keeping up with that little bit of the balloon that interests you the most.

A reader comments about the Bible-Believers,

Do the study authors divide their group by those who believe the Bible is the LITERAL word of God?  As in, word by word completely true and accurate?

That belief would fit most evangelical Christian sects in this country, I think. However, I know it does not fit the Catholic church, and by extension I would presume would not fit other similar churches (orthodox, Episcopalian).  The latter take the Bible as a collection of stories which are allegorical.

The authors use the phrase, “Those who believe the Bible is the word of God.”  Discovering what percentage of Christian sects believe in inerrancy is difficult, and my searches in that regard failed; it may be more interesting to ask how many Americans believe in the inerrancy of the Bible is unclear, but even that is unclear. This Rasmussen poll from 2005 suggests 63% of us are literal Bible believers, while venerable Gallup, from 2007, pegs it at 33%. A more recent Slate article suggests the terminology “inerrant” means different things to different people:

Thirty percent chose the second statement: that the Bible is “without errors” but that “some parts are meant to be symbolic.” This isn’t what secular people tend to think inerrancy means. But it is what a lot of Christians apparently believe. Most people who believe that the Bible is inerrant do not believe that this means everything in it is literally true.

I can certainly see inerrancy and symbolic meaning working together, and may be a way to explain what appears to be an assertion vs behavioral abyss.

… consider depose: we can depose a witness, and depose a tyrant.  What?

In a print-only (so far) (NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE HERE) article in Skeptical Inquirer (March / April, 2015), “When don’t the Highly Educated Believe in Evolution,” Charles Reichardt and Ian Saari, researchers at the University of Denver, identify a troubling trend in a survey of Republicans.  They divide their survey participants into those who believe the Bible is the word of God (“Bible-Believers”) and those who don’t.  The disturbing trend is that, as those in the former group acquire more education, as measured by academic degree, they become less likely to accept the standard scientific theory of human evolution (those in the latter group trend opposite to this).  A similar trend is seen with standard cosmology, and with Republicans and anthropogenic climate change.

They confess themselves bemused.  Several hypotheses are ruled out from other facets of the collected data; then they put together several possible hypotheses as candidates, but due to lack of data they admit they cannot select one.  I will omit explaining them in respect to the authors.

I thought they might have missed a bet.  My impression of what passes for a conservative movement these days is that it is quite hierarchical; I would suggest that those at the bottom, i.e., those with the least educational attainments, are more likely to accept the assertions of those in higher societal positions; and as they may have equal resentment & respect for those with more educational attainments, they may be more likely to accept the standard scientific theory.  As they climb the educational ladder, they feel they can select their own beliefs rather than those above, at least from the non-believers.

A second bet is that the more highly educated may feel a need to have “street cred”, as it were, with those they associate with, so they convince themselves of the truthfulness of the current conservative ideologies.  While the conservative can seem quite raucous at times, the truth of the matter is they really see this as a team game; thus, the origin of the acronym RINO.  This bet may be linked to my first bet, of course.

They state the Bible-believers do not lack understanding of the scientific method or are ignorant of the facts on which these theories are based.  I suppose, if I were an atheist, I could just shrug this off as one more example of irrationality, but I’m agnostic, and I’m appalled that otherwise educated men and women could selectively put ideology ahead of rationality, when a very central core of their lives is built around the tenets of rationality.

A reader reacts to this post:

My experience in “corporate cultures” has found me asking questions which, while quite pointedly valid, embarrassed the presenter / boss.  “What,” I said, “do you mean when you say, ‘scientific method.’ ”  They (boss/presenter types) had a special, business-oriented thing they meant…each one had a different meaning for their industry.  I had studied some science in college, and found that they were abusing the discipline for their own ends.  (Cue: Inigo Montoye – “I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

Once, while in a “presentation” teaching us all about how to cause a new way of thinking, thusly to inspire greater productivity on behalf of our employers, we were instructed in the art of “paradigm shift.”  Some dude from recent (1980s) business world was credited with the idea that year in his brand-new book.  Danged college education stuck in my head again.  My hand shot up.  “The Paradigm Shift was presented by Thomas Kuhn, in his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,”  I studied that in college. “

I was put in my place (an upstart, interrupting the indoctrination) with an explanation that the business dude had written a book explaining and evangelizing it to the business world.  Realizing, slowly, that my best interests were served by keeping my job, not informing the overlords that they were wrong, I learned to shut up.  Well, at least some of the time.

Hm.  Business people can’t understand the same words when presented by someone with a science background?  Maybe a general education, dare we say, Liberal Education, might be a good idea after all.
With that sort of common underpinning to our culture, perhaps we could use words that everyone would be able to accept and understand with common meanings.

And nowadays I agree, but as an undergrad at Minnesota, I do recall being somewhat impatient at the liberal arts requirements “imposed” on us Institute of Technology types (now College of Engineering & Science) – and I was more or less in the majority.  Which seems as good a reason as any to compose requirements for the kids who, while of the age of majority, definitely do not have the experience to know what’s good for them.

Amongst my University regrets: A professor of History (Koch, IIRC) offered to write a letter of recommendation after I took a Comparative History course.  While I’m not sure what that means, I suspect it would have been interesting trying to concurrently study both CSci and History.  However, I was a horrid student and that might have pushed me over the edge…

Found an email in my Spam folder today insisting that my new domain would need to be registered in order for Search Engines to find it.  Sounded suspicious.

This important message is about your new domain name, huewhite.com.

Your domain name has successfully been ordered, the next step is to submit your new website to the search engines.

Getting your website included in the search engines is the first step you should take as a new website owner. .

To list your website in Google, Bing, and Yahoo follow the link below:

Please list your new website as soon as possible so it is properly indexed.

Bad punctuation, poor grammar, appeal to self-importance, non-credible claim.  A little searching brings us this debunking here and here.  The latter states the fee is $97.

I have gout.  I now go to a rheumatologist for treatment.  She has some interesting stories about gout and does active research.  One of those scary little stories is that gout, or rather the high levels of uric acid that causes gout, can also result in the deterioration and even destruction of your kidneys.  Having watched my mother struggle with the loss of her kidneys (due to a rare, obscure disease named Goodpasture Syndrome – unconnected to gout), I feel entirely justified to tell every reader of this blog to GO AND GET YOUR URIC ACID LEVELS CHECKED.  The test is cheap.  If your level is out of range, insist on an appointment with a rheumatologist, because, according to my rheumatologist, most MDs do not have the training to understand what can happen.

Treatment can be very cheap, if you respond well to Allopurinol, which I mostly do.  Prices bounce around.  I’ve seen it as low as $4/month and as high as $16/month.  Oddly enough, my insurance doesn’t cover Allopurinol, or so the pharmacy tells me.  But then, I don’t care much for my prescription insurance – but that’s a subject of another rant.

Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2015) (of which I’m a subscriber of some 20+ years), in an unsigned article, covers a statement offered by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

This is worthwhile to know as sometimes climate change deniers characterize themselves as skeptics.  For those of us who don’t feel they have enough time in the world to know everything (sign me up for that crowd), we all look for those signs of reliability, or for the countersigns, when reading about subjects beyond our competence.  In the latter class, for example, having been in the telecommunications hobby for 30+ years, I think I’m a little more sensitive than the average person to the use of language as an indicator of either irrationality or deceit, as there seems to be a correlation in certain patterns of immature communication to irrational mindsets.  This can range from using certain adjectives repeatedly, to the classic improper use of punctuation, to feeling the information density of the missive is below a certain level.

For me, the proper use of scientific method is a sign that someone is at least being serious in attempting to evaluate an issue.  Yes, yes, they can be wrong – science is always contingent on the next development, on improper observation, invalid evaluations, even on the foibles of the scientists themselves.  In a sense, science never provides a final answer – but, from historical comparisons of scientific method with other methods of knowing the world, it comes out the clear winner.

What signs do you use?  Let me know.

On his feelings about being Pope: “I do not mind.“

This is a fully moderated blog, which is to say all commentary should be submitted through the provided email link. Unless a correspondent directs otherwise, all portions of email received by Unsightly Mental Blemishes may be reprinted on this blog, and future auxiliary publications, at the editor’s discretion. All such reprints will be anonymous unless the editor of this blog makes a prior arrangement with the author.

This blog does not currently collect personal information; certain anonymous information is collected.

Updates to policies will be announced via posting to the blog.

Hue

Here is an article (Archaeology, 9 Feb 2015) on the travails of being an archaeologist on an old battlefield … or a Marshall Islands inhabitant. It brings up the old questions of who’s responsible for what when old munitions are left behind.  There are a number of old shipwrecks from World War II that went down containing substantial amounts of oil and are reaching the point where a disastrous loss of containment may occur; and then there are the munitions, from bombs still being found in Berlin, London, and many other old targets, to shipwrecks (such as this frightening possibility) in shallow waters that are a formidable threat to nearby towns.  While admitting that it’s difficult to ask the losers (who were the aggressors) to clean up outside of their own borders, since they were financially devastated, or ask the winners, who were merely defending themselves, to clean up, in the end someone has to do it or the cost, in environmental degradation and lives lost or blighted, becomes intolerable.  While I have plenty of respect for the concept of war graves, at some point you have to look at what that leaking war grave is doing to the descendants of our honored dead and realize that they wouldn’t want this just to honor their sacrifice.

A new approach with mice:

After several weeks of treating mice that had been genetically altered to produce amyloid plaques, the scientists found the ultrasound almost completely cleared the plaques in 75% of the animals, without apparent damage to brain tissue.

While there is still some debate as to whether plaques are a cause or a symptom of Alzheimer’s, the experiment found that the treated mice had improved memory, as measured by three different tests, compared with untreated ones.

One of the few diseases that really frightens the hell out of me.

(h/t weinenkel @ The Daily Kos)

Katie Slocombe checks out chimp languages (paywall):

Katie Slocombe of the University of York, UK, and her team recorded vocalisations by a group of adult chimps from the Netherlands before and after their relocation to Edinburgh Zoo. Three years after the move, the Dutch chimps had picked up the pronunciation of their Scottish hosts.

So how hard can it be for you?

(NewScientist, 16 Feb 2015)

(Tomato buckets awaiting their occupants – courtesy Deb White, Arts Editor.)

Now for a little music and people dressed in primary colors…..

Color me surprised – I thought business would be in favor of Right To Work:

Hoffman said Monday night that the reason is twofold: he believes the right-to-work law will ultimately cost his company money, and he sees Minnesota’s proposal to increase transportation funding as offering greater business opportunities.

Right to Work boils down banning laws that force workers to join the union in force at a workplace. The general idea behind making people join a union is that if they don’t join the union, they will benefit from any gains negotiated (or gained through other means) by the union without paying for them. Such laws make the unions a little richer, and a little stronger. In general, American businesses often do not like unions, as they can disrupt the workplace and demand higher wages.

But as this article makes clear, unions can also help make the workplace a better place, from strengthening workplace safety to training to anything else they can find. This sort of development makes sense, so I think what really surprises me is seeing someone going beyond the traditional business view of a union to embrace them as a positive. Perhaps the union at Hoffman (International Union of Operating Engineers) is less disruptive and more interested in making the process at Hoffman run well.

(h/t triumph110 @ The Daily Kos)

A little less than three years ago, my old friend Kevin McLeod wrote an article that stuck in my brain, decrying for-profit prisons (courtesy the Way Back machine); since then Vicky Pelaez, Kevin Matthews, the FindLaw organization, and Katie Rose Quandt have addressed various facets of this little industry:

One of the most perverse incentives in a privately run prison system is that the more prisoners a company houses, the more it gets paid. This leads to a conflict of interest on the part of privately run prisons where they, in theory, are incentivized to not rehabilitate prisoners. If private prisons worked to reduce the number of repeat offenders, they would be in effect reducing the supply of profit-producing inmates.

But none have really considered taking the next step in their criticisms: abstracting from the immediate situation to attempt to understand how to prevent such mistakes in the future.

Let’s consider something else that can get my knickers in a knot – the businessman who decides to run for office and repeatedly offers up his businessman experience, his acumen, as his credentials that makes him qualified for office – H. Ross Perot being the best known example in my lifetime (“I just want to get under the hood and fix things.”).  So what’s wrong with this picture?

What we’re forgetting is that the goal of business – commerce – is NOT the goal of the government. I’m finding it a little hard to articulate the goals of government that are not objectionable to someone out there, so I’ll suggest that, if only currently, the goals of government are to protect society from outside intervention; and regulate the internal interactions of society, individually and collectively, such that, well, colloquially, everyone is equally unhappy; or that everyone is justly, according to their actions, treated.

As the one is not the other, it seems reasonable to propose a simple principle by which we can avoid future mistakes: those activities, supporting the goals of government, which may reasonably be undertaken by government, should always be taken care of by government. It is not a necessity that government be absolutely lean; showing a profit at the end of the year is not a requirement, although certainly a large deficit can be a drag on the economy. When the principle is abrogated, we find such distasteful activities as companies lobbying for longer prison sentences solely to inflate their bottom line.

And even when the principle is technically not abrogated, we still find such problems: simply consider the Military-Industrial Complex.

You learn new things from movie reviews, especially in science magazines:

… patrons with cloth napkins draped over their heads eat ortolan (Emberiza hortulana), a yellow-throated bunting that migrates between northern Europe and West Africa. The napkins are said to help capture the bird’s aroma, yet also make the ghastly indulgence seem all the more macabre.

Hate to have someone take a picture of me. Maybe I’ll pass.

The movie, Emptying the Skies, covers the illegal practice of killing songbirds as they migrate, en masse, between Europe and Africa.  Up to 10,000 birds can be captured and killed using a single mist net.  (NewScientist, 16 Feb 2015)

We call him … Orange Kitty.  We kicked him out of the house at least four times yesterday.

(March 13, 2015. Courtesy Arts Editor Deb White)

Just how important is your GI tract? [paywall]

Colleen Kelly, a gastroenterologist at the Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, has carried out around 200 faecal transplants for people with C. difficile infections. In 2010, he gave a transplant to a 32-year-old woman whose teenage daughter was the donor. The girl was borderline obese, says Kelly, but otherwise healthy. The transplant was a success and cleared up the woman’s C. difficile infection.

Around a year later the woman returned, complaining of massive weight gain. She had always been a normal weight, but had become obese despite diet and exercise regimes – even a medically supervised liquid protein diet. “She said she felt like there was a switch inside her body,” says Kelly. “No matter how much she ate or exercised, she couldn’t take the weight off. She’s still overweight now, and she’s very frustrated.”

A single incident is not a scientific study, but it is fascinating, especially having a spouse who is overweight – the despair of failure, despite all of her efforts, including surgery, is frustrating to watch. Is it possible to just … ummmm … offer her some shit and watch her finally win?

The article even talks about anecdotal evidence of mental health issues disappearing after a transplant. Again, the lack of science makes it impossible to come to any conclusions – but it may be the first echo of an amazing advance!  (NewScientist, 16 Feb 2015)

Applying computer programming techniques to government:

By bringing together political scientists, technologists, designers, lawyers, organizational psychologists, and lawmakers, #Hack4Congress will help foster new digital tools, policy innovations, and other technology innovations to address the growing dysfunction in Congress.  Help fix Congress! Join political scientists and policy experts,  technologists, architects, and designers at #Hack4Congress at Harvard Kennedy School of Government to help identify ideas and innovations to overcome the dysfunction gripping much of Congress. “Hacking” is not just for technologists. “Hacks” include innovations in policy, architecture, organizational process, art and design, and educational materials, as well as new software and technologies…

“Hacking” is not just for technologists. “Hacks” include innovations in policy, architecture, organizational process, art and design, and educational materials, as well as new software and technologies.

An innovative way to fix government, or computer programmer hubris finding a new venue? I suppose it’s what we used to call a brainstorming session with a lot of expertise crossover. Still, they really seem to think this is an operational problem, and not a problem with ideological rigidity, which seems to me to be the heart of the problem – along with a lack of seriousness about the problem of responsible governance.

Officer finds rare pearl in stew worth thousands.

Well, I suppose it might be….