September 29th, 2015 by Wil
I’m often complaining about the ubiquitous of tattoos even though I have a few. It just seems a trend that has been watered down to the point of being meaningless—there’s no risk of social ostracization anymore.
But are tattoos totally meaningless? I was just served coffee by a barista at a corporate coffeehouse and she had a tattoo of what appeared to be a skeleton holding its heart in its hands while kneeling before another skeleton. Certainly its mild goriness and general reference to death seemed contrary to the image any corporation would like to present. So, maybe in some subversive way she’s defying her employer, refusing to kotow to the image of bland, wholesomeness they would doubtless like their employees to present. Or is the employer the real victor here? Despite all this gal’s affectations towards the dark side, she still has to get up in the morning, put on an apron with a logo and serve coffee.
September 28th, 2015 by Wil
There’s one idea of late that’s really had a profound effect on my thinking. Unfortunately it’s hard to put into words. (In fact, as you shall see, that is the idea.) Basically it’s the notion that our mental concepts of things are not really things the way real physical things are.
For example, I’m looking at a chair right now. The chair exists in the sense that it is made up of physical matter that exists (barring exotic theories like the universe is a hologram.) But the chair doesn’t really exist as a chair. The idea that this collection of matter exists primarily as a tool for humans (and cats) to sit on* is an unreal idea; it’s a concept of the human mind applied to this collection of matter. If all life on the planet ended, the matter we call this chair might continue but its meaning, its concept, would not.
* Chairs are also good for swinging about in a drunken rage.
But what if we apply this idea (that things and their semantic descriptions are different) to people? Let’s take Elvis. People talk about Elvis the performer and might say he did such and such on some particular date. But people also talk about a more ethereal Elvis—more of a concept of Elvis. The conceptual Elvis is an entity linking various disparate concepts like the South, Hollywood, Rock music, Sexual playfulness (the hips shaking and all that), icon worship and on and on. Some people have a more negative view and link Elvis to White appropriation of Black music and maybe some kind of sexism. But this conceptual Elvis is really quite different from Elvis the guy. Elvis the guy was essentially a collection of matter (e.g. the molecules that made up his body) and perhaps also a consciousness though we still have trouble really defining what that is.
But my real point here is that, like Elvis, we all have conceptual and real versions of ourselves. Other people interact with us and build their conceptualization of us off of those interactions, but also off what other people say about us (true or not) and the various stereotypes (true or not) they apply to us, whether we remind them of their dad, and a whole host of other factors. I’m reminded of the ending of the Michael Douglas film “Falling Down” where Douglas’s character, after shooting up parts of L.A. (in his mind, righteously) finds himself saying, “I’m the bad guy?” He realizes that his concept of himself and everyone else’s concept of himself don’t match up.
To make things more complex, we seem to build our conceptualization of us off these external factors. We think “Everyone says I’m a liar therefore I am.” Or, “I belong to (some particular stereotype) therefore I must act in this or that manner.” Or, “My dad was a violent drunk therefore I must be.” It turns into some infinite feedback loop—you think you’re X and thus behave like X and everyone sees you as X and you become more set in the pattern of X etc.
But in the end, you’re really just some molecules.
September 22nd, 2015 by Wil
I’ve mentioned that I’ve been experimenting with a diet low in carbs and sugar. I haven’t been totally consistent—this weekend was my girlfriend’s birthday party and it was impossible to avoid sweets—but I find it easy to maintain. I’ve noticed one curious side effect: a subtle smoothing out of my mood. It’s hard to really pin down and it could be all in my head (which is, of course, where mood should be) but I feel more on an even keel.
This makes sense. We all know sugar amps us up and then gives us a sugar crash. So, if I’m avoiding those ups and down in body chemistry it should be no surprise that I feel calmer. But it’s interesting to actually observe this effect in myself.
I will say it is, at times, a calmness that borders on being bored. Whatever the evils of sugar, they make life interesting; sugar gives the day an added punch when one is lacking. And I suppose for some people that punch could be addictive.
An obvious question arises: Can sugar be blamed for people’s psychological problems? Since one can find evidence for almost any opinion on the web, we shouldn’t have to look long. And indeed we don’t. (In this case, a Psychology Today article.)
The roller coaster of high blood sugar followed by a crash may accentuate the symptoms of mood disorders. Research(link is external) has tied heavy sugar consumption to an increased risk of depression and worse outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia.
There’s more at the link. As with sugar, consume at your own discretion.
September 17th, 2015 by Wil
I’ve gotten a sense over the years of the futility of most debates about politics and related topics—history, philosophy, ethics etc. I can think of very few discussions where I changed someone’s mind or had mine changed. People seem very fixed in their opinions and unwilling to move in the face of evidence.
This may not be entirely unreasonable. I think we all have a certain sense that how evidence is presented can distort reality. For example, someone could say, “A 1998 study showed that people who ate mouse droppings lost weight,” while declining to mention all the studies that did not support this argument or the fact that the particular study that did was rife with methodology errors. We’re smart not to take things at face value.
But sometimes the evidence is pretty solid and people seem unwilling to change. I find myself guilty of this; I read something contrary to my beliefs and I almost feel physically resistant. We want our truth to be the truth. Which is really a matter of ego, I suppose.
I find myself particularly bothered by conspiracy theories. Donald Trump just recently repeated the idea that vaccines cause autism. This idea has been as disproved as possible but refuses to die. Because, I guess, people just want to believe it.
I’ve been reading an interesting book by Micheal Shermer called “The Believing Brain” where he examines why we are so prone to believe things that fly in the face of evidence. It’s stuff you’ve probably heard before: we want control over uncertainty and conspiracy theories give us knowledge which is a stepping stone to control Why’d your kid get autism? The correct answer is: who knows? The psychologically comforting answer is because he was poisoned by vaccines.
If there’s been an overall trend in my thought for the past 8 or so years it’s been that things are pretty uncertain and we basically need to embrace that. As I’ve recounted a million times, I had pretty solid faith in the medical establishment until I came down with a dizziness they could not explain. I had hand pain that lasted for years and was impervious to any number the “fixes” medicine offered. To solve these problems you basically have to stumble around in the dark until you find something. Few experts saw the economic bust of 2008 coming. It seems like nobody predicted the rise of ISIS in the middle east. Did anyone six months ago seriously think Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate? The experts on these matters seem to be largely a group of know-nothings*. But if they know nothing, then we know nothing and that’s not solid ground to stand on.
But maybe that’s where we are. And maybe accepting that is the best course of action. Embrace the mystery of life and all that.
*I’m reminded of the study that political pundits are mostly spectacularly wrong in their predictions.
September 10th, 2015 by Wil
There’s a recent Economist article on the advent of CRISPR technology which is a gene editing tool that could be used (at some indeterminate point in the future) to allow parents to design their offspring. Don’t want your kid to have your bad breath? Edit it out with CRISPR. Wan’t your kid to excel at music in a way you never did? Bring on the CRISPR.
The catch is that a lot of attributes interact in ways we don’t understand. It’s possible that making someone too intellectual limits their emotional life or that making someone too empathetic could paralyze them with anxiety*. The article points out an interesting fear, that parents intent on improving their kids could actually damage them.
* These are examples I just made up; I have no idea if they are real.
If CRISPR can be shown to be safe in humans, mechanisms will also be needed to grapple with consent and equality. Gene editing raises the spectre of parents making choices that are not obviously in the best interests of their children. Deaf parents may prefer their offspring to be deaf too, say; pushy parents might want to boost their children’s intelligence at all costs, even if doing so affects their personalities in other ways.
And let’s not forget the elephant in the room.
…if it becomes possible to tweak genes to make children smarter, should that option really be limited to the rich?
September 9th, 2015 by Wil
i never been anywhere near what people might call fat. But my weight has fluctuated over the years. At one point several years ago I was down to about 160 (after a trying a non gluten diet to cure the dizziness I’ve complained about. It didn’t work.) A couple years after that I ballooned up to 180 or so and it showed. Since then I probably float around 170. I usually don’t look fat but I sometimes have a smallish belly—sort of like the characters from Doonesbury.
As you can tell from reading this blog lately, I’ve been reading about diet and have been intrigued by the argument that carbs are the real cause of fattening. So for the past month or so I’ve been “sort of” avoiding carbs—not eating much toast, rice, pasta etc. It’s not something I’ve put much thought into, just a general disinclination towards carbs. (Not total avoidance. I had a hamburger with a white bread bun last night.) And I have clearly slimmed down quite a bit.
(To be more precise, I’ve really been avoiding simple carbs and sugars. I still eat a fair amount of beans which are a complex carb.)
So what is the crux of the argument against carbs? Gary Taubs is a science writer and the leading voice in the anti-carb movement. He has a semi-recent NY Times op-ed stating his point:
If obesity is a fuel-partitioning problem — a fat-storage defect — then the trigger becomes not the quantity of food available but the quality. Now carbohydrates in the diet become the prime suspects, especially refined and easily digestible carbohydrates (foods that have what’s called a high glycemic index) and sugars.
The obvious mechanism: carbohydrates stimulate secretion of the hormone insulin, which works, among other things, to store fat in our fat cells.
Basically, carbs are sugar, and sugars spike your insulin causing your body to hoard fat (and ultimately set you up for diabetes.)
As Taubs states at the end of the piece, this is not an ironclad argument. More research needs to be done, blah, blah, blah. But he does voice the obvious thought.
From this perspective, the trial suggests that among the bad decisions we can make to maintain our weight is exactly what the government and medical organizations like the American Heart Association have been telling us to do: eat low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diets, even if those diets include whole grains and fruits and vegetables.
Now, I mentioned before that there was another time my weight dropped: when I was avoiding glutens (as well as dairy and a few other things. Not meat though.) When you skip glutens you avoid a lot of carbs—glutens are in bread, cereal etc. My one junk food treat in that time was potato chips which are gluten free. So, I was probably on a low carb diet, just not really thinking of it in those terms.
As a counterpoint to all this I offer my Dad who ate plenty of carbs, drank a fair amount, basically put no thought into his diet yet remained thin his whole life. (He did have heart issues though.) So there’s probably no one-size fits all method here. But I suspect fat’s reputation is going to rise in coming years and carbs’ will decrease.
September 8th, 2015 by Wil
Lately I’ve been reading Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” which is about the advent of public shaming that has overtaken the internet. (For the latest example, see the dentist who killed Cecil the Lion.) Ronson explores a number of cases one might have heard of—Justine Sacco, Lindsey Stone, even my old acquaintance Mike Daisey who fabricated details of a radio report he did on Chinese workers. These are all people who committed some offense and were basically torn apart by strangers on Twitter.
I’m reminded of an event I observed on my facebook feed. (I’ll keep it anonymous but if you know the story you’re sure to recognize it.) A local songwriter performed at a local bar some months ago and when he went to get paid they basically told him to get lost. The songwriter reported this on facebook and dozens of his followers and their friends, maybe over a hundred, went to the facebook page for the venue and basically screamed at them.
I don’t fault the songwriter for doing what he did, but there really was some sense that he was unleashing a mob. The venue owners relented, apologized and paid him. They’ve stopped doing music and I wouldn’t be surprised if their revenue has dropped as a lot of people have probably sworn off ever going there.
The event bugged me a bit though I have a hard time saying why. Maybe it comes down to two things. These kinds of online mobs deliver a form of justice but is it equal to the crime? These bar owners basically stole 100$ (the payment for the performance) but it seems very possible that they’ve lost thousands in lost revenues. And on top of that I imagine these guys have lost some friendships and had their reputations forever tainted over what used to be a private dispute. Screaming mobs are very imprecise tools of justice.
My second concern is that the people who mete out these shamings—the people posting negative comments on someone’s facebook page or tweeter feed or whatever—aren’t being entirely honest with themselves as to their reasons. They may see it as a purely moral statement but I think everyone likes being a bully, likes the catharsis of damning others. I’m not sure shaming is so much about punishing the perpetrator as much as it allows the shamer to feel good about themselves, and in step with their society, to get high with self-righteous fury
The Cecil the Lion case brings this up for me. I like animals and the guy sounds like a douchebag, but lions are killed by hunters every day (as are plenty of other animals.) Why go after this guy? Because this particular lion was somehow protected? That feels like a pretty arbitrary, legalistic reason. Because Cecil was sort of a “famous” lion? Frankly, I’d never heard of him (I don’t know any celebrity lions.) It seems more likely that people saw a mob movement growing online and jumped at a chance to scream at another person. But I think that mob power can be corrupting. It should be avoided not to protect the target but to protect yourself. (Now, I’m far from perfect on this. I’m often having mental conversations with myself mocking this or that person. But I seldom, if ever, participate in online attacks.)
There’s probably a third reason I’m wary of the idea of online shaming. If you go through the archives of acid logic there’s are doubtless many things that would offend a lot of people. And I wonder of the online mob will ever come for me?
September 5th, 2015 by Wil
There is a lot of legitimate attention being paid to the fact that Donald Trump has so quickly become a big player in the race for the Republican nomination. But I’m surprised there’s been so little discussion of the fact that Ben Carson is now neck and neck with Trump in some polls.
In many ways, Carson sounds like a pretty conventional conservative, but I’m do take note of this New York Magazine article that makes the point he’s not one of these “filled with hatred” guys. He seems capable of disagreeing with someone without wishing for their destruction. We certainly could use more of that.
Ultimately, I think the Republican nominee will be someone predictable—Bush or Christie— but I won’t rule out something like “Trump/Carson 2016.”
September 1st, 2015 by Wil
I’ve mentioned in the past my great frustrations with the use of percentages in news stories. An article will say “X Caused a 50% drop in robberies” but give no indication of the actual amount. Were there four less robberies? 400? Who knows?
This following Vox article is frustrating on many levels.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
The article makes clear that without a doubt deaths went down after Australia initiated a buyback program to confiscate certain types of firearms. But the exact number is distressingly vague. I’ve read through it and I have no idea what the actual number is as everything is discussed in percentages. Then there’s this.
One study concluded that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides. But as Dylan Matthews points out, the results were not statistically significant because Australia has a pretty low number of murders already.
Bottom line: Australia’s gun buyback saved lives, probably by reducing homicides and almost certainly by reducing suicides.
So in the headline we’re told that murders “plummeted.” In the article we’re told that the amount wasn’t statistically significant and that the amount of homicides “probably” reduced. Not quite the same thing.
August 29th, 2015 by Wil
I mentioned a while back that I was reading the book “The Big Fat Surprise” which argues that—contrary to conventional wisdom—a diet high in saturated fats (e.g. meat, dairy etc) is good for you. This should not be understood to say that a diet high in trans-fats (e.g. Cheetos, crackers, etc.) is good for you. Because it is not.
The book also states that a diet high in carbs is bad for you, leading to obesity and diabetes.
These are controversial assertions, certainly, and they basically imply that the U.S Government has been recommending an awful diet (high carbs, low fats) for years.
Nonetheless, I’ve noticed several pieces popping up recently on a science blog I frequent called Science Daily that seem to support the arguments made by “The Big fat Surprise.” Consider…
Trans fats, but not saturated fats like butter, linked to greater risk of early death and heart disease
A study led by researchers at McMaster University has found that that trans fats are associated with greater risk of death and coronary heart disease, but saturated fats are not associated with an increased risk of death, heart disease, stroke, or Type 2 diabetes.
The team found no clear association between higher intake of saturated fats and death for any reason, coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), ischemic stroke or type 2 diabetes.
However, consumption of industrial trans fats was associated with a 34 per cent increase in death for any reason, a 28 per cent increased risk of CHD mortality, and a 21 per cent increase in the risk of CHD.
Low saturated fat diets don’t curb heart disease risk or help you live longer
Diets low in saturated fat don’t curb heart disease risk or help you live longer, says a leading US cardiovascular research scientist and doctor of pharmacy in an editorial in the open access journal Open Heart.
Now I’m the first to admit that one should tread carefully here as none of these statements has really been “proven.” (Studies need to be replicated about a billion times to really have merit.) But “The Big Fat Surprise” did make some interesting anecdotal points that stuck with me. Consider Eskimos. For years they basically ate a diet of fatty fish and game—and had rates of cardiovascular disease much lower than non-Native Americans* (e.g. white people.) Then they shifted over to the high carb diets of the white man and they were assaulted with such disease. The Masai in Africa are a similar case study.
* Here’s an interesting Discover magazine article about this called “The Inuit Paradox.”
So it seems fair to ask questions.