When No One Is Looking

"Research suggests that rewards may work in the short term but have damaging effects in the long term." - NYTimes, March 3rd, 2009. (Via Mindhacks.)

This certainly doesn't need to be repeated by me, but it's one of my pet peeves about the way some parents approach education, and I'm in a mood, so...

I understand - you want your child to get good grades. You don't want the exuberance of youth to deprive Little Johnny of opportunities for good schools and scholarships in the future. That is admirable, to a point. You beg, plead, and cajole, but your exasperating offspring just doesn't seem focused on getting good grades. You are tempted to bribe your spawn, because you remember how well bribery worked when s/he was younger.

Let me just say - DON'T DO IT!

Your child's education does not stop when s/he leaves school. Adulthood is filled with many, many trials - trials that will be much easier to endure if your child has the desire to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge on his/her own, to read for pleasure and personal growth, and to develop and pursue his/her intrinsic interests in the absence of an immediate reward. Success comes down to what you are willing to do when no one is looking.

Let me also add a plea as a teacher - it is so much more enjoyable to teach someone who wants to learn! Someone who is naturally curious. A teacher can encourage a child's curiosity and use it as a tool to help them learn, but this task becomes harder when learning is overshadowed by the presence of performance incentives, because at least part of the child's awareness is always fixed on the incentive. (Ditto for teaching students who are just interested in passing a test.) At some point one might even argue that teaching students motivated by performance incentives ceases to be 'teaching' in the best sense of the word. This gets depressing for teachers.

So, how do you make your child into this wonderful machine that is driven by an intrinsic desire to learn?

“We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.” - attributed to Barack Obama.

And it's got to start before they are in school. I'm on the verge of a full-blown rant, which is not really how I wanted to start the day, so I'll stop for the moment.

Sin & Stones

Avert your eyes; it's gonna get Biblical up in here.

Awhile ago I participated in a research study, which I then blogged about. During the past week I took another survey for what I presume is the same research group. [Fair Warning: If you plan to take the same survey, and you read the rest of this post, you will be biased. Quit reading now if you plan to take a survey that includes a section called "Without Sin".]

Ironically, one of the reasoning scenarios presented in that story was the story of Jesus and the woman who committed adultry. For those of you who aren't up on your Bible stories, let me interject the relevant passage here...

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultry, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultry. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him." - John 8:3-9 (RSV)

The survey task was to rate the reasoning behind Jesus' statement. There were five answers, each of which contained a slightly different degree of reasoning about the wrongness of possibly punishing an innocent person and/or the idea that since all guilt can't be punished, no guilt should be punished. I wish I could access that survey again and post the answers here, but that would be unfair to the survey-makers, who are still collecting data. My point though is that each of the provided answers totally missed the point of the statement.

To be fair, this is only my interpretation of 'the point' of that statement. You are free to interpret it differently. But it shocked me that none of the provided answers even came close to the following reasoning for saying "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus called on the group to examine themselves for sin. In doing so, they all found something that they had done at some time that broke the law and/or was immoral, and therefore left without throwing a stone. In examining their own sin, they undoubtedly remembered what drove them to commit those acts - what biological or psychological urges they were unable or unwilling to control. In examining themselves, they were able to empathize with the woman they were accusing. Jesus knew that understanding why the behavior had happened was more important than punishing the behavior, and this was what he wanted to convey to the group.

According to the story, "the eldest" were the first to leave. Makes sense; they had lived the longest, been tempted the most, and had likely committed the most transgressions. It was probably easiest for them to empathize with the woman. The story continues...

"Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." - John 8:10-11 (RSV)

The point here being, even the greatest and the leaders among us have known temptation and can therefore empathize with those who have succumb to it. The exhortation to avoid repeating the same mistake again remains, and the lesson here is not that we should tolerate actions which harm the fabric of our society. The woman was publicly shamed as she stood accused, but she was also given the chance to change the pattern of her actions. The opportunity for her to grow and change was more important than removing her as a 'threat' to society. Sadly this particular Biblical story does not tell us whether or not she did successfully change her pattern of actions. But it does suggest that Jesus believed that something was fundamentally more important than apportioning guilt and/or punishment.

The story also suggests that the motivations of the accusers were something other than punishment of a particular transgression. "This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him." Perhaps Jesus' motivation was simply to avoid harming a woman who was caught up in what was actually a personal grudge against him.

This is the problem with Biblical stories; they are open to such a wide variety of interpretations. No one can know the true motivations of anyone involved (or even if the sequence of events actually happened as described), and without understanding motivation, you only have half the story. The same actions, arising from different motivations, are treated differently all the time in our society. Therefore insisting on a particular interpretation of a particular action without a complete understanding of the situation is likely the result (at least partially) of a self-serving motivation.

Wow - I think my soapbox was momentarily converted into a pulpit. Scary.

The Meeting of Science and Spirit (Pt II)

"Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred."

If you were paying attention many months ago, you may have learned a little-known fact about me. It's not something I generally talk about, or really do much with. It's not something that I ever would have done on my own initiative; it was really the result of Really Persistent Friend's cajoling.

I mention this now for two reasons. First, the topics of spirituality, religion, and the sacred seem to be popping up a lot lately in scientifically-oriented blogs. Second, in about two weeks I will be officiating my third wedding. [Pause for the appropriate disclaimers... So far I have only done this for people I know, like, think should be married to each other, and can't say no to. I don't do it for money. I probably could have gotten out of this coming wedding request, but these two people have waited long enough to be married to each other and I'm happy to help them get it done.]

It boggled my mind when Really Persistent Friend was exceedingly persistent with the idea that I should become ordained in order to perform her wedding. I know it's 'just the internet', but it is a legally-recognized ordination, which means you have power. I got my ordination in the mail a couple of months after I defended my dissertation, and the ordination was the scarier of the two. Seriously. A Ph.D. (sadly) comes with no perception or obligation of service to others, whereas an ordination exists solely for the purpose of permitting one to serve others in a specific capacity.

You may think that I'm referring only to service in the capacity that is confined to and defined by the legal code. But then you probably have never seen a roomful of people looking at you through the only definition they have of 'minister'. You've probably never felt the weight of the expectations of the bride and groom (and their parents) to conduct a ceremony that conveys the appropriate sense of sacredness. (Best Friend's in-laws were in tears because we incorporated a unity candle into her ceremony. They saw respect for their Catholic tradition, even though the ceremony had no overt religious references.) If you view ordination as an obligation of service, rather than just a chance to make money, then you are well-advised to ask yourself - What is the nature of the service I am providing? What is required of me to perform this service effectively? Do I possess the necessary education, experience and skills to render this service?

I required Really Persistent Friend to articulate in great detail why she wasn't willing to get married in a church or by a justice of the peace before I agreed to become ordained. The essence of those conversations can be summed up in the phrase 'spiritual, but not religious'. Most people who identify as 'spiritual, but not religious' were religious (or exposed to religion) at some point. Like it or not, the concepts that we generally think of as 'spiritual' are concepts we derive from religion. Even concepts like 'love' and 'compassion' don't find a lot of support in hard science. Scientists can give a convoluted explanation for altruistic behavior that invokes genetic survival, but the explanation utterly fails to capture the experience.

Both Best Friend and Really Persistent Friend also recognized that the people who attended the wedding would have strong associations of marriage as a sacrament involving God. As a wedding exists to announce one's union to a community of friends and family, they wanted to acknowledge the perceptions of their family with respect to the sacredness of marriage. They felt that marriage was something more than a simple legal pronouncement, but that it was not created solely by the depth or blessing of traditional religious ritual. The task of culling a sense of 'sacred' from the trappings of so many rituals fell to me.

Perhaps it's a task for which a psychologist is ideally suited. The ability to understand the subjective importance of experience and the need for explanation and order in one's perceptions, as well as the function of a 'greater force' in one's belief system, are essential if we are ever going to succeed in divorcing the good aspects of spirituality from the dogma and harmfulness of religion. This is perhaps easiest for a scientist who has been trained to ask penetrating questions and shed light on relationships between ideas/behaviors/elements. And that is why thoughtful dialogue between science and spirit is worth encouraging. Not because one side seeks to win the other over, but because both want the best possible information about what it means to be human.

Features of the New Society

Something about today reminded me of this quote...

"But those who have not given up hope can succeed only if they are hardheaded realists, shed all illusions, and fully appreciate the difficulties. This sobriety marks the distinction between awake and dreaming utopians."

There seems to be a widespread hope that one man can do a significant amount to "fix the world" and "put in place an architecture of peace for the 21st century." That's a mighty tall order...

The idea of "fixing the world" prompted me to post the next paragraph of the above quotation.

"To mention only a few of the difficulties the construction of the new society has to solve:

• It would have to solve the problem of how to continue the industrial mode of production without total centralization, i.e., without ending up in fascism of the old-fashioned type or, more likely, technological 'fascism with a smiling face.'
• It would have to combine overall planning with a high degree of decentralization, giving up the 'free-market economy,' that has become largely a fiction.
• It would have to give up the goal of unlimited growth for selective growth, without running the risk of economic disaster.
• It would have to create work conditions and a general spirit in which not material gain but other, psychic satisfactions are effective motivations.
• It would have to further scientific progress and, at the same time, prevent this progress from becoming a danger to the human race by its practical application.
• It would have to create conditions under which people experience well-being and joy, not the satisfaction of the maximum-pleasure drive.
• It would have to give basic security to individuals without making them dependent on a bureaucracy to feed them.
• It must restore the possibilities for 'individual initiative' in living, rather than in business (where it hardly exists any more anyway)."

Oddly presentient of our current situation in many aspects .

Bonus points if you can name the source and/or author of that quote. (Hint: 1967)

Why We Believe

"For if you have never had a paranormal experience such as these, and believe in none of the things that science says do not exist excepts as tricks played on the gullible or - as neuroscientists are now beginning to see - by the normal workings of the mind carried to an extreme, well, then you are in a lonely minority." - Newsweek, November 3rd, 2008.

I know that I was thinking about other things during the week before the November elections. Which is probably why I didn't notice this article well before tonight's long-overdue cleaning of the abode brought it to my attention. I'll comment on it here, as a follow-up to my recent post.

I'll start with a brief run-down of some of my internal comments while reading the article...

"Here we go again with 'psychic phenomena = alien abduction'."
"Shermer, Shermer, oh Shermer again." (I personally think that Shermer is a reasonable, though overly-invested, skeptic. But no wonder parts of this article read like some of his recent columns in Scientific American.)
"Crap, this is long."
"Who decided that the week before the election was a good time to run this piece? And why?"

For those of you who won't bother to read the article, let me just present a list of the proposed explanations for paranormal beliefs...

• People see more patterns in noise when they feel a loss of control. Our current social and political turmoil predicts the current rise of interest in the paranormal. (I can't in good conscience touch that.)
• An inability to think scientifically, as demonstrated by self-professed alien abductees who wouldn't accept an alternative hypothetical explanation for their experiences. (Hey, if I woke up on the floor, I'd believe I had fallen out of the bed.)
• Loneliness. Apparently telling people that they will end up lonely and socially-isolated is enough to make them more likely to confess a belief in the paranormal. (Shit! I should be out partying tonight instead of at home cleaning...)
• Our brain wasn't evolved for actual reality. We sometimes shut down the part of the brain ("a bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe") that distinguishes where our body begins and the material world ends. (Sweet! All I have to do is turn these neurons off and I'll have a built-in trip?! How do I patent that?)
• Your brain is filling in the blanks with regards to sensory information. It's all in the interpretation. We use our "existing cognitive structures to make sense of an ambiguous or amorphous stimuli." (That's true, but it's funny how we never invoked that excuse to explain how people perceive something that science agrees is actually there...)
• It's all your imagination because "the regions that become active when people imagine seeing or hearing something are identical to those that become active they really do see or hear something in the outside world." (It's a miracle that we can distinguish one from the other at all!)
• It's all the mind reinforcing itself with that good ol' psychological glitch called the confirmation bias - "the mind better recalls events and experiences that validate what we believe than those that refute those beliefs." (Until someone explains to you that 'he's just not that into you.')
• We evolved to have a brain that protects us by signalling false positives for threatening phenomena. (Theoretically though, this should be cancelled out by the 'it's all your imagination', right?)

Ah, and now the list of proposed explanations for extreme skepticism...

• A feeling of intellectual superiority. "It is rewarding to look at the vast hordes of believers, conclude that they are idiots and delight in the fact that you aren't." (The academic counterpart to 'holier than thou'.)
• It allows one to belong to a community, which is what we all crave. (Can't I just join a book club? Or a volleyball league? Seriously - why do we need to create community around our respective beliefs in the paranormal?)

That's it. End of list.

Just remember - if you have the impression that this article has a clear bias, it's probably all in your imagination because your brain is wired to confirm its belief that journalism is unbiased. Maybe you're stressed and therefore you're seeing a pattern that really isn't there. Maybe you should go find some friends, or take a course in logical thinking. Maybe your brain is trying to protect you by alerting you to the possible threat of media indoctrination.

Dude, seriously.

The Meeting of Science and Spirit

"Knowledge of our spirits and knowledge of the world are mutually enlightening and empowering. The ultimate aim of both is to dissipate suffering."

The other day I had a fairly engaged conversation with Skeptical Friend. By 'fairly engaged', I mean that I was actively trying to avoid the reduction of the conversation to the level of rhetoric and dogma. When pressed, Skeptical Friend's concerns were these...

1) Belief in one paranormal/New Age phenomenon leads to a widespread embracing of other phenomena, without the appropriate skepticism to each claim. Embracing claims without the appropriate skepticism is tantamount to being a target for every charlatan who wishes to prey upon your ignorance.

2) Belief in paranormal/New Age ideas is equivalent to belief in God, or some other equally-unprovable idea. Belief in an idea for which the evidence is tenuous at best puts you at the mercy of 'representatives' of that idea who claim special knowledge and/or abilities, unless your knowledge happens to exceed theirs. Again you are a target for those who would shape your behavior according to their ideals.

3) Somehow those who are not so gullible will end up paying for the actions of those who were not appropriately skeptical.

(I'm being generous. SF wasn't so concise or articulate.)

My response to this (in part) was that the line in the sand that lumps the anomalous psychic experience with ghost and UFO abduction on one side, and 'hard science' like physics and chemistry on the other, is part of the problem. Scientists who loudly denounced a 'psychic' or 'spiritual' experience as impossible and therefore hallucination or hoax do not convince people who believe that they have had such an experience that nothing happened. Rather, they suggest or reinforce the notion that the person must go elsewhere (somewhere other than science) for an explanation.

Where else do you go if you are a person who has had an experience or series of experiences that you cannot dismiss? You look for 1) someone who will acknowledge your experience, and 2) someone who will offer an explanation for what happened. Perhaps the best that mainstream science (and I use the term 'science' loosely) can do at this point is the psychoanalyst who tells you that your subconscious is trying to tell you something important, and who then works with you to deal with any problems you are having in your life. But the psychoanalyst is in fierce competition with the priest and New Age section at the local bookstore. Science is in a competition for the minds of the masses as long as it continues to deny the experiences of rational, intelligent people that it cannot yet explain. As long as scientists perpetuate this kind of arrogant denial, they leave open the gate that allows people to go elsewhere for explanations. Science doesn't have to have complete understanding of the world in order to be useful, but it will only be useful to people if it acknowledges its incompleteness.

Until science can explain the natural laws that give rise to these mental and 'spiritual' phenomena that are consistently experienced by people of every age, level of education, and cultural background, it would be wise to do the following...

1) Encourage scientific investigation into these phenomena. Ridicule and isolation of those scientists who do investigate these areas only slows our ultimate progress towards a complete understanding the source of these experiences.

2) Educate our children in basic psychology and self-awareness. Nothing engenders a healthy skepticism like seeing your own vulnerability to illusions of memory and perception exposed. Nothing protects a person from being taken advantage of like an understanding of the social and psychological motivations for behavior.

3) Avoid the dogma that science is all-knowing, and that what does not fall under its current understanding must not exist. Chastise scientists whose claims exceed the boundaries of their actual knowledge. No scientist should be able to state that God does not exist, and for exactly the same reasons as no scientist should be able to state that God does exist.

4) Understand the needs that are currently being met by religion and/or metaphysical beliefs. It is not the place of science to address these needs, but science can play a vital role in identifying how to meet these needs without introducing any unnecessary beliefs or behaviors.

The Passing of Henry Gustav Molaison

"He left a legacy in science that cannot be erased." - New York Times, December 5, 2008.

Known to the world as H.M., Molaison spent the better part of 50 years under the scrutiny of scientists. Thankfully, it was beyond his ability to remember the indignity of such an existence. Molaison suffered from a type of anterograde amnesia as the result of an experimental brain surgery in 1953, and was unable to create new long-term episodic memories.

Molaison's unique impairment fueled the development of the field of cognitive neuroscience. Unlike other patients with traumatic brain injury, Molaison's brain damage had been surgically induced in an attempt to alleviate seizures. The unexpected memory impairment he also suffered as a result of the surgery provided some of the first clues as to the neuroscience of memory, the different types of memory, and memory encoding and retrieval processes.

His impairment left him unable to hold a job, and following the surgery (at age 27) he did not or could not live alone. As Molaison was cut off from the one cognitive function that enables us to learn, reflect, grow and make judgments, it is hard to know exactly how he felt about his life as the object of intense research. Was it a life he would have chosen for himself had he the capacity to remember even a year of such an existence?

Caught in a perpetual 'now', Molaison was at the mercy of the intentions of others. What informed consent he was able to give for his participation in the ongoing series of studies was limited to his feelings and perceptions at the moment. While his participation is these studies undoubtedly made a profound contribution to the field of cognitive neuroscience, reading his obituary in the New York Times left me pondering what principles guided the decisions about his participation. Can any of us say we would have chosen his life if we retained the ability to remember each day as a test subject? Is the argument then that he did not suffer because he was unable to remember the endless series of tasks in which his role may have been more akin to that of a lab rat than an equal collaborative partner?

Molaison's obituary alternatively refers to him as 'Mr. Molaison' and 'H.M.', in roughly equal measure. 'H.M.' was his identity in the community of science. Myself a student of memory, I did not know his given name until today. Was his status as a person somehow diminished by the reduction of his attributes to a set of data that bore the label 'H.M.'? Was this level of impersonalization necessary for the scientific enterprise to operate in an unbiased manner, or did it create and fuel an atmosphere that permitted Molaison to be unnecessarily objectified?

We live in an era that is increasingly concerned with issues of cognitive liberty (and rightfully so), and we must make sure that cognitive differences become neither an excuse to dehumanize, nor exploit any individual. Sovereignty of self should not be limited by how a person thinks. When we choose what another should experience, or how they should spend their time, we are shaping the future state of their brain and mind. This is nowhere more apparent than in the experience of parenting, but it applies as well to those who bears the responsibility of care for a person who is cognitively impaired. The impact of a single event may be greatly reduced in a person with certain cognitive impairments, or it may be greatly exaggerated. Therefore there is no catch-all answer as to the best way to ensure that such a person's sovereignty is held in responsible trust by its guardians. As a society, we are beginning to make inroads in recognizing these issues, and they require our ongoing willingness to tackle questions about individual identity and autonomy, such as those faced by Molaison, and the larger questions about how we treat those whose internal experience we can only begin to understand.

The Perils of Maverickhood

(I'm cleaning out the files. As it is no longer election season, I can post this and still be politically neutral.)

Maverick: " ... a bullock or heifer that has not been branded, and is unclaimed or wild; -- said to be from Maverick, the name of a cattle owner in Texas who neglected to brand his cattle."

I used to like the word 'maverick'. "Has not been branded... unclaimed ... wild" has a mystique to it that's hard to beat. But it really just means 'fell through the cracks', and/or 'got away when no one was looking'. And while 'wild' and 'unclaimed' are now synonymous with 'rebel' and 'independent', the word 'maverick' doesn't mean that you are particularly good at anything, or that you are superior to those who didn't escape the branding process. It doesn't even mean that you had to fight to escape being branded.

But somewhere along the way the idea of a 'maverick' began to evoke connotations of competence and effectiveness, presumably because being outside/above/beyond 'the system' meant a greater freedom to act in a way that could accomplish the desired (presumably good) ends. This certainly seems to be what we are supposed to think when we hear certain persons self-label as 'mavericks'. But "a person who thinks independently; a lone dissenter; a non-conformist or rebel" must be able to function within any system s/he hopes to influence. This holds true for the systems of science, as well as those of politics. While both systems benefit from people who aren't afraid to voice a new or unpopular opinion, the mantle of maverickhood sets a person upon a perilous path.

The perils of maverickhood are these...

1) Using 'non-conformity' as a shield for ineptitude and/or failure to understand the mainstream positions, or simply as a strategy to win attention.

2) Thinking that when/if you win points for independent thinking, the game gets easier. In reality, it gets harder.

3) Assuming that validated independent thinking in one area means that your wisdom in all areas is superior.

4) Assuming that having been noticed for rogue thought or action means that all of your subsequent thoughts/actions must be equally rogue in nature. After all, you have a reputation to maintain.

5) Listening to people who, when you successfully rebel and accomplish one thing, often expect that you can accomplish many more things that fall outside of your area(s) of expertise. (If you're smart, you don't lose your perspective. If not...)

(Interestingly enough, the use of the word 'maverick' by certain high-profile persons dropped off sharply just after I wrote (but did not post) this. Perhaps the incredulity was more widespread...)

The next time you hear or are tempted to use the word 'maverick', remember that it really just means 'got away when no one was looking.' ;)

On Thankfulness

"All our discontents about what we want appeared to spring from the want of thankfulness for what we have."

It's difficult to find something new to say on this topic. So instead I'll tell this story...

Thanksgiving has been a 'portable' holiday for me for quite some years now. I've often been far from family at Thanksgiving, and unable to make it home for this holiday. Rather than forgo the celebration of Thanksgiving altogether, I've attempted to celebrate it with friends wherever I happen to be living. This has left me with a wonderful collection of memories.

It's a different celebration every year, depending on where I'm living and who is available. Occasionally I've been invited to spend Thanksgiving with a friend's family, but some of the best memories are those where a group of friends came together to create our own Thanksgiving. One year all the friends were travelling to be with family, so we held Practice Thanksgiving Dinner the weekend before Thanksgiving. Another year a different group of friends held Thanksgiving dinner at the apartment of a recently-divorced friend, and spent the latter part of Thanksgiving Day shopping for all new Christmas decorations for her. One of the best memories is from one of the first times I spent Thanksgiving away from family, and with my friend Jimmy. Neither of us had much experience making Thanksgiving dinner, but we went at it with much gusto, from shopping for the food to decorating the table, and had a wonderful time.

If it sounds like I'm missing the point about Thanksgiving, rest assured that thankfulness is multiplied when it is celebrated with others. Each of these events created stronger bonds of friendship for which I am still thankful, though over the years I've lost touch with some of these people. For a time we were important to each other, and we gave thanks and celebrated that together.

A few days ago I won a turkey, and though I already have plans for Thanksgiving Day, I couldn't help but try to use that turkey as an excuse to catalyze another group of friends to come together for a dinner. Not really enough notice to pull off a whole holiday dinner, but I had to try. So this year I think there will be a 'Meat and Greet' event wherein the cooking of the turkey and the distribution of the meat will be cause for a get-together.

And speaking of events, I'd better get moving! Happy Thanksgiving!

A Welfare Magnet

"[Our Fair State] is more attractive to low income individuals than high wage earners." - cited today in local newspaper.

Not long ago I ranted about people who take advantage of state-funded health insurance. Since that post, I have heard other stories that make me crazy in that special way I get crazy when I hear you say that it's someone else's responsibility to take care of you. If you don't pay for your own health insurance, food, and daycare, then you have no business spending money on cable and high-speed internet.

And now a recent study conducted at Princeton University pegs Our Fair State as a state where the people who fund such attractive (and, apparently, easily-obtainable) welfare programs (with substantially higher benefit levels than those of neighboring states) are leaving the state, while those who drain those resources are flocking to it. Apparently this isn't news, as a 'welfare migration' to our Our Fair State from Neighboring Large City was reported over a decade ago in the New York Times.

Our Fair State is also facing a $5 billion dollar budget deficit. So what is the solution?

1) Cut benefits. If you are able to work, then it is your responsibility to support yourself and your children. It won't necessarily be pleasant, but you are also entitled to start your own business doing whatever it is that you want to do. Non-custodial parents with child support obligations should be last on the list to receive certain benefits (or not on it at all) if they are able to work but simply choose not to do so. Unemployment or underemployment should not be attractive in any way to a person with children to support. If you have screwed around with your life and have a lousy employment history, then accept the fact that you will have to work at less than desirable jobs to repair that history until you can get hired for a more satisfactory position. You are not too good to work at McDonald's, and you are not too good to work two or more jobs at the same time.

I've heard people complain that if they make more money, their benefits go down and that money is gone anyway, or they end up with a net loss when the benefits are taken away. (Yes, that's you with the cable and high-speed internet.) The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's not the state's responsibility to feed your children, enable you to put them in daycare, and pay for your health insurance when you are perfectly capable of paying for these things yourself.

Our Fair State has higher benefit level than most of the neighboring states. We also have one of the highest rates of migration of lower-income individuals into our state. Whether the goal is to stop the influx of a potential drain on Our Fair State's resources, or to reduce the existing state budget deficit, it makes sense to bring our state's benefit levels in line with those of neighboring states with similar costs of living by cutting benefits.

2) Tighten residency restrictions on who is eligible for benefits. If there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not a student) in order to receive in-state tuition at public universities, then there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not unemployed) in order to qualify for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps and state-sponsored health insurance.

We complain that Our Fair State loses too many of its best college graduates upon graduation. If retention of individuals who contribute more positively to the tax base is a goal, then perhaps in-state tuition at public universities could be traded for a residency requirement to be fulfilled after graduation.

3) Make working a more attractive option than not working.

Apparently Our Fair State has one of the most generous state earned income tax credit programs in the United States. This is a refundable tax credit that is available even to those who owe no taxes. The credit has three 'phases', which describe how the credit is calculated based on differing levels of qualifying incomes. One you hit a certain point within the qualifying income range, your tax credit begins to shrink. This tax credit can represent a significant amount of money, but it is not counted as income when judging eligibility for food stamps or low income housing. It is also possible to receive advance payments of your projected credit during the year.

So how about increasing EIC qualifying income ranges to allow the working taxpayer to take home more money, while decreasing the benefits available in programs, such as food stamps, that do not require or promote employment as a condition of assistance? How about adding new rules for obtaining EIC that stipulate higher payments and/or higher upper income limits for those who pay their own health care and daycare costs?

If handled correctly, these ideas might put barriers in place that stem the tide of welfare migrants (and their associated costs) into Our Fair State, and reform the existing system of payouts so that it's impossible to have so much 'assistance' that you can also afford to have cable and high-speed internet.

Democracy in Action

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."

Ow. Ow.

This is me, the day after I voted about a hundred times. Yep, I spent a good 13 hours yesterday going through the voting process again and again. And again.

In my assigned district, approximately one-third of the eligible voters chose to cast an absentee ballot. And all of those absentee ballots had to processed on Election Day, at the district polling place. So my job as a poll worker was to run the 'voting loop' processing those ballots. All day long, and for another hour after the polls closed.

Here's the 'voting loop' for absentee ballots...

1) Pick up voter number tickets. (From the guy at the head of the line of voters. People were quite generous to us polls workers who repeatedly held up various lines in order to process absentee ballots.)

2) Open and inspect absentee ballots. (Ballots that were filled out in crayon, for example, would need to be remade, as the optical scanners cannot read crayon.)

3) Stand in line to register absentee ballots in the books. (In case the voter tries to vote in person on Election Day. Actually, if the voter shows up in person before his/her absentee ballot is processed, s/he can vote in person and the absentee ballot will not be processed. If the absentee ballot has already been processed, the voter cannot vote again in person.)

4) Run ballots through tabulator. Turn in very precious voter number tickets. (Big headaches if voter number ticket is lost.)

The entire day went surprisingly smoothly. Props to the City Clerk! Props also to the judges in Our Fair State who threw out the lawsuit brought by Our Elected Official that could have made the day much more tense and chaotic. We had only one poll observer of note, whom I christened (in my head) Tightly Wound, and while he was a noticeable presence, he obeyed the rules governing poll observers. It was almost anticlimactic, but in a good way.

All in all I spent 15 1/2 hours at the polls yesterday. By the time I got home and took a shower, McCain was making his concession speech. By the time Obama gave his speech, I was asleep. (Sorry to have missed it, but didn't sleep much the night before and had to be back at work today.)

Here are a few other observations from yesterday...

• Our fearless section leader, Mr. Bob, rocks! A pleasure working with you, sir!
• Poll workers were almost entirely over the age of 55, excepting a small group of high school students. There were just a few of us between the ages of 18-55.
• A body in motion should stay in motion. Seriously, if you have been in motion for four hours, don't sit down for lunch (even for 15 minutes) if you are going to have to be in motion for another 9 hours.
• The fatigued brain is an amazing thing. The output can bear absolutely no resemblance to the input. (This is why we worked in pairs.)
• 'No Sleep Til Brooklyn' makes absolutely no sense, given the context, yet is readily adopted by the aforementioned fatigued brain as a mantra.
• Everybody worries that they are going to be the one to make some hideous mistake while working. (Including me. Hence the no sleep the night before.) I was amazed at how many of the poll workers were working for the first time, and confessed to being kept awake by this fear.

It was a great experience. I'm glad I did it. I'd gladly do it again.

Subsidizing Stupidity

Avert your eyes; I am about to rant.

Universal health care is one of those ideas that makes its supporters feel wonderfully egalitarian. Nice warm fuzzies all around. To be sure, it is perilous to be without health care in this country, and for those with genuine medical need, receiving competent medical care should not come only at the price of bankruptcy.

But health care is a responsibility, not a right. People who insist on treating it as a right instead of a responsibility are part of the reason why we have a broken health care system. I know some of these people, and the following rant is directed at one of them in particular.

I know you think otherwise, but guess what? You are not entitled to my tax dollars to pay for your emergency room visit if you...

1) think energy drinks, coffee, and doubleshot espressos are an adequate substitute for food, and

2) have previously had heart palpitations while on a diet heavy in the aforementioned liquids, and

3) are currently having heart palpitations while on a diet heavy in the aforementioned liquids.


You are entitled to...

1) modify your diet to exclude the offending beverages. (Ideally you would have done this the last time you had this problem. Or the time before that.)

2) lay down until your heart stops racing. (Breathe deeply while you're at it.)

3) pay for your own emergency room visit and extensive testing. (The end result? You have a sensitivity to caffeine. Shocking.)

You wouldn't presume to come to me and ask me for money for that emergency room visit. (Actually, knowing you, I take that back.) Yet somehow because my money was separated from me via the mysterious process called 'taxes', funnelled around by this thing called 'government' into something called 'state-sponsored health insurance for the uninsured', you feel entitled to run to the doctor at the drop of a hat.

Thankfully, I have private health insurance at the moment, though there were several years when I went without insurance altogether. As a participant in private health care, I realize that the number of doctor visits I clock in a year is reflected in the premiums that everyone who participates in my plan pays. Unfair though it may be, we all pay for the poor health choices of those with whom we share insurance. Sadly, this seems not to elicit a spirit of cooperation that would collectively lower our premiums, but rather a 'I'm gettin' mine' attitude. And now I have to watch this attitude suck up tax dollars.

I have watched you and yours run to urgent care centers simply because they are there and you could. My tax dollars paid for it. In most cases it was not medically necessary that the condition be treated immediately, rather than waiting for a regular doctor's appointment. If you had had to pay for the visit, you would have 1) known the difference in cost between an urgent care visit and a regular office visit, and 2) exercised some basic common sense before seeking medical treatment. But because insurance is paying for it (and possibly compounded by the fact that you are not paying for the insurance), all considerations of cost go out the window.

Our health care system is broken in part because we are not responsible medical consumers. We live much less healthy lives compared to the people in other countries where universal health care is provided, despite adequate education on health and nutrition. Sickness is something we flaunt to one another, perhaps because it gives permission for sympathy to be extended to us. An office visit with a doctor is no longer the option of last resort for many common ailments, but rather a 'necessary' validation of common sense. Of all the reasons I hear for the high cost of health care, the one thing I never hear discussed is excessive and unnecessary use of the system. Perhaps this isn't a large factor in the price of health care, but it's a damn annoying one to have to witness.

Health care is a responsibility that starts with the individual, not the doctor. As such, it is irresponsible to expect others to absorb the cost of your poor health choices. Here's an idea - If 9 out of 10 doctors would agree that your predicament/visit was 1) unnecessary, and/or 2) the result of blatant stupidity on your part, you shouldn't expect health insurance - private or public - to pay for it.

Hello Election Official

"Hundreds of thousands of Americans, working at polling places across the country, make elections happen. Theirs is not merely noble work. It is the essential work of democracy." - editorial in local paper

Okay, I'm preening just a little bit.

I got my official letter today for my assignment as a poll worker in the upcoming election. My curiosity has gotten the better of me yet again. For some dubious reason, Our Fair State has been targeted by "partisan operators... who seek to create confusion at polling places." The details of the shady tactic being employed at this late hour aren't completely clear to me, but experts agree that this action will create "unnecessary hardship and confusion at the polls, and at worst, the disenfranchisement of [Our Fair State] citizens with a clear and legitimate right to vote." Voting can be quite a time-consuming process as it is, especially when voter turnout is expected to exceed 90% in a national election. What justifies making this process harder for the average voter?

In addition to being curious, I'm also a bit irked. The more I look into this, the more it smacks of a politically-motivated, partisan action by an elected official who is supposed to serve the citizens of Our Fair State. You'll excuse me if I find it hard to believe that "the stakes are enormously high", as alleged by Our Elected Official. I likewise find it hard to believe that "properly qualified voters are at risk of having their votes diminished and diluted by the votes of unqualified, ineligible voters". One presumes that Our Elected Official would back up such an allegation with evidence of the possibility of such a 'dilution'. Surely there should be evidence that such a heinous thing might actually occur if one is planning to unleash chaos at the polls. The only cited statistic in the original petition is an alleged approximation of a 22% discrepancy rate that will be found in voter registration applications. Of those discrepancies, there is no mention of what percentage would indicate an ineligible voter who actually turns up and votes thereby diluting the votes of 'properly qualified voters'. No one reasonably suspects that this is a high percentage. Oh, and did I mention that Our Elected Official was/is a "co-chairman of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s [Our Fair State] campaign." Do you hear a voice in your head screaming 'conflict of interest'? (Yeah, I'm probably not completely 'politically neutral' right about now, but this is about messing with the democratic process.)

I agree with my compatriots that the "ultimate protection for democracy comes... from the people, who the founders of this revolutionary republic entrusted to zealously defend the electoral processes... And the single best way to mount that defense is to become a poll worker." Where else would you want to be, if not the front lines?

We'll see if my zeal can make it through a 16+ hour day as a poll worker.

Why I Am a Humanist

"A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

First of all, may I suggest that you take a moment to read this. (Go on, I'll wait.)

I've never been much of a joiner, but I do tend to gravitate towards ideas that I find to have merit. And I find the idea that we must examine ourselves critically if we are to have any real happiness or understanding of the universe and its meaning to be fairly sound.

That may not quite be the heart of traditional humanist doctrine, but if prompted to expound upon that statement, I would add this...

We are not perfect creatures whose minds are incapable of error or mistake. We are all capable of being led astray in our thinking, even the best among us. If there is any advantage to be gained from knowing absolute truths, then we must identify the obstacles that our minds place between us and this knowledge. To this end, it is worth studying ourselves, how we form our values and beliefs, and what drives our actions. In achieving such an understanding of self, we are also better able to understand others. If there is an 'article of faith' to be found in my reasoning, it is in my belief in the power of mutual understanding to facilitate positive change.

I'm not a humanist because I strongly prioritize human life relative to anything else. I'm not a humanist because I have a militant need to reject supernaturalism. I'm a humanist because I believe in the power of the mind to free itself from bias and gain a more accurate picture of the reality in which we live. I'm a humanist because I believe that, alone, I am fallible, but that the wisdom of others may correct my errors. I'm a humanist because I believe that a better understanding of human nature enables empathy and tolerance, and that is a goal worth embracing. I'm a humanist because I believe that we are our only hope for better world.

That's why I am a humanist.

No Child Left Inside

"The ability to play is central to our capacity to take risks, to experiment, to think critically, to act rather than react, to differentiate ourselves from our environment, and to make life meaningful." - The Case for Make Believe, by Susan Linn (2008).

No, I haven't morphed into a political savant. Linn's wonderful book on the necessity of preserving and encouraging children to play creatively mentioned the idea of No Child Left Inside. (Clever!) Ever curious, I had to google it.

Among the google results was H.R. 3036: No Child Left Inside Act of 2008. This is legislation that is in the process of being voted upon! It has currently passed in the House of Representatives and is waiting for a vote in the Senate.

Here are some of the highlights of the proposed Act...

"The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Environmental education is essential for--
(A) enhancing student learning and problem solving skills, especially in science;
(B) creating responsible and engaged citizens; and
(C) producing graduates who are prepared to address the challenges, adjustments, and opportunities that will be present in the life and the workforce of the 21st century due to threats to human health, economical development, biological diversity, and national security arising from environmental stresses.

(2) Studies documenting the increasing indicators of nature-deficit disorder show that time spent out of the classroom for learning during the school day is critical to the intellectual, emotional, and physical health of children and that providing students with quality opportunities to directly experience the natural world can improve students' overall academic performance, self-esteem, personal responsibility, community involvement, personal health (including child obesity issues), and understanding of nature."

(My emphasis. And I had to google "nature-deficit disorder".)

The bill proposes funding for the following...

"Purpose- The purpose of this part is to ensure the academic achievement of students in environmental learning by--

(1) encouraging institutions of higher education to promote the status and stature of the environmental education teaching profession by assuming greater responsibility for improving environmental education teacher training through the establishment of a comprehensive, integrated system of recruiting, training, and advising environmental education teachers; and

(2) encouraging State educational agencies, local educational agencies, elementary schools, and secondary schools to participate in programs that--
(A) improve the environmental content knowledge, skills in teaching about environmental issues, and field-based pedagogical skill base of all teachers;
(B) focus on the development of teacher's environmental knowledge and teaching skills as a career-long process that continuously stimulates teachers' intellectual growth and upgrades teachers' proficiency in teaching about the environment;
(C) develop more rigorous environmental education teacher training curricula that are aligned with challenging State and local academic content standards; or
(D) provide environmental education experiences that utilize outdoor activities and facilities for students to directly experience nature."

(My emphasis. Personally, I'd like to see less emphasis on teacher training, and more emphasis on program development utilizingly local environments and resources.)

Surprisingly, not everyone is in favor of this proposal. The main objections seem to be that time spent fulfilling these environment-oriented objectives would detract from time spent teaching the basics, like reading and math. Oh, and we would be imposing "the Al Gore type of green propaganda on our kids in our schools".

The next generation needs to have an environmental awareness that is rooted in experience, not rhetoric. Children should be encouraged to play outside for a variety of reasons, including the greater intellectual value of the types of creative play that be engaged in outdoors, the need for a healthy level of physical activity to stave off health problems such as obesity, and the benefits of actively exploring the real-world over the fantasy realms of TV or video games. The No Child Left Inside Act may also facilitate those objectives in addition to its stated objectives, which makes it that much more appealing to me.

Maybe it's time to email a couple of Senators...

It's All in Your Head

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

What is it that makes you a conservative or a liberal? Most of us tend to think that it is a reflection of our upbringing, values, and/or education. Most of all, we think that we freely choose our political beliefs and affiliations. But perhaps our choice isn't as free as we'd like to think...

I hate it when I can't link to source material and have to settle for second-hand reports, but this was just too interesting to pass up. A recent study in Science reveals a correlation between political attitudes and certain physiological responses that begs the question - Are our political attitudes determined in part by our physiological sensitivity?

In this study, the people who reacted more strongly to adverse stimuli also seemed to be the ones who held political views that could be construed as defensive and threat-oriented. The people who exhibited less of a physiological response to the adverse stimuli seemed to be the ones who favored policies that are characterized by openness. This is the kind of finding that, if replicable, is beautiful in its simplicity but scary for its implications. Of course, correlation is not causation, and it's also possible that one's attitudes create a biofeedback loop that modifies future responses to similar stimuli. Or that the correlation is underwritten by another unidentified variable. So take what follows with a grain of salt.

You think that I'm now going to talk about the nature of 'free will' and how, perhaps, it isn't so 'free'. Wrong. My mind went in another direction altogether. When faced with the simple idea that physiological sensitivity may determine how we perceived and evaluate threats, my mind went straight to psychopharmaceuticals, and I'm now entertaining the following questions...

What is the relationship between anti-anxiety drugs and/or antidepressents, and the strength with which these types of political convictions are held? Are political attitudes characterized by a defensive response to 'threat' noticeably weaker when the strength of the physiological response to stimuli has been pharmacologically weakened? How would attitudes or the strength of convictions change over a longer course of psychopharmacological treatment? As we increasingly become the Medication Nation, what changes will we see (or have we already seen) in cultural and political attitudes as a result of our psychopharmocological usage? Are we just a Valium away from voting for more tolerance and less aggression?

That's all way too much to read into a single study, yet alone a quick summary of a single study. But they are interesting questions...

Update: A much more detailed description of this paper can be found here.

By the Numbers

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one ever was truly harmed. Harmed is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance."

Creationism seems to be everywhere these days. It's scares me when people want to blindly follow anything, especially when they are willing to set logic, reason and evidence aside to do it.

In the spirit of 'knowledge is power', I recently attended a talk on creationism by Ronald Numbers, who is a historian of science and an authority on the creationism movement. It was an enormously informative talk about the history of the creationism movement, and Numbers is an engaging speaker, but the key question of 'Why do so many people believe this?' was largely unanswered. (At least it was largely unanswered by the time I had to leave during the Q&A. Parking meter.)

The arguments against creationism have been well-chronicled elsewhere, and the fight to keep creation 'science' out of the classroom has many strong and able proponents. So why am I talking about it? Because I think that there is a larger problem here that also needs to be addressed. Numbers made a comment after his talk that some teachers of evolution may be using an appeal to authority, rather than a discriminating look at the evidence, as their argument for evolution. I don't know how true that statement is, and it is not my intention to question any teacher's merits, but his comment reminded me though of one of my standard rants about needed education reform. We don't do enough to teach critical reasoning skills. I base this statement on the several years I spent teaching critical reasoning skills and logical analysis to college graduates/near-graduates, as well as classroom teaching of undergraduates.

These are the skills that should be the foundation of a higher education, and yet it's possible to matriculate with an undergraduate degree without a single credit of rhetoric or logic classes. If these skills were a prerequisite for attending an institution of higher learning, that might be one thing. (They're not.) If we could have the reasonable expectation that a student would automatically acquire these skills as a by-product of the process of his/her higher education, then perhaps this wouldn't be an issue.

Why are we surprised that so many educated people hold to views (such as a belief in creationism) that critical reasoning should call into question? Is it any more of a surprise that uneducated people are preyed upon with arguments that are so ludicrous that many in academia are hard-pressed to recognize the level of the problem that these arguments represent? Perhaps because the people thinking about these issues are often the least likely to fall prey to them, it can become difficult to imagine how any person can accept such an argument.

But I digress. How important is critical thinking, and how do students emerge from their education ill-equipped to evaluate the world around them? I'll give you this story to think about... As a new instructor in a department and university that shall rename unnamed, it fell to me to teach the unpopular class 'Experimental Research Methods'. I love the logical analysis involved in designing and evaluating experiments, so this was no hardship for me. But I took an enormous amount of flack for refusing to use multiple-choice tests in this class. Apparently multiple-choice tests were the standard M.O. for this class. As nobody really wanted to teach the class and nobody really wanted to take it, multiple-choice tests were probably an easy way out for everyone. I required that the students be able to articulate their reasoning in their own words. Not a popular choice... (sigh)

I personally think we should do more to teach critical thinking skills in high school, if not before. I think that teaching a child or young adult to actively engage the world with his/her mind is one of the most important aspects of education. It is an important component of raising our overall societal level of awareness, and it's becoming an increasingly more necessary skill as our world becomes increasingly more complex. 'Yes, sir' responses to authority are not an acceptable substitute for knowing when and how to ask 'Why?'.

But don't take my word for it. ;)

An Hour on Liberty and Political Power

"The probation of the flesh has many purposes, but none greater than learning to use power righteously, and none more difficult or more dangerous or beset with as many traps and snares for the soul. He must learn to stay his hand, never to trespass on another's agency, no matter how much wiser he may believe his vision to be or how much greater his own light. He may see the path far ahead and every precipice that hovers on the lip of the abyss, every morass that would suck a man into its bowels and consume him utterly. He may plead and teach, exhort and implore, yet he must not rob another of his right to choose for himself, good or ill."

This quote reminds me of many things...

A parent who wants her child to excel in school, go to college, select the 'right' major, and make smart life choices.

A protester who wants to impose her moral values upon a distressed woman.

A country that wants to 'help' another country to become a democracy, via strategic application of force.

It also got me thinking about all the ways in which free will is impinged upon by the philosophies of the two major political parties. Granted, to not impinge upon free will at all would result in anarchy, but what happens if we try to build a political philosophy from scratch, based on the premise that power should be minimally applied by a governing body, and then those in power should act from the desire to maximize individual freedoms? Oh, that's what happens.

[Brief Aside: I normally fall into the category of persons who can reasonably be called 'politically ignorant'. This scares me, as I think politics shouldn't be something you think about once a year or, heaven forbid, every four years. I hate thinking in sound bytes, and I am equally disgusted with being talked to in sound bytes. Unfortunately, I often use this disgust as a way to write-off politics as a deeply-flawed endeavor in which I can hope to have next-to-no impact and am therefore justified in largely ignoring. In a perfect world, I would find the impetus and drive to become politically aware and active, starting at a local level. I'm currently reading, and am inspired by, The Audacity of Hope. (The preceding statement should not in any way be construed as endorsement of a particular person, ticket, or party.) In a less-than-perfect world though, I'll devote an hour to writing a blog post about a particular topic and hopefully educating myself a little in the process.]

But back to what I was saying... A party that advocates individual responsibility, and opposes unnecessary impingement upon free will?! How did I not know about this? How do I know nothing about the Libertarian Party beyond what I believe that I can infer from a word that sounds remarkably like 'liberty'? How have I made it through four presidential elections with no more than a passing awareness of any third, fourth or fifth political party? My knowledge of third parties is appalling.

Googling various words (such as 'effectiveness') in combination with 'Libertarian Party' shows that the Libertarian Party has reached the point where some people want to reform it in order to appeal to larger percentage of voters. Its collective history is also available in wiki format. My predilection for comparative analysis though met with less-than-satisfying google results.

Believe it or not, my hour on this topic is up. I guess I spent more time reading than writing. And while I am by no means now a confirmed Libertarian, I think I have resolved to try to find an active Libertarian with whom to strike up a conversation...

I Don't Believe in Atheists

"To be a utopian, to live for the creation of a fantastic and unreal world, was to live in no place, to remove oneself from reality. It is only by building an ethic based on reality, one that takes into account the dangers and limits of the human situation, that we can begin to adjust our behavior to cope with social, environmental and political problems." - I Don't Believe in Atheists, by Chris Hedges (2008), p.11.

Given our recent discussions on this topic, you'll understand why I was intrigued when I noticed this book at the library last week.

Chris Hedges is a seminary graduate-turned-foreign correspondent who writes about his reactions to the ideas of prominent atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. As I have not read the majority of the work that he references, I can't comment on how accurately or poorly he represents the authors' ideas. The premise of his book is that the brand of atheism these thinkers espouse represents a mindset that is just as fundamentalist as one finds in extreme forms of religion.

Hedges refers many times to statements made by atheists about the evils of religion. He counters these with examples of secular evil. The point seems to be that evil is everywhere, and that secular misuse of science and reason is just as capable of producing evil as misguided religious idealism. The problem, he argues, is when we get caught up in defining the 'other' as the evil in this world. "Those who externalize evil and seek to eradicate this evil lose touch with their own humanity and the humanity of others." (p. 154)

The arguments he invokes reminded me of another quote, which I had been saving for a post titled 'The Essence of Compassion'. (If you will permit me this short digression...)

"You think the world can be scrubbed clean. It's not dirty. You want evil destroyed. Can you show me where evil is? Point it out. I am curious. I've not been able to find it in all these years."

The point being, if one wishes to rid the world of evil, one must first find it. Do we define a person as 'evil'? Or just the act that s/he performs? What of all the antecedent events that led that person to commit that act?

Is a person 'evil' when they lack what we perceive to be a 'normal' moral compass or conscience? If so, and we wish to eradicate the evil and ensure that it never happens again, are we to look to the sources of learning by which this person acquired knowledge about morality? Are we to look to genetics or biology for a defect? As certain types of genetic expression can be modified by environment, are we ever justified in declaring someone 'evil' beyond our capacity to rehabilitate?

Is a person 'evil' when they act with the intent to cause harm? Or does it depend on whether this person is acting from need (such as self-defense or survival) or desire? Is intention where we can find and eradicate evil? If so, how much previous experience must also be excised in order to ensure that this person never intends to perform the same act in the future? If past experience gives rise to malicious intent and/or lack of restrain in performing such an act, then what responsibility, if any, do the people who gave rise to this person's past experiences have for this evil?

Is an idea 'evil'? Is it evil only if it has been twisted to a perverse meaning or intent? If so, how then do we define those who knowingly transmit a flawed idea? How do we draw the lines when it comes to victims and perpetrators of flawed ideologies? What responsibility does the individual bear for examining what he or she was taught? Who bears the responsibility for teaching him or her to think critically?

These argument are not intended as a defense of 'evil'. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the shortcomings of declaring any person, organization, or ideology to be 'evil'. Focusing on defining something or someone as 'evil' misses too much of the complexity of interactions that gave rise to the particular behavior or idea that we see as 'evil'. Such a chain ultimately ends up right back in our own laps, and worse still, defining the other as 'evil' allows us to remain blind to our own expression of the same instincts, impulses, fears, and shortcomings.

The capacity for 'evil' is in all of us. All of us would make war, under the right circumstances. All of us would kill, if sufficiently threatened or to protect a loved one or if taught to do so. It doesn't even take a real threat to permit decent people to become capable of evil. This is part of the human condition.

I have no answer for this problem, but one suggestion... When you can see how another person has come to do what they have done, and when you can see how you could have come to that place too if your circumstances had been different, then you can act from compassion instead of fear. Fear will cause you to strike out, where compassion can stay your hand.

(End of not-so-short digression.)

Hedges argues that "knowledge is not wisdom" and that having knowledge alone still isolates us from the "deeper truths of life." These are the truths, he argues, that reach us via literary and artistic expression, and the appreciation of something greater than ourselves. Ultimately though, we value these things because they tell us something about ourselves - that we are finite, that we have limitations, that we are not alone in our pain or our joy. Religion also serves as one way in which man seeks answers to his questions about who and what he is. Hedges seems to argue that we need religion to give us a sense of the transcendent, and to remind us of our common humanity. I think we really only need empathy in order to appreciate our common humanity.

And as for the transcendent... Perhaps Hedges' quote from Reinhold Niebuhr sheds light there.

"Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history, therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own. Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness."

Beyond Freedom and Dignity

"The moral issue of our time has landed at our doorstep, and we cannot turn away." - Rebuttal to the Con Statement of APA Petition Resolution

I've been wanting to blog about this for some time. I'm not in the vortex of this particular issue, but the wording of it is such that all APA members would do well to read the entire resolution and the four statements that follow, and give them serious thought.

The resolution itself is this ... "Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights[7]."

It will take you awhile to work past your 'Torture is abhorrent! Of course we shouldn't work anywhere where torture is used!' reaction. This is valid, admirable reaction, but it oversimplifies the nature and ramifications of this resolution.

So that you'll understand my perspective, I'll share this story... I was once approached about becoming a behavioral profiler. For purely selfish reasons, I declined to pursue the opportunity. (I couldn't imagine spending my days unravelling the workings of deviant minds. Ick.) I imagine though that this occupation would not have been too different from that of the psychologists on the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams mentioned in the above resolution.

I don't know what prompted this resolution. Perhaps some of these psychologists appealed to the APA for protection because they were dismayed at what they were being asked to do. Perhaps the resolution was prompted by armchair moral indignation. Either way, it is not the first APA resolution to address psychologists' participation in torture.

If you are still having trouble visualizing what a psychologist might do in this capacity, or why, might I suggest that you find and watch this. Now remember that these were the images and ideas that we grew up with. It's hard to watch this particular episode when one has read and thought about this particular APA resolution or any of the recent allegations of CIA torture of detainees.

"We know, from decades of psychological research, that good people do bad things in bad situations. Psychologists are no less vulnerable to 'behavioral drift' than others, particularly when subject to the chain of command in the closed environment of a geographically isolated detention center." - Pro Statement

That statement sums up a valid concern, and perhaps the most valid point to be made in this entire argument. Yet, three unrelated paragraphs later, there is no clear statement of how the following goal - "This referendum would thus protect psychologists from the risk of future prosecutions." - will be achieved by this resolution. Indeed, the goal seems to have drifted from protecting psychologists psychologically to protecting them legally.

The rebuttal to the pro statement was equally vague, and focused on definition of 'permissible' work settings, rather than on the obviously unsupported argument that this resolution is protecting anyone, let alone psychologists. Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with the previous resolutions, or how APA resolutions in general have been applied in a legal or disciplinary sense, that permits me to wonder why location of employment seems to be an debatable issue here...

The con statement makes it clear that "[w]hile APA is clear that the petition, if adopted, is not enforceable", it does not make clear a far more important point - One's behavior with respect to moral issues is not a question to be settled by referendum. If I let you tell me what I can and cannot do, and where I can and cannot work, then I let you think for me, and de facto, I encourage an external locus of control for my behavior. Do this make me more likely to act morally? Perhaps not.

'But psychologists should object! Torture is wrong!', you say. Yes, but when the "APA has stated emphatically: Following orders is never a defense to torture.", it seems slightly hypocritical to expect that an internally-generated resolution should serve as an overriding 'guideline' for a member's behavior. Psychologists would be better served with concrete facts about the nature of the employment they face, so that they can make informed decisions about their potential employment.

A more productive use of APA time might also be the follow-up that was suggest in the con statement to a previous resolution. “APA will explore ways to support psychologists who refuse to work in such settings or who refuse to obey orders that constitute torture.” I would suggest that further exploration of the issue of the 'behavioral drift' mentioned above would also be a more productive use of APA time and resources. Both of these issues deserve concrete suggestions and proposals by which they can be addressed, not additional ambiguous referendums whose actual efficacy I was unable to discern from six pages of statements.

I guess my soapbox is back in business again.