tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011648530174834402024-02-26T02:54:15.415-05:00How to Paint Your PandaA blog about everything and anything; nothing short of colourful, never clear as black-and-white.Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-89408797475329132292016-02-08T10:39:00.002-05:002016-02-08T10:39:13.871-05:00Conclusion of How to Paint Your PandaHow to Paint Your Panda launched in August of 2013 as a depository for essentially anything I decided I wanted to write about. Originally it was about free thinking, words of wisdom, and generally just sharing <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-importance-of-friend.html">my thoughts and feelings</a> about the world around me. Starting in December of that same year, I started to experiment with my academic affairs. Not only had I started sharing my <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-sweat-and-blood-of-art-student.html">artwork</a> but I came to explore writing <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2013/12/breed-specific-legislation-from-fame-to.html">research essays</a>, and I was pleased with the results. I had found an outlet that allowed my mind to stretch and explore while keeping in touch with the humanities. Synthesizing the two is what led to my bombshell post on <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/01/lewontins-fallacy-and-race.html">"Lewontin's Fallacy,"</a> which is not only by far the most popular post on this blog but was also the subject of several controversies and arguments, which only made me want to keep going. It has since been used in several classroom and other academic mediums, as have many of my other posts. For an undergrad struggling to maintain her place in the world and discover her interests, this was more than what I could have ever asked for.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So the blog stayed in that direction, and for the next 2 years it would grow and grow, picking up on approximately 75,000 unique viewers, which isn't particularly impressive but is huge for someone without a name in the world or any advertising or specialty. I have written about many topics, including but not limited to <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/evolutionary-sins-gender-gap-in-spatial.html">sex/gender differences</a> in evolutionary traits, <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/08/brian-hookers-hooked-hoax-measles-mumps.html">pseudoscience</a>, and even uncommon research such as <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/12/depression-and-stressmood-disorders.html">RNT relating to depression</a>. The latter has been circulated in numerous science outlets and even a couple of clinics. Again, this is all more than I ever could have asked for.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My readers will be happy to know that the research doesn't stop there. I have just recently continued my studies and have decided to make the latter most essay the inspiration for my master's thesis. I hope to expand upon it further some time in the future as the topic of original research. It is something I am deeply passionate about for many reasons, and I hope to contribute to the limited body of knowledge we have.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On this note, however, is why I have decided to conclude my presence on How to Paint Your Panda. I can see myself becoming too enveloped by my studies and, seeing as how the space between each of my posts seems to just get longer and longer, I feel that it would be too burdensome for me knowing that the blog is still up and that some people are looking forward to my next work. My best friend and colleague, and the co-owner of this blog, agrees, and has consented to this change.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
HtPYP had a great run. It was successful, it informed and inspired a number of people, and without a doubt it has motivated me to rigorously pursue my career and exercise critical thinking and information literacy skills beyond what I ever would have been capable of. It grew a passion in me, and so in that sense it will always have a permanent mark on me. I hope others can say the same.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I thank all of my readers for their support, and I thank my friends for encouraging me to continue with this for as long as I have. Thank you for contributing and helping me find my place in a world of ever growing interest in science and expansion of knowledge. Thank you for pushing me to do what little work I have, which has helped a great number of people.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And of course, thank you all for reading, and good luck to you all in the future.</div>
Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-15978364618988271572015-12-30T21:44:00.001-05:002015-12-31T14:54:01.765-05:00Guns And Controllers: The APA Reviews, Kotaku Gets Aggressive, The Game ContinuesJust about one year ago, <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/12/guns-and-controllers-do-violent-video.html">I summarized the best research available</a> on the topic of violent video games causing aggressive behaviour. Reviewing several meta-analyses and discussing the APA's statement on the subject, I concluded that violent video games almost certainly have a minimal effect and likely have a higher effect on aggressive cognition. For those of you who follow my posts, this was a long winded process, and left on a cliff hanger: the APA had been petitioned to review the literature again and revise their first resolution on the subject. This effort was led by Christopher Ferguson, one of the leading researchers in this field, and joined by approximately 228 media scholars and academics as well. That was in October of 2013.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBcCe4LnGqeB1_95LpAQtJLVT9hkUcU-fEAHXExCm5HnTKmQOepliroF7Q4OxzeT1dMhqOT7KCpQl0-5u6DCCx6Dj9F0rWaHvv0Z1lpr7829jaFGHV3TV79bMSsc_BYd6o31FddRBQIcU/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBcCe4LnGqeB1_95LpAQtJLVT9hkUcU-fEAHXExCm5HnTKmQOepliroF7Q4OxzeT1dMhqOT7KCpQl0-5u6DCCx6Dj9F0rWaHvv0Z1lpr7829jaFGHV3TV79bMSsc_BYd6o31FddRBQIcU/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Remember this picture? I know you all missed me.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In August of this year, the APA released <a href="http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games.pdf">a new resolution</a> as well as a <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/technical-violent-games.pdf">full report</a> on video games and violence/aggressive behaviour. Keep in mind that the last APA resolution on this subject was from 2005, so this is big news since we have had just about 10 years to analyze and accumulate new studies and research. Surely after taking a new look at the data, the APA would come to a more "reasoned" conclusion, right? As promised in my first article on the subject, I'm here to report. That's right, you get tons of presents for the holidays: the queen returns, she's getting newsy, and she's actually keeping one of her promises for once!<br />
<br />
Focusing exclusively on research conducted between the time of the first resolution and now, the new APA resolution concludes the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>The link between video games and aggressive behaviour exists, is robust, and is backed by the majority of data. </li>
<li>The link is not just limited to aggressive behaviour, but aggressive affect and aggressive cognition as well.</li>
<li>In addition, violent video games are also related to decreases in prosocial behaviour, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression.</li>
</ul>
Needless to say, people flipped. <a href="http://kotaku.com/why-most-video-game-aggression-studies-are-nonsense-1724116744">Kotaku wrote an article</a> in response to the new APA resolution attempting to point out the numerous flaws in the studies they cited to convince people that the studies are "nonsense," and that the resolution should be disregarded. Oh, Kotaku...<br />
<br />
Let's take a look at some of their contentions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"An outside observer might wonder—how can you tell whether someone is 'more aggressive'? Is there really a way to measure an emotional state
like aggression? Well, some of the tests used in violent video game
studies include: </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>A) </b>The 'short story' test, where a subject is given
the beginning of a writing prompt ('A driver crashes into Bob’s car. Bob
gets out of his car and approaches the driver.') and told to fill in
what happens next. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>B) </b>The 'noise' test, where a subject is asked to
press a button that delivers a terrible sound to another subject, then
evaluated based on how much noise they deliver and how intense it is. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>C) </b>The 'hot sauce' test, where a subject is asked to
dole out hot sauce to another subject and is evaluated based on how
much sauce they give and how spicy it is. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>
</i><i>Other tests ask subjects to fill out questionnaires asking how
aggressive they feel, and if all this has you raising an eyebrow, you’re
not alone. 'Aggression' is an ambiguous psychological concept—if I get
mad at a game and scream at my TV for a few seconds, am I being
aggressive?—that can only be measured in subjective and often arbitrary
ways."</i></blockquote>
Kotaku is correct to say that there is no single way to define or study aggression, and that it is often subjective and arbitrary, but it is meaningless to point this out here. There are swaths of psychological traits that we study every day that are largely arbitrary in their definition, such as intelligence, impulsivity, introversion versus extroversion, empathy, and so on. To say that the studies examining these things are useless betrays a lack of understanding regarding <i>why</i> we create these terms in the first place. Simply put, a term is only meaningful if it can practically be used to examine something. For example, the term "intelligence" is meaningful because it can be one word which describes several factors which are often correlated with one another: good grades, analytical skills, and spatial ability to name a few. It is true that you can define "intelligence" in a number of other ways too, but as it is defined here, it is quite useful and predictive.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMLT5K_ZDcsnf_VCXLQJpeWk2CK5mytFsiPePLQWNlarv8ko_xQWhlPaIwszwqvleM5w89nMyeiYOaUnnx-Ncdjq8fSYlEbilB6yTOBRIUh7cncx8qhf4HLGP4-jS7KwbnOFclVt5iRcU/s1600/sbFighters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMLT5K_ZDcsnf_VCXLQJpeWk2CK5mytFsiPePLQWNlarv8ko_xQWhlPaIwszwqvleM5w89nMyeiYOaUnnx-Ncdjq8fSYlEbilB6yTOBRIUh7cncx8qhf4HLGP4-jS7KwbnOFclVt5iRcU/s320/sbFighters.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Aggression" - a useful definition for real, observable things.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Similarly, we define aggression a number of ways. In the APA resolution, they make their definition clear: "behavior that is intended to harm another." This is the practical definition that is used by most researchers in the field of psychology; thus, when a study claims to find an association between video game violence and aggression, it can be reread to claim an association between video game violence and behaviour that is intended to harm another person. It means the same thing.<br />
<br />
So what about these tests that these researchers use? Do they help us examine "aggressive" behaviour, affect, or cognition (note: this is an important distinction that Kotaku neglected to make; these tests were used for different psychological traits entirely, and so may not make sense when examined exclusively through the lens of "aggressive behaviour")? The answer is yes. Imagine the answers one might receive to the question in example A. Bob gets out of his car and approaches the driver, they exchange information, and they go about their way because they both have jobs to get to. Someone else might answer, Bob is shot and the driver flees. Aggressive cognition.<br />
<br />
Example B, a button which delivers a noise which hurts another person's ears. Person 1 presses the button quickly and flinches. Person 2 slams down on it and holds it until the air runs out. Aggressive behaviour.<br />
<br />
Example C, intentionally giving someone spicier hot sauce, more hot sauce, or both, is intended to hurt them. Aggressive behaviour.<br />
<br />
Kotaku also seems to have chosen, randomly or otherwise, those tests which <b>appear</b> to have the least merit. Some other tests include parental reports, peer reports, and teacher reports of explicitly aggressive behaviour such as kicking, hitting, threatening, hair pulling, insulting, biting, pushing, and much more. There is also the Implicit Association Test, which is a direct test of cognitive processes based on subject response. The tests used to determine aggressive behaviour, cognition, and affect are numerous, which is why I like to tell people to defer to concordance among sources. Like <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/01/global-warming-denial-face-against-facts.html">climate change denialists</a>, those who refuse to accept the causal connection between violent video games and aggressive behaviour will either throw out broad generalizations about how these studies are conducted or will nitpick every single one. Disregarding calculations for effect size in meta-analyses such as these, the fact is that the vast majority of research is in agreement, regardless of the particular method each study uses. People using multiple different methodologies and coming to the same conclusion is evidence <i>supporting</i> the hypothesis in question, not taking away from its credibility.<br />
<br />
So regardless of whether or not it's "arbitrary," it's consistent and useful. For research purposes, this is all that matters.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"One major problem with the tests used by these studies is that they all measure their subjects’ aggression directly after
they’ve played violent video games. Even if you assume the tests are
good ways to measure aggression, this is not particularly useful
information for practical purposes. If you’re a parent who wants to know
how violent video games might affect your children, the bigger concern
is how their behavior will be impacted in the long run. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>But there aren’t enough studies on the long-term effects of violent
video games. Admits the APA in their report: 'However, the meta‐analyses
we reviewed included very few longitudinal studies, and none of those
that were included considered enough time points to examine the
developmental trajectory of violent video game use and associated
outcomes.' </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>
</i><i>So the APA’s conclusion—that there’s a consistent relation between
violent games and aggression—is misleading at best. What they’ve
actually concluded is that there’s a consistent relation between violent
games and short-term aggression."</i></blockquote>
The statement Kotaku is referring to comes from the full APA report, which is <i>still</i> in the correction stage (i.e. why I waited so long to talk about this). This is found on page 4 in response to questions about whether or not violent video games have particularly harmful effects for children and adolescents who are susceptible to developmental harms. Given this context, it is easy to see why the APA would respond in this way: there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that violent video games significantly impact a child's development. But do they really believe in the lack of evidence overall from longitudinal studies? This is not so. In summarizing the outcomes of the research on page 10, they say the following, emphasis my own:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Since the earlier meta-analyses, the literature has broadened in some directions. For example, there are more longitudinal studies and multi-exposure studies. The literature has also broadened in terms of populations studied, including a limited number of children, high-risk populations, and non-U.S. samples, although more similar research is needed. <b>Several longitudinal studies, using both experimental and naturalistic approaches, have helped establish that the effects of violent video game exposure last beyond immediate effects in the laboratory.</b>"</blockquote>
The emphasis on concordance between experimental and observational studies is important, because it shows that even those longitudinal studies which directly assess violent video games as a <i>cause</i> for aggression found an effect. For aggressive cognitions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Numerous laboratory and longitudinal studies have assessed the impact of violent video game use on aggressive cognitions, which includes both self-reports and direct measures of cognitive processes. ... Of the 31 studies reviewed, 13 included aggressive cognitions as an outcome. <b>All of these studies showed an effect of violent video game use on increased aggressive cognitions, </b>replicating the finding in the pre-2009 research."</blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2G4PZXwAHUXMjcrX4YP2TZtjzMH8nzbcVt8L0c70m98R142d3P2W9LqmJGjYbwhpj8teAmeRDyW2eerF8eloWDNZUWBeqUAXnXNWs2FoNKxscf5lNrI0inpGx6dwG557KlI-xyT2cNRE/s1600/angry_gamer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2G4PZXwAHUXMjcrX4YP2TZtjzMH8nzbcVt8L0c70m98R142d3P2W9LqmJGjYbwhpj8teAmeRDyW2eerF8eloWDNZUWBeqUAXnXNWs2FoNKxscf5lNrI0inpGx6dwG557KlI-xyT2cNRE/s400/angry_gamer.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That moment you find out you didn't read the whole thing.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is not unusual for a research report to do. When given a specific
question, they respond in a specific way. When asked about the overall
findings of the research, the water gets clearer.<br />
<br />
For those who are interested in the actual findings of the APA report, I would read it in its entirety (even in the correction stage). The one-liner that Kotaku cited has been noted abundantly by people who were outraged by this report, using it to essentially write the whole thing off. I personally saw this not only on the original Polygon report but on Reddit reaction threads as well. Truly comical to see so many people stop at 4 pages in to boast about the report's lack of power. Of course, this isn't to say that we couldn't use more longitudinal studies. We can always use more research, but at present, studies of varying designs have mostly come to the same conclusion. What else does Kotaku have to say?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Few people are thinking about one of the most important factors: competition."</i></blockquote>
This is because the research is so lacking (or as the APA put it, "nascent") that nothing could be meaningfully drawn from examining the literature on competition. <a href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/vio-1-4-259.pdf">One of the only studies to date</a> to isolate the effect of competition from violence on aggressive behaviour had a whopping sample size of 42 and 55 subjects respectively for pilots 1 and 2, with study 1 having an effect size of zero. They defend this by calculating the power of their test (~0.775), but the power of a test does not tell us if the effect actually exists, only the test's ability to detect it.<br />
<br />
The lead author of the aforementioned study, Paul Adachi, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23595418">submitted his doctoral thesis</a> in 2013 in a similar realm. He took care of his sample problem, annually surveying 1,492 adolescents from grade 9 to grade 12 about their video game play and aggressive behaviour. He found that playing competitive games such as sports or racing games has a positive, moderate effect on aggressive behaviour, and that playing violent video games did not have an effect on this relationship. This effect also increases with how often the subject plays competitive games. So what's the problem here?<br />
<br />
For one, the study was longitudinal, not experimental - it was a cohort. As explained a moment ago, longitudinal, experimental studies show that violent video games have an effect on aggressive behaviour and cognition. In addition, the assessment of violent video games was through a moderator analysis. All this means in the context of this study is that the correlation between competitive video game play and aggression does not go away when you account for violent video game play. This does <i>not</i> bring into question whether or not violent video game play has an effect on aggression; it only shows that there is an independent correlation between competitive gaming and aggression. And again, this is a correlation based on a cohort study.<br />
<br />
The author of the Kotaku article, Jason Schreier, is <a href="http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-games-make-you-violent-an-in-depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today">not new to this discussion</a>, and his review of the literature has not changed much over the years. Now that even more research has been conducted and the APA has weighed in once again on the subject, he still is not convinced. "It’s all of these questions," he writes, "and the subjectivity of scientific studies,
most of which can be used to draw any number of conclusions—that have
convinced me to avoid reporting on these violent video game journals
every time we get a new press release or meta-analysis. There just isn’t
enough research or <br />
proper methodology to draw much from most of this
science."<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcIOXjLuPzZk_submYiMPLdFHGg3D6Qwja5CcNCbRizklx4NcrYY2mpOueEYF-w42gpL42RGOppCGd8l2KufoIaohqzGWr0uqOPyOJi-yJ9INxcICxD0RTu0c9pfaHwZcPGkd4bqMOa9I/s1600/gamer_sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcIOXjLuPzZk_submYiMPLdFHGg3D6Qwja5CcNCbRizklx4NcrYY2mpOueEYF-w42gpL42RGOppCGd8l2KufoIaohqzGWr0uqOPyOJi-yJ9INxcICxD0RTu0c9pfaHwZcPGkd4bqMOa9I/s320/gamer_sm.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">They're just sick and tired of it. They are just so, so done!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I think it's an interesting phenomenon that people have come to take to this "any conclusion can be drawn from a study" sort of thinking. It's a sweeping generalization that really seems lazy to me, when one can look at the individual merits of a study as I've done here and decide qualitatively whether or not the study constitutes any merit, or can be used for the claim that is being made. What's ironic enough is that Jason failed to see how the study he continuously cites has no bearing on this discussion, because he failed to apply such an analysis.<br />
<br />
This just goes to show that the battle is far from over. The APA report will go largely ignored by those who have become disengaged and are tired of hearing the same thing come up every few years. Personally I'm tired of it too, but for different reasons. As I mentioned in my first article on the topic, this is something I came into being completely skeptical of the view that video games can cause aggression or violence. An honest review of the literature leads one to abandon the former view, but still leaves room for some skepticism of the latter, which is the good news: these studies can't just be interpreted any way you want. They can only truly be interpreted one way, and that is what they <i>actually say.</i><br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading<i>, </i>and have a happy New Year.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a>References:<br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Youth+and+Adolescence&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1007%2Fs10964-013-9952-2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Demolishing+the+Competition%3A+The+Longitudinal+Link+Between+Competitive+Video+Games%2C+Competitive+Gambling%2C+and+Aggression&rft.issn=0047-2891&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1090&rft.epage=1104&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1007%2Fs10964-013-9952-2&rft.au=Adachi%2C+P.&rft.au=Willoughby%2C+T.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Adachi,
P., & Willoughby, T. (2013). Demolishing the Competition: The
Longitudinal Link Between Competitive Video Games, Competitive Gambling,
and Aggression <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42</span> (7), 1090-1104 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9952-2" rev="review">10.1007/s10964-013-9952-2</a></span> <br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychology+of+Violence&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fa0024908&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+effect+of+video+game+competition+and+violence+on+aggressive+behavior%3A+Which+characteristic+has+the+greatest+influence%3F&rft.issn=2152-081X&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=259&rft.epage=274&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2Fa0024908&rft.au=Adachi%2C+P.&rft.au=Willoughby%2C+T.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of video game competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? <span style="font-style: italic;">Psychology of Violence, 1</span> (4), 259-274 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024908" rev="review">10.1037/a0024908</a></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-90082239374788336872015-10-03T15:01:00.001-04:002015-10-03T17:57:05.206-04:00Moral Vegetarianism/Veganism: What's The Beef With Eating Meat?<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
About a month ago, popular YouTube user Kalel uploaded a video entitled "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZG6oclJJnY">Why I'm Vegan [+ how you can be too]</a>."
The subject is self explanatory: Kalel explains, in plain
terms, why she is a vegan and attempts to convince the audience of why
going vegan is a preferable choice. This is generally unproblematic, but becomes something of importance when she makes her arguments on moral grounds.<br />
<br />
This isn't an uncommon tactic. <a href="https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/why-go-vegan">Plenty</a> of <a href="http://www.peta.org/living/food/top-10-reasons-go-vegan-new-year/">organizations</a>
supporting veganism or vegetarianism on the grounds of animal rights
have jumped on the moral high ground by claiming it is morally
fallible for a person to eat meat and, for vegans, to use the products
that come from their bodies (e.g. eggs, milk, etc.). For example, part
of the "<a href="http://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/CompassionForAnimalsedited.pdf">Compassion for Animals</a>" statement by The Vegan Society goes as follows:<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Non-human
animals are living beings seeking life and freedom, and avoiding harm
and danger. In every 'livestock system,' no matter how high the welfare
standards are supposed to be, non-human animals will suffer. The Five
Freedoms, frequently used to measure welfare, will never be met
completely.</i></span></blockquote>
Avoiding
comment on the use of more conceptual terms such as "freedom," the
general message is clear. Animals are mistreated as livestock, and every
animal has a right to life that we take away when we make them products
for our consumption. Both of these factors play a pivotal role into why
one should become a vegan (or vegetarian). Kalel's video echoes these
sentiments and uses many typical arguments/talking points to make her
case. Here, I am going to respond to them in detail and analyze the
flaws in the moral vegetarian/vegan argument.<br />
<br />
You might be asking, "Why Kalel?" Is she really that important? Do I have some kind of <i>beef</i>
with her? The reason I am using Kalel's video as the center of my
rebuttal is because of convenience. Her arguments are not very different
from any other moral vegetarian/vegan, and so it doesn't really matter
who I choose. Her video is just more recent, and has received a lot of
attention. One could also review the fact that she is (or was) a
spokesperson for PETA, but other than an inward vitriol for PETA, it doesn't provide much of a prompt.
Beyond this, I have no personal issues with Kalel.<br />
<br />
I
will
be addressing her arguments in order, so if you are following along with
the video, it shouldn't be too hard to keep up. Her video is nearly
half an hour long, but the argumentative portion of it only lasts for
the first 8-10 minutes. That said, there is a lot to address, and thus
this will probably be a long post. [Fair
warning.]<br />
<br />
Let's begin.<br />
<br />
<b>Sensitivity</b><br />
<br />
These
first few points are relatively small, but nonetheless need to be
addressed in my opinion. Kalel
begins her video by requesting that nobody comment on their love of
meat or anything of the sort in response to her video, and if they had
any intention of doing so (or are "too closed-minded to let this
information into [their] mind"), then to leave, because it's
insensitive.
Admittedly, Kalel has the right to put a prior restraint on anything she
wants when it comes to her YouTube videos and her channel, because they
are just that -- hers. However, I would argue that this in itself is a
rather closed-minded outlook. It isn't insensitive to bring criticism or
alternative opinions to a video for vegans or potential vegans; rather,
it's an exchange of ideas that should be valued, not shunned.<br />
<br />
<b>Conditioning</b><br />
<br />
Kalel
makes a brief point here about "conditioning" when talking about the importance of watching
videos and gaining information. She claims we have
been socially conditioned into thinking that it's okay to "torture,
rape [and] murder" farm animals, when in fact it isn't. Very briefly I want to say the following:<br />
<br />
(1)
There is nothing wrong with being socially conditioned to believe
something. It happens all the time, and most of our personal beliefs and
inner values are a result of social conditioning.<br />
<br />
(2)
Saying that it is, in fact, not okay is a personal statement. Only an
individual can make a determination of whether or not something is truly
"wrong." We tend to agree on most issues whether or not something is
wrong, but we will have differences, as shown by the very existence of
this article.<br />
<br />
I won't address the use of the loaded
terms "torture, rape and murder." In short, they evoke certain feelings
in us that try to force us to sympathize with animals on a level that we
typically reserve for humans. Kalel likely finds this to be acceptable,
and precisely the point, but I have more reservations when it comes to
that. <br />
<br />
<b>Why kill an animal when you no longer need to do so in order to survive?</b><br />
<br />
This
is actually pretty interesting, because it makes two implicit
arguments: That we no longer need to eat animals in order to survive,
and that we should only eat an animal if necessary to survive.<br />
<br />
The
former may be true for some of us, but certainly not all of us. Many
people need to eat meat for vitamins/nutrients because they can't afford
the numerous dietary supplements required otherwise. The alternative,
"vegan" products are expensive. In addition, some have to eat meat as a
matter of convenience. There are few vegetarian/vegan options at fast
food restaurants, but some people have to order quick food from such
places because time is valuable, and they don't necessarily have the
time to cook a meal at home for their families. I'm speaking exclusively
of America, but this is true for many westernized nations, and doesn't
even get to the issues with extending this argument to people across the
globe from impoverished nations or indigenous cultures.<br />
<br />
But
one could make the argument that it'd be okay for them to eat meat
because it's necessary, right? That conflicts with two of the moral
vegetarian/vegan propositions:<br />
<br />
(1) That animals have the same rights we do.<br />
(2) That killing animals is a moral wrongdoing.<br />
<br />
Moral
codes are universal. The morality of an act does not change depending
on time and location. One could argue it changes in context, but then we
would be conceding that there are some times where eating meat is okay
because it's for our survival. We would, however, then be prioritizing
our right to life over an animal's. Who are we to make such a decision? More on that later.<br />
<br />
But
this all embraces the premise that one should only eat meat when it's
necessary for survival. Turning outward, I don't agree with this premise
at all. We do many things as humans that are not necessary for our
survival and find no moral contentions with them. We build extravagant
houses (or sometimes, simple houses) in the territories of other
creatures. We buy multiple cars and drive them profusely even though it
contributes to global warming. Our nation and our society is not founded
on the principle of "do only what you must." There is a threshold where
we try to honor the sanctity of the environment around us while, at the
same time, pursue our own interests. As humans we balance, and there's
nothing inherently wrong with that because otherwise we would
ultimately have to inhibit humanity's development, return
our societies to the lowest common denominator, and deal with the
disease/starvation that naturally comes with that. We would, indirectly,
be promoting the torture of our own species.<br />
<br />
Something's gotta give.<br />
<br />
<b>Which ones are okay to eat?</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnEjk1HJjbo-9JuuU9VisThpALAbsS1Hn_8F8Cz4gwCJHxW91qbv69HJaPF3cSpj5Sq_V58Yt_Se7QMwMf3p4h2VuFrLURf43CZcYUY6wYnlOgSpaHT0w7G-3ytCIYdYKy7rFnBSXeyAE/s1600/B7QygmdCYAMFdMW.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnEjk1HJjbo-9JuuU9VisThpALAbsS1Hn_8F8Cz4gwCJHxW91qbv69HJaPF3cSpj5Sq_V58Yt_Se7QMwMf3p4h2VuFrLURf43CZcYUY6wYnlOgSpaHT0w7G-3ytCIYdYKy7rFnBSXeyAE/s320/B7QygmdCYAMFdMW.jpg" width="320" /></a>Here
is another interesting argument. The picture in the video, shown to the
side here, shows ten animal eyes and prompts you to say which ones are
okay to eat. The average person isn't able to identify an animal
exclusively by its eyes, and so the viewers find themselves in conflict.
The animal identities are listed below for the curious person, but here
half the eyes belong to dogs. It's fairly clear what the point is,
though: Because you can't identify the difference, it's because they're
all animals, and we can't differentiate between them. I completely
agree, because they're all okay to eat.<br />
<br />
Sure, it's hard
for the typical westerner to say that it's okay to eat dogs, but really
there's nothing wrong with it. Plenty of cultures do, and you know why?
Because while objectively there is no difference between these animals
insofar as what's okay to eat, we have determined that there is. Our
society has determined half of these meats to be edible, and half of
them inedible. Other societies think differently. The point is, however,
that we make determinations of the edibility of creatures based on our
personal thoughts. Dogs have been given a higher status than pigs in our
culture. Other cultures are capable of differentiating between a pet
dog and a dog meant for food. In America, we can actually keep pet cows,
but still eat burgers. That's only the case because we've decided there's a difference.<br />
<br />
Think about it: Why have dogs,
cats, canaries and fish become more popular as pets than pigs,
muskrats, otters and sparrows? We've just decided that the former four
are more suitable as pets. Of course we've domesticated dogs, and cats
are partially domesticated, but these are general statements, not
particularized ones. There's no justification for us having decided that
a guinea pig is a better pet than a muskrat, but we made that
determination, and nobody bats an eye.<br />
<br />
When pressed, we
can differentiate between animals and make value judgments based on
that differentiation. Kalel, at the very least, <a href="http://superfame.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/cows-more-intelligent.jpg">can understand that</a>.<br />
<br />
Continuing, this is also why Kalel's "man beating a dog" argument doesn't work. While we wouldn't want <i>any</i>
animal being beaten, we've prioritized the welfare of dogs because
they're not going to the dinner table. In a public setting, however,
animals are almost always understood to be pets. A man beating a pig, a
dog, a cow, or any animal in public will likely get backlash because he
is interpreted to be beating a pet, not an animal for food.<br />
<br />
This
isn't to say that beating animals in farms is okay either. It certainly
isn't, but we've at least made it a priority to address animal cruelty
in the public sphere because the setting is different. It's illegal for
two men to fight in the streets -- fisticuffs -- and yet millions of
people around the country will sit around and watch two men brawl it out
in the ring (e.g. boxing, wrestling, UFC) and nobody thinks there is a
contradiction. The reason is that there isn't a contradiction. We've
just decided one is okay, and another isn't.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx2VtRjIqGjPSnO1mqK5TblynE4dAbR1bhpA_WoUr-9BNyLnXXWtHOe5XpUzb-RwETej_0hRpQ7iqdNThH2o8YMRlbea52jVopNikXbywGBrLY2va5IX72yv-2nhElI-8N2jQkPGirvEH8/s1600/-fa97a4933127f8c9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx2VtRjIqGjPSnO1mqK5TblynE4dAbR1bhpA_WoUr-9BNyLnXXWtHOe5XpUzb-RwETej_0hRpQ7iqdNThH2o8YMRlbea52jVopNikXbywGBrLY2va5IX72yv-2nhElI-8N2jQkPGirvEH8/s320/-fa97a4933127f8c9.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pequest Trout Hatchery</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here's a
more on point example: Fishing. There are numerous regulations for the
treatment of fish while fishing (e.g. no intentional foul hooking), for the stocking of fish in specific
waters (to ensure they are given a proper environment), for the proper
disposal of your equipment, etc. We have decided that all of these
things are legal imperatives, and yet we can feel no moral conflict when we impale the fish through the lip with a metal hook. When we look at trout stocking
programs, we see the exact opposite happening as well: Small spaces, little
concern for their freedoms, and after raising they will eventually be dumped into
lakes, rivers and streams where all of them will either be caught and
killed for food, or will eventually die come the summer heat. Is this
cognitive dissonance? No, because we decided that it's okay for these
fish to be raised in this way and used for this purpose, but all other
fish (for the most part) to live a much more comfortable life. This is
why anglers can practice catch and release for all game fish, and yet
still keep stocked trout.<br />
<br />
But let's say that we should
treat all animal cruelty in the same way, and cruelty in farms should be
treated the same as cruelty on the streets (something I agree with).
This gets to Kalel's next point (well, actually first -- we haven't even
gotten to the main part of the video yet). Here, she begins to
illustrate the four main reasons to go vegan, and so now we're finally
getting to the heart of the subject.<br />
<br />
What's nice,
though, is that we already have the tools necessary to address some of
these claims. If I were to highlight the most important point to rebut
the moralist vegetarian/vegan position, it is this: Disassociation. You
have to learn not only to disassociate yourself with the emotionalism
and moralistic arguments, but also learn to disassociate two things that
seem related, but actually aren't. Namely, this is the disassociation
between eating meat and animal cruelty. What exactly do I mean by that?
We'll see in a moment.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason 1: Animal Torture</b><br />
<br />
In
Kalel's own words, one of the biggest reasons to go vegan is seeing how
animals go through "fucking pure hell" on the typical farm. Chickens
have their beaks seared off, cows have their horns cut off, baby male
chicks are thrown in a grinder, baby cows are ripped away from their
mothers, and so on. The argument is that eating meat is perpetuating
this practice and by eating meat, we are encouraging and giving our
consent to this torture.<br />
<br />
I agree, this is a disgusting
practice and it shouldn't be encouraged, however this argument is flawed
for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
(1) It assumes that by not eating meat, we will stop this practice.<br />
(2) It assumes that this is the best way to stop this practice.<br />
(3) It assumes that by indirectly participating in this practice, we are endorsing it.<br />
(4) It assumes that it is wrong to eat meat because of the associative burden that goes with it.<br />
(5)
It assumes that eating meat is the only avenue that leads to this moral
conflict, or that vegetarianism/veganism are exempt from this moral
conflict.<br />
<br />
<i>(1) It assumes that by not eating meat, we will stop this practice.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJm3O1NrbDfSQWdk50SjHi6ZlcH0lVH0RIR4d4_rRDVnWRxo59hAMGEs-c-GEzkq9WGru1MR_Eugs6l6sSWba5xolOzGTs50k7qCFqWUcSexEb8XYQg60fC7Vi3jIWy9X9xQVFXZFriCg/s1600/lbspr.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJm3O1NrbDfSQWdk50SjHi6ZlcH0lVH0RIR4d4_rRDVnWRxo59hAMGEs-c-GEzkq9WGru1MR_Eugs6l6sSWba5xolOzGTs50k7qCFqWUcSexEb8XYQg60fC7Vi3jIWy9X9xQVFXZFriCg/s320/lbspr.gif" width="320" /></a>None of these assumptions are true. For
the first assumption, there is no evidence to suggest that not eating
meat will help prevent the perpetuation of this practice. As an example,
while veganism/vegetarianism is at an all time high (<a href="http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/is-2014-the-year-of-the-vegan/">about 5% of the total US population</a>), overall meat production is <a href="http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Meat_Animals_PDI/lbspr.asp">increasing</a>.
The reasons for this are numerous, but mainly it's this: When
consumption of meat by the US population goes down, the meat industry
finds other ways to sell its meat. They'll export more meat to other
countries, find new consumers across the globe -- indeed, citizens of
America spend <a href="https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/47465/pid/47465">less of their disposable income</a>
on meat than any other country in the world -- or even resource their
products for other purposes or markets, such as including it in dog
food. The trend in vegetarianism/veganism has had no tangible effect on
the production of meat in America.<br />
<br />
<i>(2) It assumes that this is the best way to stop this practice.</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Let's assume,
however, that going vegetarian/vegan did lower meat production in the
United States. One would have to argue, then, that this is the best
possible way to protest the cruel treatment of animals in America. I
would argue it isn't. There are numerous, more lasting approaches to
this issue that would help endorse the proper treatment of farm animals.
You can elect members to your state legislature that will pass laws at
the state level to protect animal rights, you can lobby members of
Congress or your particular member of Congress to pass laws at the
federal level, and then create federal agencies that enforce these laws.
Even if you personally don't have the political clout to make this
change happen, you can endorse advocacy groups who will have a much
greater impact. The point is, however, that there are many avenues
besides going vegetarian or vegan to protest the cruel treatment of
animals in farms, and the latter isn't even the most preferable or
effective way of doing this.<br />
<br />
<i>(3) It assumes that by indirectly participating in this practice, we are endorsing it.</i> <br />
<br />
On the third point, it's a
bit difficult to address this. Most people would implicitly agree that
by participating in a system which endorses a practice, we are endorsing
it ourselves. This isn't true, however. When I fill out my Census form
and put in information for my race, I am not endorsing the idea of
categorizing humans by race. I'm simply endorsing the idea of using
social categories for demographic/informational purposes that could be
useful. I am being cooperative, not complicit. Similarly, a vegetarian
or a vegan can pay their taxes which, in part, go to the regulation of
the meat industry without having to concede that they are endorsing that
industry. As such, I can eat meat without endorsing the practices that
go into producing said meat. People participate in systems they don't
agree with all the time, but as practical creatures, we operate in such a
way that is beneficial for ourselves and does not burden our ability to
properly function in society. If the average vegan or vegetarian
accepted, in full, that participation in the system is endorsing it, every one of them would have to commit a federal crime via
tax evasion.<br />
<br />
<i>(4) It assumes that it is wrong to eat meat because of the associative burden that goes with it.</i> <br />
<br />
The fourth point is similar to the third
point, but carries different weight. The primary assumption behind these
arguments is that the cruel treatment of animals is a reason that
eating meat is wrong. This is the very nature of this first point Kalel
makes: You shouldn't eat meat because animal cruelty is wrong. However,
this says nothing about the morality of eating meat. It only speaks to
the morality of cruelly treating animals. If we were to reach a point
where all of our farm animals were treated ethically and with dignity,
then there would be no objection to eating meat under this argument.
More realistically, these arguments do not extend to the morality of
eating meat that is produced from small, local farms that do not abuse
their animals.<br />
<br />
<i>(5)
It assumes that eating meat is the only avenue that leads to this moral
conflict, or that vegetarianism/veganism are exempt from this moral
conflict. </i><br />
<br />
The last point regards the inevitability of
violating animals' rights. Implicit in the vegetarian/vegan moralist
argument is that eating meat is the only route through which someone is
violating the rights of a living creature. But there are insects or
pieces of insects in every jar of peanut butter, microorganisms on every
stalk of celery, and some foods can even have pieces of mice or rats.
Save for the last part, the finding of insects in your food is almost
always inherent to the harvesting and manufacturing process. Bugs get
into the food because we neglect to prevent that, and we have all come
to accept that this is okay. But what about those living creatures'
rights: The beetle that finds his way in your chocolate bar, the mouse
that drowned his sorrows in your can of baked beans, or the
microorganism riding your tongue like a slide when you bite a carrot? Do
they not matter?<br />
<br />
There are a few possible objections to this argument:<br />
<br />
(1) These are incidental occurrences that can't be avoided, as much as accidentally crushing an ant on your walk to school.<br />
(2) These animals aren't tortured by humans. They, by their own actions, fly into our food and die.<br />
(3) Insects, while living, are not typically conscious, and are much more impulsive creatures.<br />
<br />
Objection
1 is rather lazy. These things aren't avoidable as a part of our daily
lives, and so we shouldn't be concerned about the moral implications?
One could easily ask the objector why our lives need to take priority
over these animals' lives. There seems to be nothing which suggests that
our lives are more important than theirs; and if one concedes that our
lives are more important, then they accept that sometimes it's okay to
kill an animal for the benefit of our own lives. You would then have to
ask why cows and pigs don't fall into that gray area, which we'll get to
in objection 3.<br />
<br />
Objection 2 seems to accept that if an
animal is killed by its own agency, even if our actions are the root
cause of their death, then there is no moral dilemma. But as said, we
are the root cause. That tasty tub of Toblerone would not be in that
factory building for the fly to suffocate in if we didn't put it there
for our own benefit. We know the risks it poses for the fly, who will be
too enamored by the bounty to think of the risks and thus suffocate
once it dives head first into the vat of chocolate, but we don't care.
We don't avoid a moral dilemma by blaming the fly for its own agency,
because we set up the environment for it to die in, knowing the risks
involved. Our negligence to take precautions to ensure its survival is
what led to its death.<br />
<br />
Objection 3 involves
hierarchical claims. As we saw earlier in this article, even individuals
like Kalel can be pressed to thinking in terms of speciesism and learn
to prioritize some living creatures over others. Such a mindset is
antithetical to the moral vegetarian/vegan philosophy, but is also
unavoidable.<br />
<br />
If the argument is that an insect, being
an unconscious, impulsive creature made up of nothing but nerve cells,
has fewer rights than a cow, capable of much more complex thoughts, then
we have established conditions where some animals are okay to eat, but
others aren't. Where do we draw the line at, then? Mice are very
simplistically minded creatures as well, but they have a bit more
complexity than a praying mantis. Is it okay to kill the mouse? If the
answer is no, then why? If the answer is yes, then we move on to a rat,
then a guinea pig, then a squirrel, and so on until we find where the
line is drawn.<br />
<br />
But let's assume the line is objectively
drawn at the point of insects, however: Insects are okay to kill
because they have no conscious thoughts. They don't process pain and the
concept of living the same way a cow does. What if we anesthetize the
cow, then? It feels no pain, it falls asleep, and then we kill it. It
isn't processing any of those emotions or thoughts at the time of its
death. Is it okay to eat beef from such a cow?<br />
<br />
Let's
say this is flawed too, and the cow still isn't okay to eat because
intrinsic to its existence is the capability, in the proper state of
mind, to process these emotions and thoughts. Because it <i>can</i>
think of these things, then it doesn't matter that it wasn't thinking of
them at the time of its death. Well, then what happens if we
genetically modify a breed of cows that are essentially brain dead? We
feed those cows through tubes, they sit in a box all day and night
without a thought going through their brains, and are then eventually
killed for their meat. It never had and never would have had the ability
to conceive of pain, loss, suffering, death, and so on -- its brain
functions the same as a centipede. Is it okay to eat then? Why wouldn't
it be? We have established that this creature, in all matters of its
existence, is the same as an insect, which we have already deemed okay
to eat. What's the difference here? There is none.<br />
<br />
No
matter what, a hierarchy is impossible to avoid. We decide what has the
right to live and what doesn't, and in the end, living beings die as
part of our need to survive, and our preference for our own survival. We
prioritize some creatures over others, and even a vegan can't avoid
this. The moral dilemma is not solved by choosing to not eat meat,
because other animals are at stake as well.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason 2: You don't need meat to be healthy.</b><br />
<br />
The
second reason Kalel provides for not eating meat is that it isn't
necessary to be healthy. She claims you can get all of your nutrients,
including protein, from a plant-based diet, and that such a diet can
prevent or even reverse disease. Let's assume that her claims of health
and nutrients are true. Just because we don't need meat doesn't mean we
shouldn't eat meat, or that eating meat is morally wrong. Necessity does
not determine the morality of these acts, although to some people it
can provide legitimate justification. The problem is that "health" isn't
even the primary concern for many people who eat meat, it's just
survival. The average person who needs to make a financial decision
involving buying a bundle of vegetables from a grocery store miles away
from their urban home over buying fast food beef, chicken, etc. down the
block isn't going to be thinking about nutrients. To suggest that this
is a reason that it's morally wrong to eat meat ignores the struggles
that millions of people face around the country, and even the world,
every day.<br />
<br />
Moreover, it assumes that the average person not facing financial struggle cares about nutrition when making dietary choices anyway. It's pretty well known that America has an obesity problem, and this doesn't stem from us habitually being concerned about whether or not we're getting the proper nutrients and vitamins in our oh-so-healthy diets. In reality, nobody thinks about nutrition most of the time. That's why we have junk food culture, and that's why I indulge in it willingly. Nutrition isn't on my mind when I eat a Twinkie. Food is. Convenience is the biggest problem, not nutrition.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason 3: Animal agriculture is destroying our planet.</b><br />
<br />
Kalel's
factual statement here is, once again, correct. Animal agriculture is
the main contributor to greenhouse gases which is, in turn, the leading
cause of climate change. By cutting back on eating meat, the argument
goes, we can reduce the production of greenhouse gases and slow down
climate change.<br />
<br />
Once again, however, going
vegetarian/vegan does not reduce the production of meat and so has no
visible effect in this realm. The imperative isn't there. Moreover, once
again, this has to deal with intensive agricultural practices. It says
nothing about local farms that produce meat the same way we've been
producing it for thousands of years. Lastly, and most importantly, this
isn't necessarily a problem for our future. Genetic modification can
lead to the creation of farm animals that do not produce anywhere near
as many CO2s as our current livestock does. We can also genetically
modify trees and other plants to enhance their natural processing of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to offset this greenhouse gas
production. Scientific advancements can lead to the same agricultural
practices without the harmful effects on the environment.<br />
<br />
Kalel
also includes a modest point about water usage. She claims that it
takes 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef, and so anyone
concerned about water usage (esp. in times of drought) should stop
eating burgers. While this figure is often disputed to some extent,
let's assume that it's correct. What happens when we stop eating
burgers, then? We've "saved" that much water, but is it enough? Who is
to say we shouldn't go further: Let's stop producing bread, since every
pound of bread requires <a href="http://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity-watercontent.php">200 gallons of water</a>. With the average person in America consuming <a href="http://www.worc.org/userfiles/WORCproductionfactsheet.pdf">53 pounds of bread per year</a>
(and this trend rising due to the swap from beef consumption to bread
consumption), we see that we are using about 3.4 trillion gallons of
water every year for bread; and this is just for American consumers.
Considering that a lot of the bread we produce is exported, that number
is considerably higher for overall water usage. This is compared to
approximately 64.5 trillion gallons of water currently used for beef
production, using the 2500 gallon figure. This number will shift with
the increased consumption of bread over the years.<br />
<br />
So
why don't we stop consuming bread? The answer is that while these
figures are scary, they aren't comparative. Who draws the line at how
much water is too much, and at what point we can say "Okay, we're good
now, we don't need to cut back on any more water usage"? These types of
claims are hard value judgments of figures that are otherwise valueless
from a moral perspective. If cutting back on water is a moral
imperative, however, then we can do this by consuming genetically
modified farm animals that do not require as much food/water to properly
function.<br />
<br />
But more to the point, when Kalel chooses to
take a bath or not take a bath, she is directly affecting water usage.
Whether or not she chooses to eat beef, as we have displayed, has no
visible effect on beef production and thus has no visible effect on
water usage. From this perspective, the person who sees it necessary to
cut down on taking baths but not cut down on eating meat is actually in
the right, because the former will actually reduce water usage, while
the other will not. The only recompense offered by not eating meat is
being rid of personal feelings of liability. Given the conflict I just
illustrated however, personal liability is still not avoided by choosing
to take a long bath but not eat meat.<br />
<br />
Addressing her
point on rainforest destruction, once again this has much more to do
with intensive agriculture than it does to do with the inherent morality
of farming animals and eating meat. Not eating meat will not solve this
problem. Changing farming practices will. There are also numerous other contributors to rainforest destruction that the average person can't avoid, such as finding housing. When you think about it, all of our modern territory was once the territory of wild animals. It's another situation of "something's gotta give" -- if we prioritized every other animal on the planet over ourselves in an unrealistic phenomenon of nature, we would not have anywhere to live at all.<br />
<br />
Finally, on
choosing to eat meat being bigger than "me and you," as we can see
above, it actually isn't any bigger than that. It's a personal choice
that has no tangible consequences in terms of the environment. One could
argue that on a grander scale, with millions of people making this
personal choice, it is a bigger issue, but this isn't a moral claim.
This is one of practicality, and it is easily moderated by both the
source of your meat (i.e. a local versus a factory farm) and whether or
not we choose to go with genetically modified farm animals in the future
to cut down on environmental impact. There are many avenues to
resolving this issue that do not involve going vegetarian or vegan.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason 4: If we stopped eating meat, it would end world hunger.</b><br />
<br />
Kalel
reasons that the amount of grain and produce used to raise farm animals
could feed every person in the world for several years, and so if we
used those resources to feed other people instead of animals, it could
end world hunger. The operative word here being <i>could.</i> Even if we
somehow shut down every single farm in America, and that grain/produce
were not being used to raise farm animals, there is absolutely no
guarantee that the food would reach the starving people of the world.<br />
<br />
Kalel
seems to forget that grain and produce are grown and sold by
businesses. It simply isn't economical for a business to spend money to
produce grain and other resources, only to then just give it away. Even
if we somehow reached that desire to spend money with absolutely no
profit or economic benefit, there's still no guarantee that the food we
send to, say, Somalia, wouldn't be stolen immediately by warlords or
terrorist organizations that would keep it to themselves or exploit
access to that resource by charging the average person for its use.
Solving world hunger is a much, much more complicated issue than just
having enough food to feed people. It has to deal with our desire to
send out that food and their ability to receive that food, among many
other issues. This was the very source of the Marxist v. Capitalist arguments of the 19th century in the realm of economics: For the first time in history, we had enough food and resources to keep people well fed for the rest of their lives, and yet poverty and famine persisted.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
After having addressed the many moral arguments invoked by moral vegetarianism/veganism, I have to stop and look at the biggest question: Why is this important? What was the point of making this article? Was it to invalidate vegetarians and vegans for their beliefs (a label that Kalel rejects), or was it something else?<br />
<br />
I take personal issues with universal moral claims. I'm of the camp that believes there's no such thing as objective morality. Moral claims are made within the context of culture and society, and we all implicitly agree to certain rules that govern our behavior without really thinking about the premises behind them. The moralist position of some vegetarians and vegans attempts to override that and claim, as an ultimate moral imperative, that we have to all stop eating meat. Such a change in our way of life has many consequences and implications, and so before I put down my hamburger, I better damn well know I'm doing it for a good reason.<br />
<br />
Does it help animal welfare? No, and that's its own issue.<br />
<br />
Does it make me healthier? Not necessarily, and being healthy is not necessarily my priority, since I eat plenty of junk.<br />
<br />
Does it help the environment? Maybe, but there are many other ways to do that that don't require giving up meat.<br />
<br />
Does it end world hunger? No.<br />
<br />
There is, therefore, no reason to change my habits, or let other meat lovers come to believe that what they're doing is objectively wrong. Kalel claims that she doesn't intend to attack anyone with her video, but by moralizing the issue, you are essentially trying to convince people that they are committing moral wrongs, i.e. evils by eating meat. That is a personal claim that need not exist here, for the reasons listed above. So to conclude, I say...<br />
<br />
<i>Well done.</i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhulA9B4ZIn-7vsN55NfOWLKQzg6-Ia1alh4H2_cPXv9Zxmpk-7GA63v91gAgfa6LLPsjgin5H-eu-6RDNxPJLCd9xnRYpVHNfGi47XKYv9xh-tL-YJVg-zo_pFCMz2PvxnbGRVGwTvKcad/s1600/o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhulA9B4ZIn-7vsN55NfOWLKQzg6-Ia1alh4H2_cPXv9Zxmpk-7GA63v91gAgfa6LLPsjgin5H-eu-6RDNxPJLCd9xnRYpVHNfGi47XKYv9xh-tL-YJVg-zo_pFCMz2PvxnbGRVGwTvKcad/s320/o.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Why can't we beefriends?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-89822902870682821882015-08-23T18:46:00.002-04:002015-08-27T14:52:01.370-04:00Men And Women: Similarities Or Differences?<i>Note to my readers: Sorry for the long hiatus. My life has been very hectic as of recent, jumping from one job to another, getting a promotion at the latter, quitting due to a lack of any freedom or respect, then picking up yet another job which currently occupies my time. I originally had something much bigger planned for this post, but time restrictions prevent it from coming to fruition. I believe that the following post is nonetheless informative, and I hope you all enjoy it.</i><br />
<br />
It's a question that many people struggle with and has great implications for the study of our species: are men and women more alike than different or more different than alike, and what differences exist between the sexes?<br />
<br />
It's a tough question, really, and is influenced by many different factors. I've reviewed these types of dilemmas several times. Despite the suggestions of recent studies, the <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/evolutionary-sins-gender-gap-in-spatial.html">gender gap in spatial abilities</a> cannot be solidly attributed to an evolutionary perspective because, in short, there are many clear ways in which culture and society influence the manifestation of our spatial abilities, regardless of gender. Aside from that, it is shown that in more egalitarian societies, the spatial ability gap decreases. It's a perfect example of how culture and environment can influence psychological traits in a way that may automatically be assumed to be a product of sexual selection.<br />
<br />
Briefly, in what I dubbed the "<a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/masculinityfeminity-and-return-of-kings.html">ROK Complex</a>," I reviewed definitions of attractiveness by gender, and ultimately (and most relevantly) how well human sexes adhere to sex roles commonly found in nature in accordance with Bateman's Principle. As it turns out, what little success there has been in analyzing this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/">has brought some questions</a> to the idea that humans follow Bateman's Principle, although the study cited only examined 18 human populations. This is possibly the most straightforward answer to whether or not sex roles and major gender differences manifest greatly in humans.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, stereotypes of males and females still find popularity <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-ethology-of-attraction-to-bad.html">even within the scientific community</a>. Sexual attitudes are a big topic in the sciences, as is the psychology behind men and women's preferences in sexual partners. While refuted in that post, the answer was (again) not conclusively drawn, and still did not get to the heart of the question at hand. Whatever piecemeal debates we can examine and draw conclusions about, there is a looming question that overbears it all: <i>overall</i>, are men and women more similar than alike? <i>Overall</i>, what differences exist? My posts so far haven't examined this, and it's because it's a question I really didn't have the answer to.<br />
<br />
I was curious what the literature had to say on the matter. I found a <a href="http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx">research report</a> on the APA's website that referred me to some great pieces. Namely I was introduced to researcher Janet Shibley Hyde, a leading scholar in her field, and her <i>gender similarities hypothesis</i>. The gender similarities hypothesis states that men and women will be similar in most (but not necessarily all) psychological variables, which is to be contrasted to the differences model which states the opposite. This, while more socially favorable, has not found much favor among psychologists, simply because it seems intuitively ridiculous. Hyde recognizes this and that there are many pervasive myths surrounding the idea of gender differences in various behavioral and cognitive faculties, and so set out to see what the body of scientific knowledge we had available at the time (2005) actually revealed.<br />
<br />
Thus came the famous study "<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2005-11115-001">The Gender Similarities Hypothesis</a>" where Hyde reviewed 46 meta-analyses on gender comparisons in various psychological/physiological faculties. This study revealed quite an array of surprising results, which I'll briefly review below:<br />
<ul>
<li>On the vast majority of the examined variables, the effect sizes of the gender differences examined were small or close to zero (<i>d </i><span class="_Tgc">≤ 0.35).</span></li>
<li><span class="_Tgc">Of these, 30% were close to zero (<i>d </i></span><span class="_Tgc"><i><span class="_Tgc">≤</span></i></span><span class="_Tgc"> 0.10) and 48% were small (0.11 </span>< <i>d</i> < 0.35).</li>
<li>Those faculties that show larger differences are throwing distance/velocity (explained by large muscle mass and bone density in males), some sexual attitudes, and aggression.</li>
</ul>
But the results aren't so simplistic either. Social context was taken into account in many of these studies as well. Surprisingly for aggression was just how much it may rely on societal expectations -- when gender identities of test subjects were hidden, women actually displayed more aggressive tendencies than men. In addition to this, many of the gender gaps fluctuated over time, showing that a consistent, biological explanation doesn't conform well to some of the data. All in all, the big takeaway from this groundbreaking review was that, contrary to popular belief, men and women are much more similar to each other than they are different.<br />
<br />
When this study was published, researchers went nuts, and who's to blame them? It's not surprising that so many people would be rushing to the lab setting after hearing that those sex differences they thought were just common sense turned out to be unsupported by the data, or at least fairly ambigious. A slew of meta-analyses were published in the years following, further increasing the pile of research available to accept the plausibility of the gender similarities hypothesis versus the gender differences hypothesis. When it seemed like the debate may have been coming to a close, instead it raged on hotter than ever.<br />
<br />
So it was no surprise when in 2014, Hyde released another review "<a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057?journalCode=psych">Gender Similarities and Differences</a>" which revealed results that were about the same as before, this time calling upon a much larger pool of research with a much more detailed review, in which they not only offer explanations from their previous study, but offer new insights to address the issue of gender/sex differences now and reconcile previous study design flaws.. The article is not available to the general public, however I can
provide it by request. There's also far too much to review in this post,
so instead I'll provide some of the highlights that I believe people
are most curious about, so long as I haven't previously covered them.<br />
<br />
Links are provided for all studies. Scores in the positive range mean that boys scored higher than girls, and scores in the negative range mean girls scored higher than boys for the tested factor. Any questions about sampling or study design can be directed to me in the comments or via email.<br />
<br />
Lastly, I should remind everyone that these studies are all meta-analyses, meaning they each draw upon a large pool of research. Even where a factor is only examined by one study, the power of the study is found in its meta-analytic review.<br />
<br />
<b>Mathematical Performance</b><br />
<br />
4 studies were reviewed here: <a href="https://www.blogger.com/">Hyde et al. (1990)</a>, <a href="http://itp.wceruw.org/Hyde%20Science%2008.pdf">Hyde et al. (2008)</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057475/">Lindberg et al. (2010)</a> and <a href="http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf">Else-Quest et al. (2010)</a>. The first meta-analysis from 1990 revealed that although boys and girls did not differ significantly in mathematical performance (<i>d = </i>-0.05), there was still a substantial gap in complex problem solving in high school (<i>d</i> = 0.29). So they reviewed again in 2008 and found that not only did the gap in mathematical performance not get wider, but the gap in complex problem solving appeared to have closed as well (<i>d</i> = 0.06). Lindberg et al. found again that the gap in mathematical performance was almost negligible, and there was a small but significant difference in complex problem solving (<i>d</i> = 0.16). While the results of the final meta-analysis are not given much detail, it is noted that the gender gap fluctuates both in magnitude and directionality across nations. In short, the gender difference in general mathematical performance has reached parity, and while there still may be a gap in complex problem solving, it seems to be declining (or perhaps has even closed entirely) and could be caused by sociocultural elements.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted, bearing these data in mind, that Else-Quest et al. revealed that the gender difference in mathematical <i>self-confidence</i> is 0.27, and the difference in <i>anxiety</i> is -0.23. As Hyde notes, this means that the difference in how males and females see their own mathematical performance is higher than the difference in their actual performance. What is especially interesting about this information is that, at least concerning mathematical performance, it effectively eliminates an explanation via stereotype threat. This isn't intuitive, and it may actually surprise some people.<br />
<br />
<b>Temperament</b><br />
<br />
This section covers three factors of temperament: effortful control (i.e. inhibitory control, attention), negative affect (i.e. emotionality, fear) and surgency (i.e. activity, impulsivity). Data includes a sample of 236,102 temperament ratings for children 3 months to 13 years of age (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16435957">Else-Quest et al. 2006</a>).<br />
<b> </b><br />
For effortful control, girls scored higher for both inhibitory control and attention (<i>d = </i>-0.41; -0.23, respectively). Hyde notes that "These average gender differences are in the small-to-<br />
moderate range and contrast to larger gender differences at the tail of the distribution, where<br />
boys with attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) outnumber girls by ratios of 2:1 to<br />
9:1 across studies" (p. 383). That being said, one should not take the extremes at either tail of the distribution and assume those to be the norm. There is much more substantial overlap between genders in this category.<br />
<br />
For surgency, boys scored higher in both areas. Depending on the measure, gender differences in activity ranged from 0.15 to 0.33, and 0.18 for impulsivity. Again, a small-to-moderate disparity, but nonetheless significant.<br />
<br />
Negative affectivity is probably the area of greatest interest, and has the most surprising results. No significant gender difference was detected in any factor of negative affect (<i>d</i> = -0.06): -0.1 for sadness and 0.01 for emotionality. While it's rather intuitive to believe that women are more emotional than men, the data doesn't show this to be the case, even though there is a rather robust difference in depression between the genders.<br />
<br />
What's also important to note is that gender differences in these
factors varied with age (typically increasing with age), but also varied
depending on context. While the gender difference in emotional
internalization were essentially nonexistent when children were by
themselves, it increased to -0.16 when adults were present. <br />
<br />
So while temperament shows significant gender differences, these differences are much weaker than expected, and the factor commonly believed to exhibit the largest disparity in fact had the smallest. Considering that studies which controlled for social expectations had larger effect sizes, this is completely consistent with the conclusions drawn in Hyde et al. (2005). Finally, once again context can completely alter the magnitude and directionality of gender differences in these variables.<br />
<br />
<b>Emotions</b><br />
<br />
This can definitely be a controversial discussion. Are women more emotional than men by nature, or even just a matter of statistical trends? Emotional disparity in particular motivates many gender stereotypes and social expectations, where it tends to be the case that men can more easily and acceptably express anger, while women can express most other emotions.<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> </b>Only two studies are reviewed here despite the interest of the subject, however I believe this is the case because studies on emotional expression suffer from an inherent setback of the Hawthorne effect. This is where a test subject modifies their behavior while being observed because they believe it is more acceptable or desirable. However, what's interesting is that one of the studies directly examines this effect and what it does for the gender disparity in emotional expression. The results are quite interesting.<br />
<br />
The two studies reviewed are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23231534">Chaplin & Aldao (2013)</a> and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22468881">Else-Quest et al. (2012)</a>. In the latter study, it was found that while women were more likely to experience guilt (<i>d</i> = -0.27) and shame (<i>d</i> = -0.29), there were very minor differences for embarrassment (<i>d </i>= -0.08), authentic pride (<i>d</i> = -0.01), and hubristic pride (<i>d</i> = -0.09). What's interesting is that these disparities, while being small and trivial, actually show women displaying more pride contrary to stereotypes.<br />
<br />
In the former study, gender differences in emotional expression were examined from birth to adolescence. Surprisingly, across the board gender differences in the expression of positive emotions (<i>d =</i> -0.08), internalizing emotions (<i>d</i> = -0.1) and externalizing emotions (<i>d</i> = 0.09) were all fairly small, although the trends seemed to be consistent with the relevant stereotypes (e.g. internalizing emotions are those such as sadness and anxiety, externalizing emotions are those such as anger). What was most interesting about this study however is that it showed that these differences vary by age, increasing gradually from early childhood to mid-childhood and into adolescence. This appears to be inconsistent with a more biological hypothesis as one would expect that if the differences were a result of biology, they would jump at puberty and into adolescence. If it were a matter of gene expression, the same might be expected. The trend here seems to be more consistent with social learning theory.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in the same study, it was found that emotional expression varied greatly depending on whether or not the children were with adults. For example, for internalizing emotions, the disparity was almost non-existent (<i>d</i> = -0.03), but jumped when adults were present (<i>d</i> = -0.16). Again, this shows the importance of context and how social situations tend to increase, or in some cases may be completely responsible for, the gender differences we tend to observe.<br />
<br />
<b>Aggression</b><br />
<br />
Again, another difficult factor to examine longitudinally. There were 3 studies available for examination, however two of them were from the 1980s, so only one is focused on <a href="http://domestic-violence.martinsewell.com/Archer2004.pdf">(Archer 2004)</a> with additional information from <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2337%281997%2923:6%3C447::AID-AB4%3E3.0.CO;2-D/abstract">Bettencourt & Kernahan (1997)</a>. It should be noted that two of these studies are fairly old, but still important for the discussion.<br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> </b>Gender differences in physical aggression were fairly substantial (<i>d</i> = 0.55), and this trend appears very early -- as young as two years old among children playing together. Yet while men hold the stereotype of being more physically aggressive on average, women hold a stereotype of more "relational aggression;" that is, non-physical aggression which seeks to harm peer reputation. According to Archer, however, such a trend is not very large: -0.19 for peer reports and -0.13 for teacher reports.<br />
<br />
But what of context? It seems to be the case that for most of these factors, context plays a key role. The same is true of aggression. According to Bettencourt & Kernahan, when violent cues are present but absent of any provocation, the gender difference in aggression is still 0.41, however when both provocation and violent cues are present, the difference is near-zero. So while men are typically more aggressive than women, and while women are slightly more indirectly aggressive that men, the difference can be mitigated by context.<br />
<br />
<b>Sexuality</b><br />
<br />
Lastly, the big "S." How do men and women differ in terms of sexuality and sexual conduct? This includes things such as number of partners, cheating, casual sex, etc. Across a total of 14 sexual behaviors and 16 sexual attitudes examined by <a href="http://www.wmich.edu/evalphd/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Sex_Differences.pdf">Petersen & Hyde (2010)</a>, almost all gender differences were small. Four were in the moderate range: Masturbation (<i>d </i>= 0.53), pornography (<i>d</i> = 0.63), number of sexual partners (<i>d</i> = 0.36), and favorable attitudes towards casual sex (<i>d</i> = 0.45). For five factors, differences were <span class="_Tgc">≤ 0.10, including oral sex, attitudes about condom use, attitudes about masturbation, attitudes about extramarital sex and attitudes about lesbians. Interestingly, the difference favored women slightly for attitudes about gay men (<i>d</i> = -0.18). Some of these gender gaps are closing, as revealed by moderator analysis. It's also quite possibly the case that some of the larger differences were affected<b> </b>by reporting bias, since gender differences shrink when the respondent is given anonymity, and nearly close when they are hooked up to a fake polygraph.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="_Tgc">Much more was covered by Hyde's review, but it would take too long to discuss them all here. Here is a list, however, of all factors examined:</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc"><br /></span>
<span class="_Tgc">- Spatial performance.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Verbal skills.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Attitudes.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Personality and "the five factors" (i.e. The Big Five).</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Impulsivity.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Interests.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Communication.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Helping behavior.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Leadership.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Depression.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Rumination.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- Self-esteem.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc">- STEM.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="_Tgc">If there is any one in particular that you would like me to summarize in the comments section, I'd be happy to take requests. Also, as stated before, I can offer a copy of the review upon request as well.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc"><br /></span>
<span class="_Tgc">In terms of final thoughts and opinions, I'd say it's not that important what the data says when it comes to a real world understanding of gender differences in psychology and behavior. "Seeing is believing" as they say, and how people tend to act on average is much more important from a practical standpoint than what the causes of it are. Even if we were to say "context is everything" as a general rule, that doesn't say how much context exacerbates gender disparities in the listed variables. In the end, it's what we observe, not why.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="_Tgc">Yet it stands true: We are more alike than different. </span><br />
<span class="_Tgc"><br />Thank you all for reading.</span><br />
<span class="_Tgc"></span><br />
<span class="_Tgc"></span><br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a><span class="_Tgc">References:</span><br />
<span style="float: left; padding: 5px;"></span>
<span class="_Tgc"><br /></span>
<b> </b><br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Annual+Review+of+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1146%2Fannurev-psych-010213-115057&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Gender+Similarities+and+Differences&rft.issn=0066-4308&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=373&rft.epage=398&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.annualreviews.org%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1146%2Fannurev-psych-010213-115057&rft.au=Hyde%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Hyde, J. (2014). Gender Similarities and Differences <span style="font-style: italic;">Annual Review of Psychology, 65</span> (1), 373-398 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057" rev="review">10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057</a></span>
<span class="_Tgc"><br /></span>
<b> </b><br />
<b> </b>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-33249414940238837582015-03-03T11:11:00.001-05:002015-03-04T22:39:31.466-05:00Bad Creationist Arguments: Redefining Atheism<span style="font-size: small;">Since my <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2015/02/bad-creationist-arguments-response-to.html">last post</a> on the topic, I've been somewhat carefully watching the blog <i>Adoro Ergo Sum</i> to see if there is any notice or note of my response. There didn't seem to be as far as I could tell, and so I decided it'd be best to just let the ignorance slip by. I'm not fond of debating anyway, so what reason would I have to shoehorn my reply into the argument? Simply put, I decided to keep quiet and not announce my rebuttal.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">But then recently, I noticed a <a href="http://adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-it-doesnt-make-sense-to-define.html">newer post</a> from the same blog entitled "Why it Doesn't Make Sense to Define Atheism as 'Lack of Belief.'" The author, Nathan Barontini, wrote this post in conjunction with prior objections to the aforementioned post regarding atheism being unjustified. Part of my rebuttal falls into what Nathan takes issue with, and so I decided to give his response a read. What Nathan finds problematic is how many atheists define atheism in recent times; as opposed to defining it as believing there is no God, these atheists (myself included) define it as simply not believing in God. Nathan claims this is a reduction that doesn't make any sense. Once again, I find his argument to be underwhelming, and so I will respond to them here. This time, I will also be notifying Nathan of my rebuttal so that he might respond either in the comment section or with an article of his own. Readers be aware, however, that I do not intend to extend this to a prolonged back-and-forth exchange between the two of us. I'm interested in hearing any potential response Nathan can offer, but I'm not honestly expecting much. After addressing the following arguments, I will be comfortable with how much time I've spent responding to any claims made on <i>Adoro Ergo Sum</i>. Without further ado, let's begin.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">It's very easy to see, at least for me, that Nathan loses his way from the very beginning. He seeks to first define the common positions (or systems) of belief in terms of religion and faith. He defines them thusly:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"The
most straightforward, and most common, differentiation between
positions on the existence of God is based on the various different
answers to a very simple and straightforward question, <b>Does God exist?</b></span></span></i></div>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 1 - Theism - God Exists</span></span></i></div>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 2 - Atheism<sup>1</sup> (theism’s contradictory) - God doesn’t exist</span></span></i></div>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 3 - Agnosticism<sup>2</sup> (the skeptics) - We can’t know whether God exists or not</span></span></i></div>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 4 - Weak Agnosticism (the ignorant) - God may or may not exist.</span></span></i></div>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 1 (theists) answer the question <b>Does God exist</b>
by saying “yes.” Group 2 (atheists) answer the same question “no.”
Groups 3 and 4 answer our question by saying “I don’t know,” but differ
on whether or not they think anyone can possibly know the answer."</span></span></i></div>
</blockquote>
The way in which Nathan defines these categories, respective to the original question "Does God exist?" is fairly unproblematic; however the issue here lies in the framing itself, and that question. Nathan has decided to use a valid prompt, "Does God exist?" What he fails to do, however, is entertain the notion that there are equally valid prompts to which someone can respond by stating one of these positions. Let me give the example that is most readily understandable, and puts a hole in Nathan's premise:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Prompt: <b>Do you believe in God?</b></i><br />
<br />
<i>Group 1, theists, answer "yes."</i><br />
<i>Group 2, atheists, answer "no."</i><br />
<i>Group 3, agnostics, answer "I don't know </i>(do not believe or disbelieve)<i>, and I never will."</i><br />
<i>Group 4, weak agnostics, answer "I don't know </i>(do not believe or disbelieve)<i>."</i></blockquote>
As we see here, all groups have given the same answer, but they hold entirely different implications as they respond to a different prompt. Here, the atheist answers "no" to whether or not they believe in God. This is a claim of personal belief, whereas the question Nathan uses is a claim of truth. Depending on how you frame the question, you still get the same response; however, the way in which the groups reply holds different weight. I, being an atheist, would respond to this question with a solid "no," placing me as an atheist, and yet I haven't gotten to the bigger question of "does God exist?" We will address that momentarily. Before we do this, however, I want to take a moment to respond to the paragraph that follows in Nathan's post.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">"</span></span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This last group is the weakest as it makes no real claim about anything <i>outside</i> their own heads. They say nothing about <i>objective reality</i>
preferring to only comment on their own knowledge (or lack thereof).
The proper agnostic at least affirms the unknowability of whether or not
God exists, and thus can still be argued with. The “weak agnostic”
however will not even go so far. This makes this last group not only the
weakest, but also, by far, the least important."</span></span></i></blockquote>
This is such a bleak-minded view of the viewpoints in question, I don't know where to begin. Just because someone has not taken a position on an issue yet does not, by any means, imply that they are of any less importance and don't have anything to contribute. While it may be "weak," it's still valuable, and I will illustrate why in a moment.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>"Someone
from one of the first three groups can seek to enlighten them, but no
one can argue with them as they have nothing to bring to the argument
except ignorance. Imagine, if you will a group of mathematicians. The
first man says the square of the hypotenuse equals that of the two
sides. A second man denies this, claiming the math is simply wrong. A
third man claims we can have no rule that will always work for all
triangles. These three men can have a conversation and even eventually
work toward a solution to the disagreement. Now imagine a fourth man
enters the scene who simply says “I dunno”. Is there any meaningful part
in the conversation he can play other than being taught by one or all
of the other men?"</i></span></blockquote>
Yes. The fourth man can take an objective point of view (insofar as he is without bias towards one particular position) and can, if he is informed on the subject, argue the merits and weaknesses of any side in the debate. What Nathan fails to see here is that just because someone says "I don't know" does not mean that is the last comment they make. I'll use some examples my coauthor, Nick, will like. A good lawyer, regardless of how he feels about a case, can argue the defense or the prosecution convincingly in most cases. This <i>includes</i> the potential scenario where the lawyer, having reviewed the case, is unable to make a determination for himself whether or not he personally agrees with the defense or the prosecution. Does this make him any less valuable to the debate? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Though, the courtroom has a structure conducive to that sort of thing, so let's use a more open example. This time, I'll invoke my coauthor <i>as </i>the example. Nick declares himself an "independent" in terms of politics, meaning he does not caucus with any particular political party. He examines positions via evidence and rationality. Does this mean that he's totally useless to the political process, because he hasn't picked a side? Of course not, because it's <i>far</i> more nuanced than that. He can take positions on individual policies, for example. Likewise, the "weak agnostic" is capable of taking positions on the merits of particular arguments involved in the debate of God's existence. To be so dismissive of this group is, in my opinion, heinous.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"In
the same way we have three different positions that can have an active
role in answering “the God question” while those claiming ignorance on
the issue are best left to study the arguments and move into one of the
other three camps."</span></span></i></blockquote>
So to summarize on this segment, Nathan's conclusion (above) is erroneous. People who claim ignorance on the final question can still offer nuanced talking points and arguments to narrow down the best of the other three herds. They don't need to take a position to contribute. They can moderate, they can reason, and they can find middle ground in the midst of heated argument. I'd encourage Nathan to leave his comfort zone and attempt a discussion with someone who has not made a decision on whether or not God exists, but is still informed enough to talk about the subject. The only thing absent is the ability to argue against them, since they have no position you can argue against -- you must entirely judge their reasoning based on the merits of the particulars. Difficult? Maybe. Fun and informative? Absolutely.<br />
<br />
Continuing on with the primary point of this response, Nathan resumes his contention with atheists, framing such with the following diatribe:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"Apparently
some atheists want to redefine these terms. To broaden out the atheist
camp (perhaps in a desperate attempt to gain more numbers?) they seek to
include most agnostics as atheists."</i></span></span></blockquote>
Nathan frames the argument in two ways: (1) he seeks to establish the definition he provided earlier as <i>the</i> definition of atheism, and any definition which deviates from this camp is a "redefinition;" and, (2) he tries to identify the motive of this "redefinition" in a rather vitriolic way. One can see why he might need a "weak agnostic" at this point, as his words are becoming increasingly toxic.<br />
<br />
The problem with this premise, however, is that the definition of "atheism" meaning "without God" or simply "not believing in God" is not at all a recent phenomenon, and is an accepted definition by many accounts. From the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=VQ-GhVWTH84C&pg=PA122&dq=agnosticism+routledge&hl=en">Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a> (1998): <i>"<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia">In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia"></span></span><i><span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia"> </span></span></i><span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia">But earlier than this has existed a schism between definitions of atheism, ranging from defining it as an assertion or merely the absence of one. If Nathan took the time even to read the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism">Wikipedia</a> page, he'd immediately see that many people use the same type of distinction he uses for agnostics: weak and strong atheism, implicit and explicit. The point of this isn't to say my definition is correct and Nathan's is wrong -- no, I'm simply stating that there are many valid definitions of atheism which Nathan readily overlooks, due to his consistently being comfortable <i>only</i> with his perspective on the issues at hand. I'm challenging his premise that atheism's definition <i>has</i> to be, or has ever <i>had</i> to be the one he uses; and furthermore, I'm challenging the notion that this matters at all. It's simply framing the issue in a biased manner.</span></span><br />
<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia"><br /></span></span>
<span class="reference-text"><span class="citation encyclopaedia">Continuing, Nathan believes that these "new" atheists want to define the terms as follows:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 1 - Gnostic Theism - God exists</span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 2 - Agnostic Theism - God may or may not exist, but I have a belief in God</span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 3 - Gnostic Atheism - God doesn’t exist</span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div style="min-height: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span></i>
<div>
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Group 4 - Agnostic Atheism - God may or may not exist, but I lack a belief in God</span></span></i></div>
</blockquote>
Nathan finds issue with this, firstly, because it leaves out the group "weak agnostics" and "[gives] them a weight they simply don't warrant." What Nathan fails to mention is that this is based on the premise that one needs four groups in this debate, with no overlaps. It's, again, a very bleak-minded view of the issue. Here is how I would divvy up the positions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Group 1 - Gnostic Theists - God exists.</i><br />
<i>Group 2 - Weak Agnostic Theists - I don't know if God exists, but I take the position that he does.</i><br />
<i>Group 3 - Strong Agnostic Theists - I don't know if God exists, and I'll never know, but I take the position that he does.</i><br />
<i>Group 4 - Gnostic Atheists - God doesn't exist.</i><br />
<i>Group 5 - Weak Agnostic Atheists (Me) - I don't know if God exists, but I take the position that he doesn't.</i><br />
<i>Group 6 - Strong Agnostic Atheists - I don't know if God exists, and I'll never know, but I take the position that he doesn't. </i><br />
<i>Group 7 - Weak Agnostics - I don't know if God exists, and I don't take a position.</i><br />
<i>Group 8 - Strong Agnostics - I don't know if God exists, and I'll never know, and I don't take a position.</i></blockquote>
And this is only the beginning, as I could get into the divisions if we included universalism as a position as well (the belief that religion, or belief in God, is a human universal), since one can be a universalist but also take a position on whether or not they personally belief in God or not, or whether or not we'll ever know. The issue is <i>far</i> more nuanced than Nathan likes to make it, and he seems to think that all atheists think the way he does. By definition, we don't.<br />
<br />
So to answer Nathan's next question, "<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Where are the people who claim not only that we don’t happen to know whether God exists, <i>but that we can’t know</i>," the answer is: right here. Just because he left them out of the equation doesn't mean we do. I certainly don't. There is no reason to believe that religious belief has to consist of exclusionary, non-overlapping categories as Nathan likes to illustrate. There's quite a continuum.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">"If we pose our simple, straightforward question, <b>does God exist</b>, to these four new groups we get a simple “yes” from group one and “no” from group 3, while getting no answer at all from
the remaining two groups. Group 2 answers, “I dunno, but I have a
belief in God.” Group 3, “I dunno, but I lack belief.” Why anyone feels
it necessary to add on an answer to an entirely unasked question about
they belief/ lack of belief in God is quite beyond me."</span></span></i></blockquote>
Now that we have gone over the issues, we can now see why Nathan's confusion is of his own doing. The reason the answer is to an unasked question, as he puts it, is because he only asked one question. The reason he finds confusion with the answers is because, as we have reviewed, he only lets in four groups. The only problem is within Nathan's own mind, not with any epistemological issue that "new" atheists have.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"It
is interesting to note that, supposedly, most atheists (or “most
intelligent/ educated atheists”) are in group 4, that is they are really
agnostics who happen to (mis)identify as atheists rather than being
atheists in the full and proper sense of the term as most people use it."</span></span></i></blockquote>
Let's, for a moment, accept Nathan's argument: by definition, I am now an agnostic, because I fell into group 4. I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. Now, ask me this question: "Do you believe there is a God?" My answer? No. I don't believe there's a God. I <i>disbelieve</i> in God. I have now fallen back into atheism. But I'm an agnostic, because if you asked me another question: "Do you know for sure that there is/isn't a God," I'd also answer "no."<br />
<br />
But more importantly than the nuance that Nathan ignores is this: who gives a flying fuck? Language, by definition, is not set in stone. If we were seeking to redefine the terms that already exist (which we aren't), then it's not a fallacy for us to not follow the original etymology; in fact, to assert otherwise <i>is</i> a fallacy. Language evolves. Terms become more encompassing, and nuanced. When it happens, get used to it.<br />
<br />
So to answer the last question in this series of argument, where Nathan wonders if anyone but agnostic atheists use this system, the answer is that it doesn't matter. Groups/categories are useful tools by which we seek to assimilate information from the outside world into our own manner of understanding. We can choose what groups we assign people to, including what groups we assign ourselves to. So long as they are logically valid (which, as I have displayed here, the nuanced system in question <i>is </i>valid), they can be used, and can be consistent with reality. These groups are socially/culturally constructed, not concrete definitions based on some unchanging element of the universe.<br />
<br />
Now we will get into the smaller, latter portions of Nathan's article, just for a bit of fun, since his arguments only get worse from here. To begin:<br />
<br />
<b>1: What's the motive?</b><br />
<br />
Nathan has now changed his story to display that an agnostic, when asked "do you believe in God," would answer "no." Most agnostics I've encountered hear this question, sigh, fumble on their words a bit, and then answer "I don't know, I'm an agnostic." They need to clarify. It depends on the system, however, what category they fall into.<br />
<br />
In any case, Nathan wonders what the motive is to all of this imagined controversy. The answer, he claims, isn't clarity. Of course not, it's <i>accuracy</i>. Nathan, however, believes that the motive is to shift the burden of proof onto theists because atheists know they can't provide evidence or reason for their worldview. Well, that would be valid if the atheists defined themselves as "believing there is no God," but that's largely not the case. <i>That</i> would require justification, but simply disbelieving does not require said justification. If these atheists really do take this position, "I don't believe in God, but I'm not saying there is no God," then the burden of proof is most certainly on the theist. This isn't even an argument. This is Nathan's attempt to force atheists to take a position, consistent with his issue with weak agnostics. He doesn't like that they make no assertions. It's hard to argue with someone like that. He likes simplicity and clarity, not nuance and accuracy. Life isn't like that though, Nathan. If a person says, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God," and you say, "I'm a theist, I do believe in God," then you're the only one making an assertion. The burden of proof is therefore on you.<br />
<br />
<b>2: Is theism just a lack of belief too?</b><br />
<br />
Nathan nearly makes a joke of himself here by stating that one could argue that theism, being "the non-belief in an uncaused universe," is simply a lack of belief too, and the burden of proof is therefore shifted back to atheists. This is absolutely hilarious, because the only thing needed to refute this is 1st grade grammar. The statement is a double negative. Let's say "belief in an uncaused universe" is "aunivertarianism" (bear with me here). To reject that claim by having "non-belief in an uncaused universe," then, would be a-aunivertarianism, or just univertarianism. It cancels out.<br />
<br />
So why is this invalid, but atheism isn't? Because atheism (a) isn't a double negative; and, (b) is still rejecting an assertion. This isn't difficult to understand.<br />
<br />
<b>3: More absurdity.</b><br />
<br />
Nathan gets even more ridiculous by claiming that defining atheism as "lack of belief in God" would then bring in dogs, cats, trees, etc. into the group of "atheism." This is utterly moronic.<b> </b>Okay, let's again accept Nathan's premise: "lack of belief in God" should be properly defined as "agnosticism." Now then, now that we've got the definitions right, let's call dogs, cats and trees by their proper title: agnostics! Dogs are agnostics, cats are agnostics, and trees are agnostics!<br />
<br />
Yeah it's stupid isn't it?<br />
<br />
The reason, clearly, is that all these things lack consciousness. You can't take a position or have an absence of a position if you lack the <i>ability</i> to take/not take a position.<br />
<br />
To summarize, here Nathan has tried extending his aggressive rejection of atheism and the lack of taking a position to such extremes that he has made his argument so nonsensical that it can't even be identified as a proper argument anymore. It's an incoherent diatribe against atheists for not conforming to Nathan's understanding of the world. It's absurd.<br />
<br />
Nathan, if you're going to challenge atheists, don't do it by forcing conformity upon them. The very fact that we're atheists, a minority and socially taboo group, means it's not going to work. Confusing the issue doesn't make your position any more legitimate, because the fallacies therein are still plain to see.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Follow me on social media!</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir</span> <br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-48732542694136201792015-02-19T10:21:00.001-05:002015-02-21T20:09:20.055-05:00Bad Creationist Arguments: A Response to Adoro Ergo Sum<span style="font-family: inherit;">It's been a while since I last wrote a post on the blog, so today I'm
going to do something simplistic to hold you over while I work on
something more substantial. Nathan Barontini from the blog <a href="http://adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2015/02/does-lack-of-evidence-for-god-justify.html"><i>Adoro Ergo Sum</i></a>
posted an article on the 11th of this month entitled "Does Lack of
Evidence for God Justify Atheism?" I saw this on my Google+ feed, gave
it a read, and decided the arguments were pretty bad and that the writer
didn't satisfy the goal he was aiming for. Here I'll refute his claims
with brevity for your entertainment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Firstly, the
answer to his question is an obvious "yes." Lack of evidence for X
justifies a lack of belief in X. For example, there is no evidence that
there is a corn cob inside my head; therefore, there I would be
justified in saying I do not believe in said corn cob inside my head.
Replace "there is a corn cob inside my head" with anything that has not
been proven and you will get the idea. To suggest otherwise is a breach
of basic logic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To address the article itself, we'll start with the first two sentences, quote:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">"Have
you ever encountered the claim that there is "no evidence for God?"
This is usually thrown out by undereducated, militant, atheistic, online
"trolls" and is meant to be a conversation stopper - an irrefutable
argument proving the rationality of the atheist position.</span>"</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Immediately
Nathan poisons the well by attempting to drag the intellect, behavior,
personality and motives of his opposition through the mud. The fact is
that someone who claims there is no evidence for God is simply observing
the universe objectively. They can be an absolute idiot and still
accept that there is no reason to believe in God. The only reason it's
an "irrefutable" argument is because there really is no evidence for
God. The only way to disprove that there is no evidence for something is
by providing evidence for it, which theists cannot do, as will be
shown.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Under "Is There A Lack of Evidence for God?"
Nathan lists several things which he thinks prove God's existence beyond
what he calls arguments of "the <span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">'I
feel God exists/ I want God to exist/ The Bible says God exists/ my
parents said God exists' variety." Here I will list them and respond to
them succinctly.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>1: The universe has a beginning (and nothing can cause itself to begin to exist).</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">This
is a typical god of the gaps argument. Yes we know the universe has a
beginning, but it didn't just cause itself to begin. The question of
"who or what caused the Big Bang" is a question that scientists are
still trying to answer; however there is no reason to accept God as that
answer, since there is no evidence for it. This may seem circular, but
in actuality it's just a flawed argument on Nathan's part. Finding a
situation where "because God" seems to plug into the right hole doesn't
suffice as evidence for his existence.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>2: The moral law.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">For this argument, Nathan cites <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU">a video by William Lane Craig</a>
claiming to show that morality is objective, and that it proves God's
existence. Of course, this invokes the Euthyphro dilemma, which is the
conundrum of whether something is good because God wills it, or whether
God wills it because it is good. Craig's answer to this question is
"neither one, rather God wills something because <i>he</i> is good." To
explain otherwise, something is considered good if it conforms to God's
"moral nature." Whether Craig realizes it or not, this is exactly the
same as saying "it's good because God wills it." The reason for this is
that it still presupposes that what God does can be considered good, or
that God's nature is good. That doesn't answer the question of "what is
good," though, because if what God does is good simply because he is
good, then what remains is the question of what determines that fact. In
other words, what determines that God's nature is good? The answer
would inevitably be God, thus creating a viciously circular argument
which leads back to "it's good because God wills it."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>3: The beauty and goodness in the universe.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Nathan
makes no attempt to make a logical argument for this case. Rather, he
accepts that there is no logical argument to be made, and that this is
something you just understand based on intuition. For those people who
don't, it's because they have been blinded from seeing the obvious
truth. Of course, we can abandon any argument that does not rely on a
logical premise, and so by Nathan's own admission, this argument doesn't
work (even though he thinks it does, but has essentially admitted that
it doesn't).</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>4: The intelligibility of the universe.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">The
argument from intelligibility is that all things in the universe at any
level of existence can be known -- that is, they have a structure which
allows us to comprehend them -- and therefore the only "satisfying"
answer is that it was intelligently designed. This is similar to the
argument from complexity in that it presupposes that because something
can be understood, it has to be designed in the same way that the former
presupposes that because something is complex, it has to be designed by
something even more complex. Of course, we see why this is fallacious:
there is no reason to believe in the premise. In fact, it's much easier
for me to believe that the universe in all aspects can be understood
because otherwise it would lose stability. Note how I said it's easier
for me to <i>believe</i> that, though, not that it's any more logical of an argument.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>5: The contingency of everything we see around us.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">This
is almost exactly the same as argument 1, although it illustrates it
differently. It states that because the universe cannot be conceived to
not exist (making it contingent), and that its cause must not also be
contingent, that its cause is what can be called "God." This ignores
that God has many other attributes other than just being an original
cause. It's also all-encompassing, because now <i>anything</i> that is
the original cause of the universe can be called "God." Whether you call
it God or not is not the issue at hand. What its attributes are is the
issue. Whether the cause of the Big Bang is called "God" or
"Bitimpusmaxilord" only matters at a visceral level.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>6: The history surrounding Jesus Christ.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Nathan
only cites a book for this, as he does for many of his claims, and thus
it's difficult to judge the merits of the argument, or even what the
argument is; however, I can only assume that it's the argument that
because the Bible is historically accurate down to the possibility of
Jesus Christ existing amongst the things that are mentioned therein, it
is right about Jesus Christ being the Son of God. If this is the
argument, it's terrible. I could research twentieth century America for
years, write a book about a fictional character who existed during that
time, and meet the same test. It does not follow that because X is
correct about Y, then X is also correct about Z, unless Z is contingent
upon Y. In this case, that would mean the existence of God is contingent
upon the historical accuracy of the Bible, which means that any
fictional character's existence can be proven by an argument of
historical accuracy.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>7: The universal testimony of mankind.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Universality
does not prove the existence of God. This is a strange but convincing
argument from popularity. It simply doesn't follow, though, that because
history has rejected atheism that atheism isn't true. The same could be
said for anything up until its acceptance. Here's an example: the
Christian God. The Christian God did not exist as a concept until the
creation of Christianity, after the alleged coming of Christ. Up until
that point, however, history had rejected the idea of that particular
interpretation of God because no evidence had been brought about for it.
Up until that point, then, it could be argued that the universal
testimony of mankind disproved the existence of the Christian God. The
same can be said for evolution, the Big Bang, the planets orbiting the
sun, etc. Also, it ignores that not all interpretations of God are the
same, or even similar, or are even singular (hence polytheism).</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>8: Miracles.</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Another
book citation, but I can't even begin to make sense of this argument.
God exists because of miracles? Miracles don't exist. We have not found
anything in the universe that cannot have a conceivably rational
explanation.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">This
is the end of his arguments for God, which took longer than expected to
address. Responding to the sentences after that list, I guess I'm in
the minority, because I addressed every single one as best as I could.
In fact, there are plenty of resources available for anyone who wants to
address these arguments. Let this be one of them. Again though, Nathan
tries to impress himself and his arguments by claiming that few can
respond to them.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">The next section is "Is the Argument Logical?" Here, Nathan states as follows:</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><i><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">"Another, and worse, problem for the argument is the bad logic
behind it. Even if we granted the atheist the truth of his statement,
"there is no evidence for the existence of God," his conclusion, "there
is no God," would still not be proven."</span></span></i></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To
anyone who actually says "there is no God," then you're screwed here;
but to the vast majority of atheists who say "I don't believe there is a
God," then you're in luck, because Nathan forgot to address you. The
most common atheistic position isn't one of knowledge, but of lack of
belief. There is no evidence for the existence of God; therefore, there
is no reason to believe God exists. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist,
it just means we shouldn't believe he does until something provides
evidence for it. However, if you are like me, then you can look at
different attributes of different gods and determine whether or not that
god can possibly exist. Omnipotence is one, which is a paradox. Any god
that is allegedly omnipotent cannot exist because their existence would
be paradoxical.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">After some hand wringing over what definition of agnosticism this strawman would fall under, Nathan concludes this:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="line-height: 18px;">"To
conclude that we don't know if there is a God and then to live as if
there wasn't one is to make a rather poor "wager," as even the honest
atheist will admit."</span></i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He cites
Pascal's Wager for this argument, which means he has completely
misunderstood Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager states that if God doesn't
exist, then there are no consequences to not following his will; however
if he does exist, then there are consequences, therefore we should
follow his will. You know, just in case? This is of course invalid for
several reasons. It ignores the many numbers of moral codes that exist,
such that adhering to one moral code would violate another, and thus if
you were wrong about what code you follow, there would be consequences.
It also presumes that belief is based on choice. It's not. I can't help
not believing in God. It is something that I ultimately believe in based
on evidence. If I chose to follow the moral codes, then I would merely
be lying to myself and to God, and thus he would know of my true atheism
and likely burn me in Hell for being a nonbeliever.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So
there you have it. Nathan didn't provide any convincing arguments for
the existence of God, and failed to provide any reason to believe that
the atheistic position is illogical due to him not understanding what an
atheist is. I hope everyone else took something from this fairly swift
refutation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Thank you very much for reading.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Follow me on social media!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir</span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-56799449843740898742015-01-30T01:22:00.003-05:002015-01-31T17:31:30.794-05:00Ratio Christi and Militant Christian Apologetics: Does God Exist? (Disc 1)<i>(That title will make sense as you read on.)</i><br />
<br />
<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
Surprise! Fortunately for me, I was excused from my second class so I would be allowed to attend the meeting held by Ratio Christi. I left my class at 6:50 PM so I'd have a safe 10 minutes to get to the meeting at 7:00 PM. I went to the room on the card, carelessly read the sign that said "... panel after video" outside of the room, went inside, and sat down.<br />
<br />
It was a documentary, already halfway through, about some girl who had gone missing and was suspected to be involved in prostitution and human trafficking. It was a private case, attempting to locate her. It was upsetting to me, but I kept watching, knowing that there would be a panel at the end. I noted that there were only a few people in there, and thus it was a bit of a disappointment, but I continued on, confident and ready. Someone got up and left while I sat there, and so I caught a glimpse of a sign across the hall. "Christ-" was the only thing I could read.<br />
<br />
Wait...<br />
<br />
I left the room with my stuff to look at the sign. "Ratio Christi meeting relocated to B001" it read, or something to that effect. I looked at the time. 7:05. Crap, I'm late, and I was too stupid to look around for confirmation that this was the place!<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjibRR8EcdLjoLheSi-_FmjTv2tH8m6WrzrSP_amk2VxsUUD4uvoRDW-qyaYZO2fousauWr-f9_ShgsSI7GhQu88uWT-c7LAWAaDyv5OCfkuXuY5FMbN6ARSGcZrhof8_arvT9oW80r9Q-s/s1600/Sorry-wrong-room.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjibRR8EcdLjoLheSi-_FmjTv2tH8m6WrzrSP_amk2VxsUUD4uvoRDW-qyaYZO2fousauWr-f9_ShgsSI7GhQu88uWT-c7LAWAaDyv5OCfkuXuY5FMbN6ARSGcZrhof8_arvT9oW80r9Q-s/s1600/Sorry-wrong-room.jpg" height="252" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Joker indeed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So I rushed out of the room, headed to B-wing, found the room and walked inside. I was met with two smiling faces and cheerful "hellos!" by two guys at the front of the room, as well as four other people sitting in the front row of the classroom. Let's call the two guys "Thing 1" and "Thing 2," since I can't recall their names for the life of me, and because I'm unnecessarily a dick. They introduce themselves, I tell them my name, and I sit there awaiting the meeting to begin. It turned out that they weren't even aware of the room change until that day, which sucked for them, but hey, what can you do? I don't want to demarcate when during this meeting more people came in, but by the time I <i>left</i>, there were 11 people, including myself. "Not exactly taking over the mind of this 'university,'" I thought to myself with a smirk. They had even been there for several semesters, as I learned from overhearing conversations between some of the other members. I was the only new attendee.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Finally the meeting started, and I began to feel a bit concerned. On the projector screen was a PowerPoint on "History of Islam and the West." Oh boy, I thought to myself. Not only will I have nothing to write about, but I'll also be subjected to a Christianocentric interpretation of the historical events surrounding Islamic scripture. Thankfully, this wasn't the entirety of the meeting, and it also wasn't <i>that</i> bad. The only thing that was bad about it was the lack of knowledge many people in the room had of Islam (not even knowing who they think Mohammad is), and the one comment made by Thing 2 where he tried to excuse the Crusades by explaining how Mohammad's wars were much worse by comparison. Ugh.<br />
<br />
So after reviewing the material they learned in the prior meeting and going over the last bit of information for the day, they moved onto the good stuff. They played Disc 1 of "Does God Exist?" by TrueU, which is a disc set dedicated to establishing a scientific basis for Christian faith. In <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2015/01/ratio-christi-and-militant-christian.html">my last post</a> covering these guys, I explained why this is a failure to begin with. If you haven't read that post yet, I'd recommend doing so now. It's not as substantive as this post will be, but it's still important.<br />
<br />
They had already watched the first four sections of the disc: Faith & Reason, and Big Bang Cosmology parts 1-3. The first section was an introduction, and the second through forth sections were covering the scientific merits (or presumably, lack thereof) of the Big Bang Theory. The fifth section, however, was perfect for me: DNA by Design Part 1. The reason this was perfect for me is because only a few months ago, I was convinced by the very arguments that were made in the video, and began seriously reconsidering the idea of intelligent design (ID). I later learned that it's all a bunch of rhetorical nonsense, and I was a fucking dip for listening to any of it. Now, I will share with you all what those arguments were. I was hoping I could find a copy of the video so I could record a response to it for YouTube, but alas, I'd have to pay for it, and I'm poor. A text refutation will have to suffice, for now, based on the notes I took.<br />
<br />
<b>The Video</b> <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhggNo3EOxKWSlUBRT3CQyboItPsR9_HyjgUXis0yanTFeqkFz9f_VkQUQmXR-mgQtuav-uHSfssbLX4b-YHzpzWEqEdJKzHuK-WrZNW_vR7xojHO4ejJ0zCFhqhoTZflWqfwz-b_F1M_5m/s1600/Meyer-dustjkt-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhggNo3EOxKWSlUBRT3CQyboItPsR9_HyjgUXis0yanTFeqkFz9f_VkQUQmXR-mgQtuav-uHSfssbLX4b-YHzpzWEqEdJKzHuK-WrZNW_vR7xojHO4ejJ0zCFhqhoTZflWqfwz-b_F1M_5m/s1600/Meyer-dustjkt-web.jpg" height="320" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Look at his tiny ass head! God damn!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So the video starts off by introducing Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of <i>Signature in the Cell</i>, which is a book covering the same topic. Dr. Meyer is an intelligent design advocate and helped establish the Discovery Institute. He has a B.S. in physics and earth science (and, presumably, BS), and a PhD in history and philosophy of science. He is in no way, shape or form a credible source of information for genetics and evolutionary biology. However, an argument is to be judged based on its merits, not on who the person arguing is, no matter how disproportionate their head is to their torso. Let's examine those arguments, then.<br />
<br />
He starts off by talking about proteins and DNA, noting that they require a specific order (which he later denotes as sequence specificity), and that they contain "information" (which he notes is the key word in this video). I put "information" in quotes for a specific reason myself, and that is that "information" is never defined once in this video. While this may seem tedious to someone not familiar with information theory, it's actually <i>very</i> important, because we can't conflate multiple types of information that have well-established definitions (such as Shannon or algorithmic information) together, as well as with the common interpretation of the word. It's a rhetorical device that these guys commonly use, and in fact will go out of their way to avoid defining what "information" is most of the time because of what it would mean for their arguments. Thankfully I don't need to go into a refutation of that bullshit here because it was rarely applicable.<br />
<br />
Moving on from this, Dr. Meyer kind of beats around the bush with an exhaustive introduction into genetics, talking about how "a garden needs a gardener," etc. I won't waste my time reviewing those parts of the video, but instead I'll get to the meat of his <b>fat</b>uous argument. He goes on about proof of the origins of life, or that "soup of amino acids" that formed the first proteins. This is referring to abiogenesis which, I should state right now, is <i>not</i> something that has been rigorously proven yet. I'll talk about that after I'm done reviewing the video.<br />
<br />
Meyer refers to the Miller-Urey experiment which allegedly showed that the environmental conditions necessary in early earth for the origins of life were possible. Basically, they passed an electrical discharge through a synthetically arranged atmosphere made up of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. After doing so, what came out was a pool of amino acids with some other biomolecules. In essence, they showed that the alleged soup that life came crawling out of could have been created from the atmosphere of gasses that were assumed to be present on early earth. The problem is, as Dr. Meyer noted to one student, that since that experiment, we are now aware that the earth had a different atmosphere than what was used in the experiment, and thus the amino acid pool wouldn't have come about in the way the experiment displayed. Still, the experiment serves some use: it shows that, under some conditions, the basic building blocks of life can form spontaneously without intervention from an intelligent designer. This, in itself, invalidates any need to defer to ID for the answer to the origins of life.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQ6UsWbkkBcAFi0Auj8a9JXCiPzLfbTQ54J-GQFwSxGcflLub5GQ-402juihncSARvQrvOtFddiNHeAjZonl_AGXtubaWAcLBHU5afWNJkeFJwL7knW6nSFzhsTL_WFw9uiVJshxuhsUB/s1600/MillerApparatus.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQ6UsWbkkBcAFi0Auj8a9JXCiPzLfbTQ54J-GQFwSxGcflLub5GQ-402juihncSARvQrvOtFddiNHeAjZonl_AGXtubaWAcLBHU5afWNJkeFJwL7knW6nSFzhsTL_WFw9uiVJshxuhsUB/s1600/MillerApparatus.GIF" height="248" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wrong gasses, same point. Checkmate, atheists! Wait...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
He continues on by talking about the creation of proteins, and how in order to make sense, the arrangements of amino acids need to line up in a specific way. He then draws an analogy to language, and how letters of the alphabet have to be arranged in specific ways to be useful. If you need more information on this, look up "Complex Specified Information" (CSI). It's more bullshit from the Discovery Institute.<br />
<br />
Anyway, so he hammers in this point, highlighting that the most important feature of proteins are the sequences, how DNA directs them (drawing an analogy to code and Boeing machines which are coded to create other machines, etc.). The problem with this is that he's using an analogy that, functionally, isn't valid. DNA is only a language or a code insofar as to how we interpret it. TCAG does not naturally occur, represented the way it is here, in the genetic "code." Instead, there are valid sequences which can function properly, and we simply choose to represent the four amino acids that form this sequence by the letters TCAG. We could do the same thing for chemical reactions (and we do). We could also do the same thing for something like tornadoes: there has to be a very specific arrangement of environmental factors which can lead to the creation of a tornado. They can't just spontaneously appear out of nowhere from random environmental factors. Instead, it has to be <i>specified</i>. Unfortunately for Dr. Meyer, this doesn't mean that tornadoes are intelligently designed; and if they were, that'd only make God more of a douchebag.<br />
<br />
The only reason the "coding" analogy works is because the information that comes from DNA is preceded by DNA itself, as opposed to the other way around. That doesn't mean it's actually a code or a language though, because that language <i>still</i> needs to be represented and interpreted by <i>another</i> language - our language - in order for it to be valid as such. In much the same way, the environmental factors which create a tornado can be seen as "code" which produces the "information" which leads to the creation of a tornado. We must then interpret that information from that code in order for that interaction to make sense.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAc7ebt3yIn89oGUbqOnqFsr6k0zJJ6HEvdDyE7gr_LpYNaPM14njG8o7r8tDy2GFr670mKMF1nMjXutB0Co_Q7EVK-39I1tZ4aPRIZtY1CQMr643WuwD0SZH9lVa4LlDP8skug3klOwLf/s1600/analogy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAc7ebt3yIn89oGUbqOnqFsr6k0zJJ6HEvdDyE7gr_LpYNaPM14njG8o7r8tDy2GFr670mKMF1nMjXutB0Co_Q7EVK-39I1tZ4aPRIZtY1CQMr643WuwD0SZH9lVa4LlDP8skug3klOwLf/s1600/analogy.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>TL;DR: On its own, DNA is not a real "code" in the sense that it is not a valid language with linguistic properties. The same goes for chemical interactions, weather events, and shit like whether or not the Goo Goo Dolls will come to play at your college's spring concert (which, for my college, they did, yay!). These things must all be interpreted by us, humans, for that analogy to make sense. It has no inherent linguistic properties in the way English does. It's a fucking analogy guys. Give it a rest.</b><br />
<br />
One thing that was noted at the end of the video for the next part of this topic was whether or not "undirected" processes, such as what Darwin suggested, can explain all of this. This was something I wanted to mention during the meeting, but by the time I decided to give my input, that part of the conversation was long gone. At the beginning of the video, Dr. Meyer claims that life came about via the <i>undirected</i> process of natural selection. The problem with this is that this component of evolution, natural selection, <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/09/evolution-common-misconceptions-or-what.html">is the only component that actually <i>is</i> directed</a>! The very premise of the question he's answering is flawed because it's so glaringly wrong that you'd think he never took a course on evolutionary theory, or even made the slightest attempt to understand it.<br />
<br />
<b>After the Video</b> <br />
<br />
So concludes the video, and so concludes my sanity. Afterwards, there were several talking points raised by Thing 1 and Thing 2 in opposition to scientists in general, and evolutionary theory. I'll paraphrase them here, just to give you the gist:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Scientists just arbitrarily define new species. They get research money to find a new species; therefore, they're going to find a new species and get that money.</b></i><br />
<br />
Nope. This is affirming the consequent. Just because it is in someone's financial interest to do something, that does not mean they would do it. Scientists by and large do what they do to expand on the scientific body of knowledge. A lot of people in the room didn't even know how species are defined, and so I had to step in to clarify, even though I promised myself I wouldn't try to correct them and instead let them defend their own cases. Thing 2 talked about how stupid it is that we have so many species of bees just because of simple differences like wing length. This isn't all that goes into the definition of species. What also goes into it: how often the two populations interact, what their ecology is (diet, behavior, etc.), their morphology, their potential to interbreed, etc. It's not just a simple difference in a single phenotypic trait that decides whether or not a species is a species.<br />
<br />
In fact, it's not easy to define a species at all, hence the species problem. The fact that they were so blissfully unaware of this scientific dilemma explains why they'd think it'd be so easy for a scientist to get grant money to find a new species. It was funny really, but I felt bad too, since there were a lot of people in that room I could tell were only coming there because they felt at home. I hate to burst their bubble. I'll talk about one person in particular in a minute.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Scientists say "we don't know the answers to the mysteries of the origins of life, but we have faith that one day we'll find it," therefore we don't believe in ID, creationism, etc.</b></i><br />
<br />
The first part of this statement is absolutely noncontroversial, except the part about "having faith." Instead, scientists<i><b> </b></i>admit to not knowing the answer, and accept that. They don't assert any solid answers that they don't have, and they find this perfectly acceptable; therefore, just because we don't have the answer to how the origins of life came to be doesn't mean we have to accept ID. That's a god of the gaps argument.<br />
<br />
Another one that I just want to briefly mention is hand wringing over what the definition of a scientific "theory" is. I never suspected I'd ever encounter this level of stupid in real life; however, the girl who was pounding her chest about it rather scared me, so I decided it'd be best to not try to challenge her again.<br />
<br />
<i><b>The argument over which came first, the first protein or the first protein to create that protein, is like the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate.</b></i><br />
<br />
This nearly made me pee myself. It's such a bad argument, especially because I can come up with an answer to both on the spot if asked. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither. We understand the chicken and the chicken's egg by a modern snapshot of what it means to be a chicken. Becoming a chicken was a much longer, more gradual process, and at no point could you say that the egg was a chicken egg, or the organism that came out of it was a chicken. Only now can we make that determination. It's a fundamental principle of evolution.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHJ0uETU2iUgfYqCjJu1lWwqa2mghVXN0MZC0dqPZ9Ey-fOduYJvNBaddwtUIBhNDBho-E_nyQ8jPLzTQ4RP8ziSq7qtcH6FFui2L3gRtZOHBQsb8Rs9uZLOn6xcTWNWe-Gao4_RsmeiVP/s1600/chicken-or-the-egg_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHJ0uETU2iUgfYqCjJu1lWwqa2mghVXN0MZC0dqPZ9Ey-fOduYJvNBaddwtUIBhNDBho-E_nyQ8jPLzTQ4RP8ziSq7qtcH6FFui2L3gRtZOHBQsb8Rs9uZLOn6xcTWNWe-Gao4_RsmeiVP/s1600/chicken-or-the-egg_3.jpg" height="220" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">On a more advanced note, though, this is the correct answer; however it depends on how you define the egg.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So which came first, the protein or the protein that made that protein? Ignoring how bad this question is to begin with, the answer <i>would</i> be neither. Instead, the first protein would've arisen out of a spontaneous chemical reaction, such as what could've been the case from the Miller-Urey experiment.<br />
<br />
What was even more hilarious about this one was that the scary girl that was crying for war over the other bullshit continued on for this one. She was asked, "if you were a scientist, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?" Her answer? "If I were a scientist, I'd say neither, instead they both came from a unicellular organism."<br />
<br />
<i>No, no, no!</i> You were half right, and then you skipped millions of years of gradual change which covers the very concepts of micro-evolution! The very concepts that you supposedly <i>agree </i>with! Agh! It's so embarrassing.<br />
<br />
<i><b>It's astronomically improbable for the proper sequences of amino acids to form functioning proteins.</b></i><br />
<br />
To anyone with statistical knowledge, this is just rhetorical nonsense, again. An example a friend of mine (as well as Lex) brought up recently was a deck of cards, and this is something you can do in front of you right now. Get a deck of cards and shuffle it well, for about two minutes. Make sure the cards are randomized to the best of your ability. Now, lay out the cards in order and make note of the order (you don't need to remember it, just acknowledge that there is, indeed, an order to them).<br />
<br />
The probability of you having gotten that <i>precise</i> order is 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. If you want to impress your friends with your counting abilities, that's ~80.7 unvigintillion. To illustrate it for them, explain that 1 billion has 3 sets of zeroes (one set equals 3 zeroes), while 1 unvigintillion has 22 sets. If you thought your chances of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning were unlikely, check this shit out.<br />
<br />
The thing is, this isn't at all surprising to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, as I said. The difference is between <i>ex ante</i> and <i>ex post</i> probabilities. Prior to having shuffled the cards, the <i>ex ante </i>probability of you getting that exact order is represented above. After shuffling, the probability of you having gotten that exact order of cards is 100%, or 1 in 1. The point being, no matter how unlikely something seems, it can happen. Unlikely things happen <i>all the time</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b> <br />
<br />
I honestly don't think I'm missing anything, but if something else returns to my memory, I'll add it here. Towards the end of the meeting, a quiet girl attempted to display her findings from her research that she was so happy to have found, but kept getting talked over, even as she was writing it on the board. In the end, she never actually got to talk about it out loud. I felt so bad for her, because she seemed really sweet, and in a way reminded me of someone else who's important to me. After the meeting was adjourned, Thing 2 came up to me over a comment he made during my spiel about the species problem about me sounding like a guy on the radio. We talked, found out that we went to elementary school not too far from each other, and had a grand old time. He asked me if I wanted to join them for Bible study, and said he assumed I was Catholic.<br />
<br />
Right here is where I had to make a choice. I decided earlier that if I went to the meeting and someone asked me what my beliefs were, I would refuse to answer and state only that I was an objective observer. I didn't know whether or not I'd be judged for my beliefs, and I honestly didn't want to be. However, by the end of this meeting, I was feeling comfortable enough to say something, especially considering two things:<br />
<br />
1: It'd be a good social experiment.<br />
2: This was the first, last, and only meeting I'd ever be able to go to, honestly.<br />
<br />
So I went ahead and told him no, I'm an atheist.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3a2lB103ryASXtQ-JGbcGRQoVS5P7t0UoL4SFd3-KEEz8e7f8qVJlhTLbcyCHeT6t8rP5Q4jnQAtmA6MsOnUeUh0SOJWqx1MC7skJv3iYKpVE847OpkbPpS3CdM1HtJFokFKsviu7ctSM/s1600/Inner_Demon_3_by_jdotjam.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3a2lB103ryASXtQ-JGbcGRQoVS5P7t0UoL4SFd3-KEEz8e7f8qVJlhTLbcyCHeT6t8rP5Q4jnQAtmA6MsOnUeUh0SOJWqx1MC7skJv3iYKpVE847OpkbPpS3CdM1HtJFokFKsviu7ctSM/s1600/Inner_Demon_3_by_jdotjam.jpg" height="320" width="218" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Atheism - my inner demon, apparently.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Immediately, his expression, voice, essence - everything just fell. He became less talkative, things got more awkward, and at every possibility, he tried getting someone's attention to point me out and bring up that I'm an atheist. The only thing that delayed him from telling nearly everyone was that I had told him I skipped out on most of my second class that day just to come to the meeting. He told that to Thing 1, to which Thing 1 replied, "you're a guy that I can deal with." I'm under the assumption that he now regrets those words.<br />
<br />
The shy girl came up to me and asked me about a comment I made earlier on, with very interested eyes, about how I went to CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, basically a weekly elementary school education based on Christian doctrine and teachings). I told her yes, to which Thing 2 interrupted and said I'm not Catholic. The thing about that was that I wasn't even mad he was still making a big deal out of that. I was pissed that he interrupted the girl I was talking to, like everyone hadn't been doing that enough all night.<br />
<br />
Anyway, so I had to clarify that I was an atheist again, to which the girl replied "Oh... aw..." She then proceeded to recommend a book to me, which I promptly wrote down and fully intend on reading, even though it was basically a post-confessional attempt to convert me.<br />
<br />
Before Thing 2 could tell more people, other students from the meeting came up to me overhearing how I wouldn't be able to attend future meetings, saying I could still come a little around after 8 and still catch the videos, and then go to Bible study with them after. I told them I'd consider it, but really, it's so late that I just want to go home and get dinner by that point. Aside from that, I don't feel comfortable with them anymore.<br />
<br />
I didn't think I'd care that much, but walking home from the meeting with my girlfriend (who, forgive her soul, waited for me for over half an hour), it started to sink in. It wasn't overt discrimination, but it was a very clear change of heart that I experienced from people who were otherwise friendly and seemed genuinely interested in having me around in the future. Whether it was intentional or not, they really were affected by my lack of faith, and that hurt. Especially that shy girl - the one who was so opposed to trying to assert herself and speak up when people interrupted her, made it very clear that she was disappointed by the fact that I didn't share the same beliefs as her. It seemed awkward, and instead of trying to talk to me, it seemed clear that she was trying to leave as fast as possible after that, even as I was trying to get the names of the authors for the book she recommended. It was disheartening.<br />
<br />
So concludes my experience with Ratio Christi, at least for now. If I happen to get my hands on those videos or accidentally come across more of their literature, I'll respond to it here. I have a few final messages, though, to conclude this post.<br />
<br />
To the people who were at that meeting, thank you for being so hospitable. It's unfortunate that the majority (or perhaps the totality) of you are ill informed and not prepared to defend your faith. I wish you would expose yourselves to better sources of information than the speaker and his resources. It was a shame to hear you all speaking so poorly of the scientific community at large.<br />
<br />
To the individuals I specifically mentioned, thank you for taking the time to get to know me, but your treatment of me after discovering that I wasn't amongst your ranks was pretty detestable, whether it was conscious or not. It's no way to make a dissenter feel welcome. "Atheist" shouldn't be a boogeyman to you people.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiroFcbmIXZdoe56olimFOMt-sm6EhaDjhyphenhyphenOJQwaHUY_GTGUYILmZv7cRj50HAxSUfwA_QH3cTc2GDAa31q2RGV0KVxJ5Xx-yw5MaB7Q5MRpiIuIESy0hxdDjYaHT-UF7nolUgXR30BGM51/s1600/middle_finger_drawing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiroFcbmIXZdoe56olimFOMt-sm6EhaDjhyphenhyphenOJQwaHUY_GTGUYILmZv7cRj50HAxSUfwA_QH3cTc2GDAa31q2RGV0KVxJ5Xx-yw5MaB7Q5MRpiIuIESy0hxdDjYaHT-UF7nolUgXR30BGM51/s1600/middle_finger_drawing.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Add caption</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
To Ratio Christi in general, it seems my prejudgments of you were correct. You failed to provide any convincing argument on behalf of your faith, and displayed how impossible it will be for you all to "take the mind of the university for Christ," because you couldn't take mine, and for anyone who is even mildly informed in the subjects you discussed, you won't convince them either. You're going to have a very difficult time convincing <i>anyone</i>, really, who doesn't already share your views, of your scientific knowledge and backing. Especially in college, where students have access to resources and materials, whether they be books or professors, to help answer the questions they have, the quality of your arguments and claims isn't good enough to win the majority of the informed public.<br />
<br />
And to everyone else, thank you for reading, and I'll see you next time! Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-72839473383776348522015-01-28T22:21:00.001-05:002015-02-08T00:17:54.593-05:00Ratio Christi and Militant Christian Apologetics: IntroductionI love it when I get a chance to be a militant atheist. Really, I do. There are very few real-life situations where I can express my lack of faith proudly and in such a way that other people will learn from it. I encountered such a scenario over this past summer when two Christian apologists from California came to the east coast to talk with people about their religious beliefs. I was able to challenge them on their beliefs and display a few instances where they were just being ridiculous, like thinking a child born somewhere else in the world, never exposed to Christianity, would be sent to Hell if they died and didn't believe.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1oUrn7YLeWDlQ0X1J8ZevjOe5kjT1tUoBlrVrSw1aI7sWf0Z19As6almYGM8Dvah4y-ciYiXumK6AL77aMtn2U5lj0uejXTZl4AYoQAgQcSHvT_axiCskbJJMAn0E6Z3edNHYPyBltX5/s1600/580-X-320-APOLOGETICS-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1oUrn7YLeWDlQ0X1J8ZevjOe5kjT1tUoBlrVrSw1aI7sWf0Z19As6almYGM8Dvah4y-ciYiXumK6AL77aMtn2U5lj0uejXTZl4AYoQAgQcSHvT_axiCskbJJMAn0E6Z3edNHYPyBltX5/s1600/580-X-320-APOLOGETICS-1.png" height="176" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Parry! Thrust! Pray! Trust! I'm so fucking clever.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Don't get me wrong. I wasn't a dick. I went out of my way to be respectful to them because they were collecting data, and in an area where over 80% of the population is Christian, what were their chances of talking to two brothers - one a staunch atheist, the other a deist - about their belief? It was an unlucky situation for them, and so I gave them the easiest time I could. It was actually very enjoyable.<br />
<br />
But the difference from that situation and a typical one is that these two guys weren't trying to push their faith on us. They were trying to have a discussion and collect data. When that happens, I'm fine; but the moment they decide they're going to start pushing their beliefs on me is the moment I start pushing back. I'm defensive, but still militant.<br />
<br />
Such was a situation that came upon me today. It was a day of involvement, where various clubs and organizations set up tables in the main campus building to attract students and find new membership. I don't like these days because it's almost always the case that every other student happens to vanish into nonexistence the moment I walk into the hallway, and so I'm always alone (or with my girlfriend) and having to walk down the center of the hall as the people from the tables turn into criers for one (or two), or just stare at us like creeps. Ew.<br />
<br />
Today was different, though. Some guy happened to be standing out past the tables, and so was close enough to me to hand me a card with information about the club. I didn't want to just be rude, so I took it and thanked him. He just stared at me, menacingly. Ewww.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxwN9coP3WdroJA2WfKlLS2KevNN2RjTnNu-nSp1kFK0IJRhcuKraJf-lzIcwX58VmmQYKpOMuqjdQYEOnVyqbmAxE_AHQ6rkobelWmftpGtXUstIacI4hnSvnHIUYiyy0rGdftC7ixpvZ/s1600/20150128_145624.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxwN9coP3WdroJA2WfKlLS2KevNN2RjTnNu-nSp1kFK0IJRhcuKraJf-lzIcwX58VmmQYKpOMuqjdQYEOnVyqbmAxE_AHQ6rkobelWmftpGtXUstIacI4hnSvnHIUYiyy0rGdftC7ixpvZ/s1600/20150128_145624.jpg" height="400" width="302" /></a>I looked at the card and laughed to myself. "Oh god," I thought, "here we go." It was a card from a global Christian apologetics movement. Ewwwww!<br />
<br />
To the left, you'll see either side of the very nice card I received. On the bottom half is an introduction, along with the date and location of their meeting. Unfortunately that's tomorrow, dead smack overlapping my second class of the day, and so I won't be able to make it. Shame. I would've loved to be able to write a post about the actual arguments they make, but instead I'll have to comment on the bad job they did trying to sell their thoughts to me.<br />
<br />
For those of you who can't read their introduction, I'll transcribe it here:<br />
<br />
<i>"Ratio Christi (Latin for "The Reason of Christ") is a global movement that equips university students and faculty to give historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons for following Jesus Christ. RC student clubs meet regularly to bring together faith and reason in order to establish the intellectual voice of Christ in the University. We defend the truth of God, the Bible, and the Resurrection, while sharing Christ's message and love to skeptics. The Christian faith is rational and true - not blind!"</i><br />
<br />
The intro is flawed for a lot of reasons. First of all, it claims to give "scientific reasons" for following Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, for an organization that is attempting to bridge faith and reason and has a lot of grounds in philosophy, this is a major breach of the is-ought gap. Assuming we could scientifically verify that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the son of God, and that the God of the Christian Bible exists and is the all-powerful, all-intelligent being that he is made out to be, it would <i>still</i> not give us any reason to follow him or his son. Quite frankly, even if God did exist, I wouldn't follow or worship any of the shit he brings to the table, because he's an asshole.<br />
<br />
Thus their premise falls short immediately. They can't give any scientific reasons for following Christ because you cannot provide a scientific argument for the worship of something. This is purely an epistemological issue concerning belief and adherence to doctrine, not science. Science only seeks to explain things - it makes positive propositions, not normative ones.<br />
<br />
At the end, it states in partially highlighted script: "The Christian faith is rational and true - not blind!" By definition, it has to be blind, because "faith" is trust in something without evidence (or is at least understood to be. Some definitions liken it to belief). The purpose of calling it the "Christian faith" is, once again, supposed to be an epistemological claim, not a scientific one. It's belief without evidence, but instead, some other type of warrant.<br />
<br />
So color me unimpressed by their sales pitch, but I wanted to learn more about these guys. What type of apologists are they? Why do they try to draw a line between "blind faith" and regular faith? I guessed they were militant because of their description, but then I saw their tagline on the front of the card, "Taking back the mind of the university for Christ."<br />
<br />
"Well, they already lost me," as my girlfriend put it.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7OtFm7RC5fxRphJsOMlRAPEOpaCgL1Lh63J59onXc74L1e4eLeR0sSHY9Ue4Mxedmam6uvxp55EBQmmwWMTn5-Y_nNPA9PlOAkHUjPM3By4uQ_rioQwT4aFSQP2Zj9jrHJDUcTsb25eb/s1600/keep-calm-and-you-lost-me-babe.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr7OtFm7RC5fxRphJsOMlRAPEOpaCgL1Lh63J59onXc74L1e4eLeR0sSHY9Ue4Mxedmam6uvxp55EBQmmwWMTn5-Y_nNPA9PlOAkHUjPM3By4uQ_rioQwT4aFSQP2Zj9jrHJDUcTsb25eb/s1600/keep-calm-and-you-lost-me-babe.png" height="320" width="273" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If you liked it then you shoulda put a crown on it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So now that I've gotten the chance to look at <a href="http://ratiochristi.org/">their website</a> (this ordeal took place a few hours ago), I've learned a bit more about their mission. They're fundamentalists. A few key notes of their beliefs:<br />
<br />
- <i>"According to the Bible, we view marriage as a conjugal and covenantal
union of one man and one woman, ordained by God from the creation of
humanity, and historically understood by believers and non-believers
alike, to be the most basic institution in society."</i><br />
<br />
- <i>"We specifically deny “theistic evolution,” yet realize that this is a
position that must be vigorously debated in order to show the weaknesses
in both the scientific and theological evidence for macro-evolution."</i><br />
<br />
<i>- "We believe that there is a personal devil who can exert vast power but
only as far as God permits him to do so; that he shall ultimately be
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and
night forever. Other, both good and evil, supernatural beings exist."</i><br />
<br />
That last part really gets me<i>.</i> God allows Satan to corrupt human beings and exert his evil powers onto humanity. How benevolent. I don't know what they mean by "other supernatural beings," but I suppose angels and unicorns (no, seriously, look it up) are among them. That they don't believe in evolution is even more laughable. You're <i>never</i> going to take over universities by trying to disprove evolution. The biology department will rip your asshole out and crown you with it, then write "INRB" above your head (<span class="st">Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Bardus, or "Here Lies Jesus, King Stupid" in really shitty Latin most likely). The same goes for opposing homosexuality. A quick note on evolution again, though, they've immediately done what every other apologist group promoting young earth creationism (YEC) does, and that's draw a functional line between macro- and micro-evolution. Presumably by stating their disbelief in macro-evolution, they are stating their belief in micro-evolution.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">This is what's great about this part: an introductory level biology textbook could tell them why making such a dichotomy is fallacious. A quote from biologist Douglas J. Futuyama explains why this is the case (straight off of Wikipedia too!):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that
"macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish
higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic
differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of
view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from
"microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different
kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of
species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or
based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic
effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable
differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive
isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most
cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations."</i></blockquote>
The only difference between macro- and micro-evolution is that of time, as many skeptics and scientifically literate individuals will tell you. There is no qualitative or functional difference between the two. Evolution is evolution, and evidence for one is evidence for the other. I know this is obvious to most of the people reading this, but I'm using these guys as a foil for typical creationist arguments. Don't give it much attention.<br />
<br />
So what else did I find about them? Well from their page on apologetics and why they feel it's important, I found this (included in such a way that shows their disdain):<br />
<ul>
<li>
<i>72.9% of professors at elite universities say that “The Bible is an
ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by
men” </i></li>
<li><i>
84.1% of professors disagree with the statement “The theory of
intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwin
theory of evolution”</i></li>
<li><i>
“. . .it is clear that on the whole, and measured in various ways,
professors are less religious than the general U.S. population” . (p.9)</i></li>
</ul>
They see it as an issue that the vast majority of professors disagree that intelligent design (ID) is a serious scientific alternative to Darwinian evolutionary theory; but if they had any basic understanding of scientific theory, they would know <i>why</i>. ID is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it's inherently a "god of the gaps" argument. It can't be proven that a divine being is what set evolution in motion, especially since we don't even solidly know what the cause of evolution was. It also can't be invalidated until we find the real reason; but by that point, a backup plan will already be set in place, thus invoking infinite regress.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_lGGi4VANmvhzWEJFJnKRyCSoDuT1Sj_ykQwi0qaRVYHVt4gk7PJOIZ0jWg4GVaGsD4sbKaToSklbdpU6q6LpwBOM8mirahKo2XVBHF6H7JLC3Wl7Rv2FOUQYSx39-AGsIhwFUYAh17vK/s1600/599728_513181185382738_864239643_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_lGGi4VANmvhzWEJFJnKRyCSoDuT1Sj_ykQwi0qaRVYHVt4gk7PJOIZ0jWg4GVaGsD4sbKaToSklbdpU6q6LpwBOM8mirahKo2XVBHF6H7JLC3Wl7Rv2FOUQYSx39-AGsIhwFUYAh17vK/s1600/599728_513181185382738_864239643_n.jpg" height="147" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Creationism is very scientific, just "like us!" I crack myself up.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It pains me to see this going around. The whole "we're scientific too!" thing is just so contrived, it nearly makes me sick. I'm one of those "freedom of speech should only extend to those things which aren't patently false" kind of guys. If what you're saying is very provably not true, then you shouldn't be allowed to say it, especially to specifically convince people of its truth in an academic setting. It's disingenuous. Among their faculty are only three people with a postgraduate degree in any type of biological science, and two of them have little-to-nothing to do with evolutionary science. They also have two people with bachelors degrees in biology, but hey, you can fail one test on fundamentals of evolution and still pass. Point being, they have very few resources directly related to evolutionary science. Most of their experts are in apologetics, philosophy, and (get this) law. I guess if you're going to try to push something that's glaringly untrue, you'll need a few good arguers in there.<br />
<br />
That's really all I have left to say on this matter. Like I said, I really wish I could attend their meeting to see what actual arguments they bring up - since then I could actually be talking about something of substance - but alas my work is more important than theirs. Yes, I just said that.<br />
<br />
Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you next time!<br />
<br />
Update (1/29/2015): I got to go to the meeting after all! I'll be writing a post about my experience in the next couple of days. Keep your eyes peeled. I'll link to that post here when it's finished. I promise it'll be more substantive than the post above. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-39587200027978637952015-01-24T23:23:00.000-05:002015-01-28T01:26:22.695-05:00Gaming Nostalgia with Man Crates: My Epiphany<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM1IRflu2ASGCF0jA70F4w7qD9bvAMYl-E41OXWhU1UUgFSQsRAhywt-mKvq1-kwFY8DlYyvLjDAes6lOwe3Fpe2vBcwlOjj-fStrwTtZ29J3iAbY4LPunCUXQWYjqB6KieAtLqYUzCbM/s1600/retro_gamer_comp_s__58960.1412700687.702.702.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM1IRflu2ASGCF0jA70F4w7qD9bvAMYl-E41OXWhU1UUgFSQsRAhywt-mKvq1-kwFY8DlYyvLjDAes6lOwe3Fpe2vBcwlOjj-fStrwTtZ29J3iAbY4LPunCUXQWYjqB6KieAtLqYUzCbM/s1600/retro_gamer_comp_s__58960.1412700687.702.702.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I still have an opened pack of Red Vines in my drawer at home.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The community manager for <a href="http://www.mancrates.com/">Man Crates</a> has (not so) recently asked that I (as well as many others) write a post on the moment that got me hooked on video games. Man Crates is a new company that ships awesome gifts for men in custom wooden crates that have to be opened with a crowbar. I'm sorry, but I don't care what kind of stuck up jerk you are: that sounds <i>awesome</i> from an entirely objective point of view. If you need a <a href="http://www.mancrates.com/gifts-for-men">gift for your guy</a>, or yourself, or whoever - I don't care who it is - then you should definitely check them out. For this topic in particular, I'd recommend their <a href="http://www.mancrates.com/crates/retro-gamer">Retro Gamer Crate</a>.<br />
<br />
Originally, they were in contact with Lex about the topic, but Lex referred them to me, probably because she's a loser and won't write about something as exciting and engaging as this, so now I've gotta do her work for her.<br />
<br />
I'm kidding, except for the part about how engaging this is.<br />
<br />
Specifically, I'll be talking about a recipe: the combination of events, smells, foods and accessories that brought me to become a gamer. Those things that I can look at with a slightly aching heart and remember the good old days, going back even to 8-bit. Actually, my first console was the N64, but I had plenty of exposure to the SNES, and eventually went back to the NES. That was after I became a gamer. But what led up to that moment? What was I doing before then? What kind of gamer am I now, anyway? I'm going to take a moment to answer that last question first, and then go in reverse from there.<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago I went to a game store not too far away from my house, called Next Level. The first time I had ever been there was on a stop of curiosity, on my way home from picking up Little Caesars. Now I keep going back whenever I find it convenient, because what mainly interests me about that place is their selection of collectibles, which most other game stores don't really offer me (at least, the ones that are near me don't).<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm losing myself. I went to that game store again a few weeks ago and looked around. Unlike the other times I had been there, there was a lot more activity. It seemed to be a group of friends who knew the store owner, because they were having a good ol' time with him. They were laughing, passing around snacks- wait, snacks? Can I have some?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz1TzxYMwwXiUuBSaPRIHHXbBBTcYrNooNl2m3zTmYVGdp4X9_UOTwOvj6Cxur7rfGQ0g284fLa-RuXsFGftNH0Mic0Y4_mEwpo3Om1dLn4n5EY7LUAga6LJLfmnZpjoRayNPyMBSMMOo/s1600/Gaming-at-Hesston-100912-22.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz1TzxYMwwXiUuBSaPRIHHXbBBTcYrNooNl2m3zTmYVGdp4X9_UOTwOvj6Cxur7rfGQ0g284fLa-RuXsFGftNH0Mic0Y4_mEwpo3Om1dLn4n5EY7LUAga6LJLfmnZpjoRayNPyMBSMMOo/s1600/Gaming-at-Hesston-100912-22.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The stuff of my dreams, basically.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I looked towards the back half of the store and saw a group of people sitting on some rather comfy looking couches, all watching as one of them tried to play his way through Castlevania II. The guy sucked at it, but that wasn't what I paid attention to at the time. What I noticed was this: a group of friends sitting on couches with bags of Doritos, boxes of pizza, bottles of soda, cookies, etc. just talking, laughing, and playing video games with their friend who owned a video game store. Filling inside me was an unprecedented level of envy. I've never coveted something so greatly before in my life. The very thought of being in any one of their shoes at that moment in time seemed like heaven to me. Friends, food, and video games; FFV - my paradise. What I wouldn't give to live a life like that.<br />
<br />
Then I remember something upsetting: my life used to be like that.<br />
<br />
I didn't appreciate it at the time, though. I didn't appreciate the simple moments of playing Mario Kart DS with a dozen people on the bus on the way to middle school. I didn't savor the times of playing random video games I had never even touched before, on consoles I'd never touched before, while over at a friend's house, just because that's what I felt like I wanted to do. I didn't keep those times close, because I didn't realize how engrained into my soul gaming was.<br />
<br />
I still feel this way, and so it begs the question still: what brought me to this? Why does this sort of passion burst from my heart whenever I think about the lethal FFV combo? What makes me desire such a life, and cherish such memories?<br />
<br />
There's never a sharp transition from non-gamer to gamer. I feel as though it has to be a slow, evolving process that brings out your personality and interests before it manifests into what can really be considered "gaming." What's true gaming? The level of investment in video games and the related matters that would have gotten you pushed off the slide as a kid if you grew up in or near the same generation I did. A lot of you know what I'm talking about.<br />
<br />
I was never like that, though. I was never so intimately connected with video games that I was bullied for it. It didn't express itself so potently through me or my behavior. I was a late bloomer I suppose; at least, a later bloomer than I would've liked to be. If I could add more years onto my time as a <i>true</i> gamer, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But I can't, so I have to embrace the time that I've had thus far.<br />
<br />
So, when did it begin?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheuNLtFDF6ocsYqLn5hhLFA9tgKtQGpL_-M7zEO4fLjDhwTuOXhD4dtHLeT9jMBXOep0v_QWv6M5PAeQq7UVn35sOpsNtle4Van2qcvuQ1ccQZUAd6mv9WYuQwVwttoKhkQKNQue6HImk/s1600/playing-ds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheuNLtFDF6ocsYqLn5hhLFA9tgKtQGpL_-M7zEO4fLjDhwTuOXhD4dtHLeT9jMBXOep0v_QWv6M5PAeQq7UVn35sOpsNtle4Van2qcvuQ1ccQZUAd6mv9WYuQwVwttoKhkQKNQue6HImk/s1600/playing-ds.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Me as a kid, basically.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It was some time in the spring, while I was still in school - elementary school. I was known for never putting down my Nintendo DS whenever I could play it. At home, on the bus, in the car, going with my parents for pet food: you name it, I had my DS with me, and the thing was always 2 inches away from my nose, the screen fogging up from the heat of my adolescent breath. People would comment on it too, but it didn't matter to me. The convenience of being able to immerse myself in the latest copy of Pokemon while still pacing my steps was too enticing to pass up just because people thought it was weird. I was a weird kid, I knew that, so why the heck should that matter?<br />
<br />
But one day, I felt something weird. Something like neglect, like I had been neglecting someone, or something. I looked to the corner of my room beside my dresser and saw my dusty old N64 - the same one I had grown up with - buried underneath a tangled web of A/V cables. My DS was in my hand, with a copy of Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker in progress and a charger cable chaining me to the electric outlet in the wall. I started to reflect on how long it had been since I had actually played a game on that console. What was the last game I played? I couldn't remember, but there was one plugged into the system; so out of curiosity, I lifted up the cables and set them to the side, making sure that none of the clumps of dust fluttered around and into my hair or eyes. Nestled in the cartridge slot was my collector's edition copy of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.<br />
<br />
I'd never beaten that game. It was my favorite game of all time next to Donkey Kong 64 and Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards, and yet I'd never beaten it. Why? Because of that frickin Water Temple. I had unknowingly set myself up to not be able to ever beat the game with that save file. My only option was to start a new game, but I was so aggravated by that fact when I learned it that I abandoned the game altogether. I regretted that moment.<br />
<br />
So with my DS still on and charging, I hooked up my N64 and started a new game, feeling myself anticipating every bit of dialogue and every note to every song that I had already experienced what must have been at least a year prior.<br />
<br />
The musty feeling of the evening's twilight filled my room and engulfed my senses as I recognized that soon it would be dark out. My room was a little too hot, but it always was. The dust from the displacement of my N64 from earlier created a misty cloud in front of my TV, but I didn't care. It felt like a holiday for some reason, as though I shouldn't have even been in my room to begin with in that moment. Again, I didn't care. Something was tugging me in: waiting for the moment that Navi would flutter on screen and allow me to finally take control of my character, Link.<br />
<br />
I was eating something. I can't remember what it was, but I was eating something. It wasn't even something I really liked, but you know what happens when you put food next to your hand while you're watching a good movie or TV show, or playing a video game. It just disappears, and crumbs scratch the edges of your lips. I had a cup of something too, probably white grape juice, but I don't remember that either. I'm lucky enough to so vividly remember this time anyway.<br />
<br />
That DS stayed on for the next 3 days, but I didn't touch it. I played straight through Ocarina of Time, making sure to use a guide for the Water Temple so I didn't mess up again and have to repeat the whole thing. The corners of my room had empty water bottles and dirty paper plates from snacks and drinks that I had consumed over the course of those few days that I had been playing my N64. That was a bad habit of mine as a kid, and even as an older teenager.<br />
<br />
I <i>think</i> I've finally gotten over it now, but where did that habit come from? Those days.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif522Lell8M1FLO5OadWot7wcXztsU5S_mmZsl43KGDMKg8jTla4GRlPBvS9p46a5bXqpACQXNjo-M-htYxhnxjugiB7w8J2nT6_3k6YnFLs77ppwMPuHWVPSvsj4oJYY7PXgz6mavGzY/s1600/Ocarina-of-Time-Ending-Scene.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif522Lell8M1FLO5OadWot7wcXztsU5S_mmZsl43KGDMKg8jTla4GRlPBvS9p46a5bXqpACQXNjo-M-htYxhnxjugiB7w8J2nT6_3k6YnFLs77ppwMPuHWVPSvsj4oJYY7PXgz6mavGzY/s1600/Ocarina-of-Time-Ending-Scene.jpg" height="154" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of few things that'll make me, a grown ass man, cry.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When I finally finished that game, I sighed out. The ending credits were so memorable. The music was lively. It <i>felt</i> like I had accomplished something, and something more than just beating a video game. I had no idea what it was, but it enveloped me. It was the first and only time I didn't feel any <br />
need to try to skip the credits or turn off the game before it was over, and I'm glad I didn't. The ending scene where Link and Zelda reunite as children was perfect. It wasn't too little, and it wasn't too much. For all that had happened, and for all that was taken from them in those 7 years, that very last scene was absolutely flawless.<br />
<br />
Feeling something new inside me, I turned off the game and swapped my TV back to Cartoon Network. I immediately turned to my side and picked up my DS, intending to pick up Joker. The light immediately flicked on and the music started up mid-tune, reminding me that I had set the game aside without turning the console off several days before. It was surprising, and funny, but I picked up something else from that. The situation said something about me that I hadn't realized before, and it was just how consumed I was by video games. I had such a wide selection of games that I could pick up after beating Joker, and after that, there were game stores all around that I could visit to buy something new. There were games I could borrow from my brother. There were games being released soon that I could ask for.<br />
<br />
But all that was on my mind was games. Games, games, games.<br />
<br />
And realizing all of that, and seeing what it said about me as a person, I smiled in my head and thought the very same words I heard echoing in my brain when I saw those guys absolutely sucking at Simon's Quest at Next Level:<br />
<br />
<i>"I could get used to this." </i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-58831924927675843552015-01-11T20:02:00.002-05:002015-01-12T23:20:13.462-05:00Police Brutality And The Efficacy Of Body-Worn CamerasI'm back!<br />
<br />
I wish I could've addressed this study the day it came out, but I've been dealing with a whole host of things that's kept me from getting back into blogging. Besides, I didn't receive word of this study until the day after Christmas -- there were a ton of distractions that kept me from even reading it. That being said, I'm more than happy to review this study's findings now, because it really is good news.<br />
<br />
In a study entitled <i>"<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10940-014-9236-3">The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizen's Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial</a>," </i>published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Ariel et al. review what is the first scientific report on the topic of whether or not police body-worn cameras work in terms of decreasing the rate of excessive force by police. As the title suggests, it also reviewed the effects of body-worn cameras on the rate of complaints raised by citizens against the police for excessive use of force.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuzjeSh0p2F2KWbELnFcpm4mtCHDKdo216aSFwzH4ZGxwWhDNrwwhhxC2eEhmfRXIzqxj3kfL6ux4RoOeel6WAJ7sEGdJr3BrZAyEoEf9MDvZploHHgfK-OPPZfJ0wSDNTJb9B7qmR34U/s1600/eric-garner-police-brutality-ramsey-orta.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuzjeSh0p2F2KWbELnFcpm4mtCHDKdo216aSFwzH4ZGxwWhDNrwwhhxC2eEhmfRXIzqxj3kfL6ux4RoOeel6WAJ7sEGdJr3BrZAyEoEf9MDvZploHHgfK-OPPZfJ0wSDNTJb9B7qmR34U/s1600/eric-garner-police-brutality-ramsey-orta.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Eric Garner: one of many examples.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The area the study was conducted in was Rialto, California -- a place that has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto">already gained notice in the media</a> for its decline in violence and complaints after the implementation of body-worn cameras, and so was used as evidence by police forces all over the United States in support of the use of the technology. Since the introduction of body-worn cameras to the Rialto police force, police use of force <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141224103101.htm">is 2.5 times less than before</a>. At the very least, it was to be noted that wearing body-worn cameras could provide evidence in cases of police brutality, and so there was no justifiable reason to not implement them.<br />
<br />
But the present study is a randomized controlled trial to see not only if that's the case, but what other benefits could be found in implementing body-worn cameras. Over the period of 12 months, a sample of 54 officers (but the number of patrol shifts, n = 988, was the primary focus) were randomly assigned to either experimental shifts or control shifts, where they would either be equipped with body-worn HD cameras or not, respectively. After examining the results, it was found that use of force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59%, and reports against officers dropped 87%. This is interesting not only because of how great the effectiveness was of implementing the body-worn cameras, but it was actually protective against seemingly unreasonable complaints brought against the officers. So not only can the cameras serve to provide evidence in cases of excessive force, but they can be preventative as well, as institutionalized camera usage requires that the officer warn the citizen before any exchange that they're being recorded, thus impacting the psyche of those involved.<br />
<br />
It's important to note that the statistics provided can, of course, convince people that cases of excessive force are widespread. This isn't necessarily the case: in the present study, it was observed that the implementation of body-worn cameras decreased complaints filed against officers from 0.7 per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000 contacts. It was already a fairly low number, but the difference was still statistically significant and has wide implications for areas that may have higher rates of complaints filed against the police.<br />
<br />
It's also important to note that the study drew a dichotomy between excessive force and reasonable force, where force of any kind was defined as a non-desirable response in police-public encounters. This is a very vague definition for force, but the researchers saw it desirable to keep it this way because whether justified or unjustified, the aim was to examine the officers' relationships with the community and how the utilization of body-worn cameras would impact this. At the same time, the study authors warn that this should not be taken as solid evidence to start steamrolling this technology into usage, and also consider the possibility that the reliance on these cameras will cause lack of consideration or prosecution in cases where video evidence does not exist. <br />
<br />
This wouldn't be too much of a problem if the usage of cameras didn't face other challenges, such as whether or not they'll even be on. It's been found that most of the time, <a href="http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/09/cameras_not_on_most_of_the_tim.html">body-worn cameras are either turned off or are conveniently "lost"</a> prior to situations where they may be needed most. It's hard to understand how it's even possible for police officers to be allowed to turn their cameras off, thus defeating the purpose of putting them there in the first place. In my opinion, the removal of cameras from the officer's person or shutting them off should be done at the station, not in the field.<br />
<br />
Neglecting to mention privacy complaints as well (I really don't want to get into that), my response to this study is this: it's about damn time. The United States is rather well-known internationally for their militarized police; and to be forthcoming about my own biases, I entirely agree. The American police are far too edgy and trigger happy to do their jobs properly. As the authors suggested, this study isn't the end, but it should definitely be the beginning of a more careful and rigorous observation so that we can determine whether or not the use of these cameras is effective enough to be implemented across the country. And of course, if that's the case, then don't include a readily accessible off switch.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a>References:<br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Quantitative+Criminology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1007%2Fs10940-014-9236-3&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+Effect+of+Police+Body-Worn+Cameras+on+Use+of+Force+and+Citizens%E2%80%99+Complaints+Against+the+Police%3A+A+Randomized+Controlled+Trial.&rft.issn=0748-4518&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1007%2Fs10940-014-9236-3&rft.au=Ariel%2C+B.&rft.au=Farrar%2C+W.&rft.au=Sutherland%2C+A.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth">Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2014). The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Quantitative Criminology</span> DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3" rev="review">10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3</a></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-36849081903876431322014-12-28T13:55:00.001-05:002014-12-28T13:55:08.466-05:00Adam and Eve and The First Language: The Bible Got It WrongThis is going to be a pretty short post since there's not much to say on the topic. I just thought it'd be fun to cover this because of how simple it seems. That said, don't read this if you're easily offended on religious grounds. This won't be a soul-crushing debunking, but it'll definitely give room for suspicion in other areas.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc0PPHF25m2UJ5DaFCiiJAxbMJHX1uLUL9Ofkzca1ZKDE62KpnJR2R4qIjf9o2hsWfGWQiGXeFhrNZSQhGy-V1bXA_o3Oz7ocHt_3J4Jwp0oqho1j7LqU4vIglnEEk6kmgQnFqI40azEgv/s1600/jesus_adam_eve_touch1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc0PPHF25m2UJ5DaFCiiJAxbMJHX1uLUL9Ofkzca1ZKDE62KpnJR2R4qIjf9o2hsWfGWQiGXeFhrNZSQhGy-V1bXA_o3Oz7ocHt_3J4Jwp0oqho1j7LqU4vIglnEEk6kmgQnFqI40azEgv/s1600/jesus_adam_eve_touch1.jpg" height="224" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Sorry we fucked up your names," said Jesus, brow furrowed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, the first man and woman according to most creationists in America were named "Adam" and Eve." Adam was given his name because his name in Hebrew <span class="info">(אָדָם) means "man," and therefore Adam was the origin of man, or man himself. It is not until Adam directly called Eve by name (</span><span class="st">חַוָּה) that we learn her name; elsewhere, she is just referred to as Woman. She was granted the name Eve because she was the mother of all living. She was originally referred to as Woman because she was taken from Man.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">Many people know this much, since it doesn't take much to Google what the names "Adam" and "Eve" mean, or even look up a biblical resource for the meanings of their names in Genesis. It makes sense too given the etymology... Except one thing.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st"><i>It doesn't.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that they were called Adam and Eve, and this is one of the many reasons why I think creationists (mainly Christians) need to seriously and critically analyze the contents of their holy books in the modern age of inquiry and skepticism. Perhaps this would fly for Hebrew-speaking populations during the time of the Bible's writing, since they were surely very ethnocentric, but it doesn't work that way anymore. Why? Because the Bible is written in Hebrew, specifically the liturgical form Biblical Hebrew.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">Okay, who cares? Why does that matter? Well because in Genesis, the Bible is referring to the creation of all living things; and for Adam to have been named Adam, they would have had to have been speaking/writing in Hebrew. The reason for this is since we know <i>why</i> Adam was named Adam (because he was Man), then the name "Adam" has to occur as a Hebrew term, otherwise "Adam" would not mean "Man" as it does in the Biblical text. In other words, <a href="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/11_language.html">Genesis <span id="goog_247465507"></span>presupposes that the first man and woman were speaking or writing in Hebrew</a><span id="goog_247465508"></span>. This isn't surprising since I doubt the individuals who wrote the Bible had the historical and linguistic self-awareness to realize that their language wouldn't have been the language written/spoken by the first man and woman. But why wouldn't it have been?</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">According to the linked article, all humans spoke one language until the rise of The Tower of Babel in (as it estimates) ~4000 BCE. It was at this time that the Sumerians arrived speaking a different language. This places Biblical Hebrew, according to the Bible, as an older language than Sumerian.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st"><i>We know this is wrong.</i> Sumerian was first attested in 2600-2500 BCE from cuneiform texts from Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh. <i>Hebrew</i>, specifically Biblical Hebrew, was not attested until ~1500 years later in the 10th century BCE. The fact that the Bible specifies that the Sumerians were the first ones to speak a different language than the language of Adam and Eve, Hebrew, is just factually incorrect. On that note, there are multiple languages written before Biblical Hebrew, including Egyptian and Greek. It simply couldn't have been that Hebrew was the first language as the Bible implies; therefore, we know that Adam and Eve simply couldn't have been the names of the first humans.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">But wait, says the separate opinion, why couldn't it have just been taken from the real first language? Well the reason for this is that, for example, "Adam" does not mean "Man" in Egyptian or Sumerian. The closest thing in Egyptian is Atum (or Atem) which derives from the word meaning "complete" or "to finish." The closest thing in Sumerian/Akkadian is <i>adammu,</i> meaning red. "Adam" simply does not mean the same thing in older languages as it does in Hebrew; therefore, it wouldn't have made any sense for Adam to be called Adam if they were speaking an older language such as Sumerian.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">But wait again that same opinion voices, what if the original names were not Adam and Eve, but were (for example) the Sumerian words for "man" and "mother of all living?" What if they were then translated into Hebrew for the Bible?</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">Well then, you'd be conceding two things:</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">1: The first language was not Hebrew, as the Bible claims.</span><br />
<span class="st">2: The first humans were not named Adam and Eve.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">Thanks for playing! See you next time!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-33484567369457323412014-12-20T20:22:00.002-05:002015-01-13T11:29:02.542-05:00Zelda Wii U 2015: Hopes And Suggestions<b>UPDATE (12/22/2014): </b>I emailed this article to the Nintendo of America PR desk. I received a response within an hour of sending it. You can read about it <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/3UrLK4SjzKz">here</a>!<br />
<br />
<i>A quick note that was requested of me: if you are a Zelda fan who would like to see Link and Zelda (or the other primary female character, if there is one) in the next Zelda game kiss, please sign my friend's petition <a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/900/361/843/have-link-and-zelda-or-other-primary-female-character-kiss-in-zelda-wii-u/">here</a>.</i> <i>It can hardly be expected that Nintendo could include that before the game's release, if they haven't already by now, but it's still helpful and interesting to know how many fans out there agree and support it.</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>Warning, this article may contain spoilers.</i></b> <br />
<br />
In my inner circle, there has been a resurgence in interest in the last console game in the <i>Legend of Zelda</i> series: Skyward Sword. We've all had a lot of fun talking about it, but something interesting has happened in that, for some reason, this game from 2011 has somehow become as hyped up as a game that hasn't even come out yet would be. I see this as happening for many reasons, but the big three are the following: (1) the visual appeal; (2) the gameplay; and, most importantly to me, (3) the emotional connection between Link and Zelda. I ship them so hard, and I would love nothing more than to see the petition above come true. The story in Skyward Sword made me cry -- something that no other Zelda game has been able to do for me. In fact, it made me cry <i>seven times</i>. It's hard to top that.<br />
<br />
On that note, I (and pretty much everyone else, but perhaps for different reasons) have high expectations for the next console installment for the franchise for the Wii U (expected to come out in 2015). With how incredible the last console game was, it's going to be hard to sell it for me with the new one, and again, I feel many others would agree. Having said that, the game developers have offered us some information to go on for the next game, allowing us to get an idea of what they have in mind. Still, there are a few concerns and desires in my heart.<br />
<br />
Originally, this was going to be an article of <i>my</i> hopes and suggestions for the upcoming game; however, I decided that would be uninformative in the grand scheme of things. So instead, I've been conducting polls in the two Legend of Zelda communities on Google+ to get an idea of what everyone else wants, and everything I've said up to this point will just be a confession of my biases. My results aren't representative (sadly), and my polls have their methodological flaws, but they still provide some evidence that the opinions I'm expressing in this article are not exclusively my own. Below I'm going to share and summarize the results of my findings (not in order), and explain what this means for the upcoming Zelda game for the Wii U. There were 5 polls, and each one was asked twice. I'll link to the original polls at the end of the article. <br />
<br />
I have no idea who's going to read this, but I hope it ends up meaning something in the end. I'd love nothing more than for this collection of data to have some impact on what kinds of things are included in the final game. I'm not getting my hopes up, though, since the game is coming out in a year. Even so, I'd love for Zelda fans to express their views in the comments. With that, let's begin!<br />
<br />
<b>Priorities </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question: What would you like Nintendo to focus on the most in the upcoming Zelda game for the Wii U?</i></b></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This is actually the second question I asked, but things will make sense in the order I present the data in. For this question, I provided five possible choices: story, graphics, gameplay, dungeons/adventuring, and Wii U controls; I then provided explanations as to what each of these mean, since (for example) dungeons and adventuring can overlap gameplay. A few individuals suggested that there be an "all of the above" option; unfortunately, I could only include 5 options, and I couldn't change the options after people voted. Still, I allowed those to express their write-in votes, and so there is an unwritten sixth "all of the above" option.<br />
<br />
Between the two communities, there was a total of 161 votes for this question (including the write-ins). The results were as follows:<br />
<br />
- 59.63% of the participants <i>(96 of 161)</i> selected "Story."<br />
- 3.73% of the participants <i>(6 of 161)</i> selected "Graphics."<br />
- 18.63%<i></i> of the participants <i>(30 of 161)</i> selected "Gameplay."<br />
- 14.29%<i></i> of the participants <i>(23 of 161)</i> selected "Dungeons/Adventuring."<br />
- 2.48% of the participants <i>(4 of 161)</i> selected "Wii U Controls."<br />
- 1.24%<i></i> of the participants <i>(2 of 161)</i> selected "All of the above."<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQndVmbbDgdYL23siH8pd6_CJMKvI3Bo7fBJzGuK6yRCJL4wVjJtIBg0nKgQnwpYTXGdsn-JpEbtKLfmkYJfde4F_qLvj3wgYBdZSMzG8Tk4QnqXTrSDYcZmMFYTiatYu2YwIJoSQIV1Y/s1600/AONUME_ZELDA_WII_U.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQndVmbbDgdYL23siH8pd6_CJMKvI3Bo7fBJzGuK6yRCJL4wVjJtIBg0nKgQnwpYTXGdsn-JpEbtKLfmkYJfde4F_qLvj3wgYBdZSMzG8Tk4QnqXTrSDYcZmMFYTiatYu2YwIJoSQIV1Y/s1600/AONUME_ZELDA_WII_U.png" height="180" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Eiji Aonuma, in all his glory.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It is possible that some voters were stuck on the difference between Gameplay and Dungeons/Adventuring, and so prioritized the former option which was all-encompassing. Accounting for this, if the two options had been counted together, it would total 32.92%. It is also possible that the results would have been different if the "all of the above" option were not a write-in; thus these results should be interpreted as priorities if the respondents were forced to pick one aspect in particular.<br />
<br />
Thus we can see that the majority of respondents expressed that their top priority is the story, while the runner-up is gameplay. The fewest number of respondents prioritized Wii U controls. One respondent who selected "gameplay" as their choice further specified that they enjoyed fishing. Another respondent offered these sentiments (some content removed for the time being for clarity):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I like music. Listening to the music is always the first thing I do with
Zelda games. I really like it that they make the places like houses and
dungeon have different set kinds of music, but not all Zelda games are
like that. Like Phantom Hourglass...</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Anyways back on the topic, I would like the story to be focused on. [...] As long as they have new good stories, I'm good."</i></blockquote>
I would have to agree. Music is usually so beautifully composed in Zelda games, and it's a huge priority of my own; and while I have hesitance since Koji Kondo is <a href="http://www.gamnesia.com/news/koji-kondo-is-not-actively-composing-for-zelda-u">not composing the music for this game</a>, I have no doubt I'll be impressed (especially since he's still supervising). For this poll, I also chose the story, and it's probably obvious why given all I said at the beginning of this article.<br />
<br />
<b>Story</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question: The majority of you stated that your largest priority for
Zelda Wii U was the story. I'd like to ask for a bit more detail on that
particular notion. Please tell me which of the options best represents
your #1 concern with the story of Zelda Wii U.</i></b></blockquote>
As stated, since the majority of voters selected the "Story" option, I decided to ask for further details. I wanted to know particularly what part of the story people are most concerned about, or simply prioritize higher than any other. There were 123 participants in this poll total. The results are as follows:<br />
<br />
- 6.5%<i> </i>of the participants <i>(8 of 123)</i> selected "Character Development."<br />
- 6.5%<i> </i>of the participants <i>(8 of 123)</i> selected "How It Fits Into Zelda Lore/Timeline."<br />
- 6.5%<i> </i>of the participants <i>(8 of 123)</i> selected "Game Plot."<br />
- 2.44%<i> </i>of the participants <i>(3 of 123)</i> selected "The Antagonist/Villain."<br />
- 78.05%<i> </i>of the participants <i>(96 of 123)</i> selected "All of the above."<br />
<br />
Again, sometimes the categories could overlap; however, it's very clear that the majority view was that all of the listed factors were the priority for the story. Overall I'd have to agree, but of the options my two biggest concerns were character development and game plot; though I selected character development as my #1 priority. The results are pretty self-explanatory, but some respondents who did not select the "All of the above" option explained why they did so:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Being a theorist, I guess my answer (excluding the "All of the above" choice) is "How it Fits into Zelda Lore/Timeline."</i></blockquote>
It's important to consider things such as this because depending on which fans you go to, you find different priorities based exclusively from their fan-based priorities. Theorists will give different answers from general enthusiasts, though this could also relate directly to the individuals' interests like in any other situation. Still, one who has particular investment in one area of Zelda fandom may select the option which would affect that investment the most. Another respondent shared their views:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I voted character dev. I'm curious about timeline placement, but it's
not a concern for me since the timeline will be revised in the future
anyway.<br /><br />Story/plot... Not necessarily important <b>for a Zelda game</b>
I feel. I was actually just listening to an interview on the radio
about how, with stories, a less-detailed story can do very well if the
characters are given proper depth and growth.<br /><br />My <b>main</b>
desire for wanting focus on char dev is because I feel like it's the one
area Nintendo constantly neglects. They need to improve in this area. I
<b>do not</b> want Link developed more, just the supporting cast."</i></blockquote>
Again, I couldn't help but agree with everything said here, but we will get into more detail with that in the next question. In summation, while there are some specifics that people would like to focus on, it seems that the distribution is even around all of the specific options, and the large majority of people are concerned with all of them.<br />
<br />
<b>Emotional Connection</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question: (1) Yes/No, was the emotional connection in Skyward Sword a good thing?<br />(2) Yes/No, would a similar connection in Zelda Wii U be a good thing?</i></b></blockquote>
I'm going to pay the most attention to this question, since people had the most to say about it. This was a two-part question. I wanted to know what people thought of the emotional connection between Link and Zelda in Skyward Sword, and whether or not such a connection would be a good thing in Zelda Wii U. This is of personal interest to me, since everyone knows which option I'd pick. Sadly, this question had some pretty glaring flaws in it.<br />
<br />
Firstly, I didn't specify that it was the emotional connection between Link and Zelda. People could have interpreted this as the emotional connection with anybody; although, in both polls, I used pictures of Link and Zelda during a more "romantic" moment in the game. Still, this could have been interpreted in a number of ways, such as the emotional connection with Link exclusively, or the emotional connection between Link and the story.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3_bJXF00cZZvDI9o2f37jyUoJuEpCOIPTbzqbPVIufD9oOLJFhTJ4_VMj2jf9u-cwVOp8YWfHSRbBXgsC4Y3LB3Ksi5aZImzmInnoKIX41ihwAxelavDacPT_nnQjaTm-6DmvMEVTVy8/s1600/SkywardSwordScreen6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3_bJXF00cZZvDI9o2f37jyUoJuEpCOIPTbzqbPVIufD9oOLJFhTJ4_VMj2jf9u-cwVOp8YWfHSRbBXgsC4Y3LB3Ksi5aZImzmInnoKIX41ihwAxelavDacPT_nnQjaTm-6DmvMEVTVy8/s1600/SkywardSwordScreen6.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Innit cute?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Secondly, the question assumes that the players felt an emotional connection in the first place. Some individuals didn't find Skyward Sword to be such an emotionally investing game, and thus my own bias spoke through the question in more ways than one.<br />
<br />
Third, and lastly, I didn't include a neutral option; however, I do think that for these types of polls, not including such options is a good thing. As I explained to one respondent, I use it as a probing method to force people to select one option that best represents their views, even if it's only a slight leaning.<br />
<br />
The number of respondents for this question was 134. With all of these factors in mind, here are the results:<br />
<br />
- 81.34% of the participants <i>(109 of 134) </i>selected "Yes" for Skyward Sword, "Yes" for Zelda Wii U.<br />
- 8.21% of the participants <i>(11 of 134) </i>selected "Yes" for Skyward Sword, "No" for Zelda Wii U.<br />
- 5.22% of the participants <i>(7 of 134) </i>selected "No" for Skyward Sword, "No" for Zelda Wii U.<br />
- 5.22% of the participants <i>(7 of 134)</i> selected "No" for Skyward Sword, "Yes" for Zelda Wii U.<br />
<br />
Aggregated into other terms:<br />
<br />
- 89.55% of the participants <i>(120 of 134) </i>said the emotional connection in Skyward Sword was good, while 10.44% <i>(14 of 134) </i>said it was not.<br />
- 86.57% of the participants <i>(116 of 134) </i>said an emotional connection would be good in Zelda Wii U, while 13.43% <i>(18 of 134)</i> said it would not.<br />
<br />
So the overwhelming majority (a near consensus) of participants said that the emotional connection in Skyward Sword was good and that something similar would be good in Zelda Wii U. This thrills me beyond all measure, and I completely agree. Of course, these results would be pretty uninformative in the nuance without some statements by the respondents. The same respondent expressed approval for character development in the last question also gave their opinion in this question, which provides some context:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I liked that Link had a best friend (as usual). Marin, Saria, and Ilia
all served as great best-friend characters, all of which had a crush on
Link. Zelda was different because she had a much larger role than just
'best friend', but.... I think that personal connection was lost.<br /><br />I
know this is a long post, but it's something that really bothered me. I
think a close relationship for Link (with ANYONE) is necessary from a
story-telling point of view. For a character without much detail (due to
being the avatar), a lot of his personality is shown through his
relationships with others.<br /><br />With Zelda, it's always gameplay
before story, as it should be. But stories have become very important
parts of games, and in the case of Zelda, I feel like this relationship
should be <b>much more detailed</b>. It doesn't need screentime, just
something to make us feel..... look how little screentime Saria got, and
she's incredibly loved by all.<br /><br />Whether it's Zelda or anybody else, that best-friend (and possible love interest in some cases) connection is pretty important."</i></blockquote>
This was a very thorough, insightful response. I completely agree that Link's character is reflected through his relationships with the supporting characters, which is why the supporting characters need development, not Link. In the general scheme of things, I also agree that gameplay is more important than story; however, there has been a lot of anxiety built up in the last few games concerning story and emotional connections. It would be neglectful, in my view, to abandon this for Zelda Wii U.<br />
<br />
One respondent explained why they said that the connection in Skyward Sword was not good, but something similar would be good in Zelda Wii U:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I always thought the way they presented the long-time connection between
Link and Zelda in Skyward Sword was trying too hard to please the fans
who support the two as a couple, or even as close friends. I like the
idea, but the way it was done in Skyward Sword was too upfront to me. If
it were to be elaborated on, and maybe a little less explicit in the
next game, that would be great."</i></blockquote>
Of course, I support a love connection between Link and Zelda hands down any day no matter what, but I had to consider what this respondent said and ultimately, I think they're right. The connection was so built up in the beginning, and then it dwindled down; which of course, as one respondent expressed, is to be expected. However, it could have been done much better. Instead of shrinking, it should grow.<br />
<br />
Another respondent gave a very well thought-out explanation as to why they didn't feel connected in Skyward Sword, but felt a strong connection in Twilight Princess, thus giving the same response as the last participant:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTtOJKYBusoWmDuD1GKhdizRMfLHE0U-Bz1HOr_JTxTlg3IJ_3j7dtUbLKudd0a2M5rCi8Q_P_HFKi7uAwRZpbP2RKBTC9zp84_JD_Wt8NMhd6BPtSCKOx4FF928O2nb_lmAw0az0yQBM/s1600/resistance.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTtOJKYBusoWmDuD1GKhdizRMfLHE0U-Bz1HOr_JTxTlg3IJ_3j7dtUbLKudd0a2M5rCi8Q_P_HFKi7uAwRZpbP2RKBTC9zp84_JD_Wt8NMhd6BPtSCKOx4FF928O2nb_lmAw0az0yQBM/s1600/resistance.JPG" height="199" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The resistance from Twilight Princess.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>"In TP, there was an emphasis on Link's quest to help the children of
his village. I'm sure that all of us can remember a few scenes in which
they were simply waiting and giving hope into the prospect that Link
would come to there rescue, even though reason would tell them that
their destruction was nigh. The fact that they didn't know Link was
there at the time really gets me, too.<br /> </i><br />
<i>Then, we have the
moments with Ilia. We have her memory loss, which turns into (at least
for me) one of the best story arcs and missions in the game -- the
Hidden Village. It was there that we learn that she was being helped by
an old lady... The same old lady that is the last Sheikah in the village
and gives you the Sky Book. </i><br />
<br />
<i>Going into Castle Town, we
find the base of a small organization attempting to take matters into
their own hands. The base is Telma's Bar, owned by a character involved
in helping the Zora boy that turns out to be the new king of the Zoras
(in training, albeit) and Ilia.<br /> </i><br />
<i>That organization is called
the Resistance. Its members include Shad, Ashei, Auru, and Ordon's own
Rusl, our hero's childhood hero and mentor.<br /> </i><br />
<i>Finally, we
have this random spirit guy named the Hero's Shade. He becomes Link's
trainer for becoming the hero. While the skills are incredible, so, too,
is the man who teaches them. At least one of his quotes has become the
basis of several fan art adaptations, in addition to his origin in
general -- for he is none other than the ghost of the Hero of Time, my
personal favorite Link throughout the series (though my opinion might
not be shared with everybody)."</i></blockquote>
All of this gave me a new appreciation for Twilight Princess, as I didn't give enough recognition to how much detail was put into the story with all of the different characters. One respondent and I agreed, however, that the characters did not seem to have much depth to them in themselves. There were so many people, and it wasn't easy to feel an investment or a connection in all of them. Ultimately, it came down to our own personal experiences and how well we related to the characters based on what we had already experienced in our own lives. One can't find appreciation for a type of relationship they've never really experienced or liked themselves, and that's what's great about Legend of Zelda. You take away from it whatever you personally feel.<br />
<br />
So overall, to summarize, most people want an emotional connection in the new Zelda game (one that is similar to the one in Skyward Sword), but there can be some definite improvements. For example, building up the relationship instead of dwindling it down. It would also behoove Nintendo to pay close attention to what types of relationships the players like.<br />
<br />
This is where I have my own concerns. Zelda Informer reported <a href="http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/more-rumors-surface-for-zelda-u">rumours</a> that, due to how well-received the romance in Skyward Sword was among western audiences, the developers of the new Zelda game are considering how to flesh that out. According to the article, they're looking into western romances such as <i>Twilight</i> and <i>50 Shades of Grey</i>. If they use these stories as the basis for the romance in the new Zelda game, I will punch Nintendo in the collective mouth.<br />
<br />
But, they have noted that the team working on this new game is the <a href="http://wiiudaily.com/2012/09/wii-u-zelda-game-coming-2014/">biggest, most creative and innovative teams they've ever had</a>, and they're working on breaking the boundaries of what it means to play a Zelda game. On that note, while I'm a little anxious about these rumours; they are, after all, rumours, and I have faith in the game developers to give the players and fans what they want. All I can say is... I hope the rumours are <i>mostly</i> true.<br />
<br />
<b>Fighting Mechanics</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question: Which game do you think had the best fighting mechanics? (This
also includes things like hidden skills, parrying, etc.)</i></b></blockquote>
Moving past the story (since we've spent enough time on that I think), the gameplay was the second biggest priority for the respondents. On this note, I asked a question about the fighting mechanics, since it seems like that's one of the things Nintendo has yet to show us regarding the new Zelda game. For this question, I didn't specifically ask which fighting mechanics people would like to see in Zelda Wii U, but I did ask which game from the list had the best; and presumably, if someone really likes the fighting mechanics in one game, they wouldn't want to trash them in the next.<br />
<br />
The sample size for this question was 147 total. The options given were chosen with two prerequisites in mind: (1) they have to be a console game, as handheld game mechanics would not translate too well to console gaming; and, (2) they had to be unique; thus, for example, Majora's Mask was omitted because Ocarina of Time was still included. Here are the results:<br />
<br />
- 7.48% of the participants <i>(11 of 147)</i> selected "Ocarina of Time."<br />
- 10.88% of the participants <i>(16 of 147) </i>selected "Wind Waker."<br />
- 51.02% of the participants <i>(75 of 147) </i>selected "Twilight Princess."<br />
- 11.56% of the participants <i>(17 of 147) </i>selected "Skyward Sword."<br />
- 19.05% of the participants <i>(28 of 147) </i>selected "All of the above."<br />
<br />
Surprisingly, despite my prior predictions, people did not immediately gravitate towards the "all of the above" option. Twilight Princess prevailed with the majority of the votes; and had the last option not been included (and replaced with some other game), I believe it would have gotten an even higher percentage of the vote.<br />
<br />
One respondent expressed why he enjoyed Twilight Princess the most:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Honestly there's nothing more fun than the Jump Strike... except the ball and chain and bomb arrows!"</i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZkV2_mZDinsBSsYQcyywVSxHeLbT9v2ovLRm-HVXrjXP0FoRa7DFPYEAGoZlKEo0Q14EQfSfdTWYxvnuSKrx4hRPCGsLeI7WHmlz3HSdqXgFdjISfMDEw-xihODptQveTKF6OvZFVvcw/s1600/tp-hiddenskills.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZkV2_mZDinsBSsYQcyywVSxHeLbT9v2ovLRm-HVXrjXP0FoRa7DFPYEAGoZlKEo0Q14EQfSfdTWYxvnuSKrx4hRPCGsLeI7WHmlz3HSdqXgFdjISfMDEw-xihODptQveTKF6OvZFVvcw/s1600/tp-hiddenskills.jpg" height="201" width="320" /></a></div>
I did love both of those; however, the jump strike was technically in Wind Waker as well. I did enjoy all of the hidden skills in Twilight Princess though. Another respondent stated that he chose Ocarina of Time for its Z-targeting. A different respondent replied to him suggesting that the Z-targeting clashed too much with the game's adventurous style. I'm not sure I agree with that one.<br />
<br />
A potential flaw in this question is when people answer "all of the above." One participant said he chose all of the above even though he hadn't played Twilight Princess. This could be problematic if several people chose that option even having not played some of the games in the list. I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case; however, based on the trend, I think that if they were forced to pick an option anyway, most of the votes would go to Twilight Princess anyway. When an "all of the above" option is given, and the <i>majority</i> of people still pick a specific option, I think the evidence is clear.<br />
<br />
So what would we like to see in the next Zelda game? A diverse skill set, of course! Bring back some (if not all) of the hidden skills from Twilight Princess, and add a few new ones. It seems Nintendo is already doing that, though, given the announcement that in addition to still being able to use a sword/bow on Epona, we can also dismount her to make an aerial attack. Awesome!<br />
<br />
<b>Overall Attitude</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Question: Based on what you have seen, heard or read, what is your
overall opinion of the upcoming Legend of Zelda game for the Wii U?</i></b></blockquote>
This is the last question from the polling. Participants were asked a continuum of questions after this point; is Nintendo: on the right track, somewhat on the right track, neither on the right or wrong track, somewhat on the wrong track, or on the wrong track. This question attempted to gauge what people's general feelings were based on what they had seen or heard regarding Zelda Wii U. The total sample was 129. The results are as follows:<br />
<br />
- 71.32% of the participants <i>(92 of 129) </i>selected "On the right track."<br />
- 20.16% of the participants <i>(26 of 129) </i>selected "Somewhat on the right track."<br />
- 4.65% of the participants <i>(6 of 129) </i>selected "Neither on the right or wrong track."<br />
- 0.78% of the participants <i>(1 of 129) </i>selected "Somewhat on the wrong track."<br />
- 3.1% of the participants <i>(4 of 129) </i>selected "On the wrong track."<br />
<br />
So we can see that the consensus among the respondents was an overall positive attitude towards the new Zelda game (91.47% or 118 of 129). I unfortunately didn't get any written opinions from people who were on the right tail of the distribution, but I did receive plenty of feedback from people who voted either neutrally or positively. Those who voted that Nintendo is neither on the right nor the wrong track suggested that there wasn't enough information at present to make a judgment on how well they're doing. One individual expressed their disagreement, "With the little amount of information, it still sounds and looks amazing."<br />
<br />
One participant explained what their views were overall, though I don't know if they voted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I have no idea about the story but from what I've seen the
game play seems to be going really well. Graphics are awesome and
overall it looks really great in the Wii U. From what I've read of what
Aonuma and Miyamoto have also said then it seem to me that they're
really going on the right track. And about history well a lot of changes
are gonna be made and I like that the idea of a refreshed title of
zelda. So yep I think they're going on the right track."</i></blockquote>
The feedback I received from this part of the poll was a bit disappointing, especially since the votes were so overwhelmingly positive. I wish I could've heard more about what people like about the new Zelda game. From what I've seen and read, however, I can pinpoint a few factors that people are largely approving of.<br />
<br />
First, Epona <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/forums/nintendo-discussion-1000001/wii-u-zelda-epona-to-detect-trees-and-not-crash-co-31704445/">doesn't automatically run into trees or obstacles</a> if you direct her to. This seems like an insignificant detail to some people, since most people would try to do this anyway, but it's an element of realism that many fans appreciate. Likewise, the addition of wild horses has received <a href="https://plus.google.com/114088140893714747549/posts/aUDwQ8FzVEr">quite a bit of support</a>. Who knows if we'll be able to choose our own horse other than Epona?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI1H7bH-Wlv_qWeBwPVyXUtOw3QvfAdhixAfyZgliZEk0RdqtcT7povtXGhJNFrjP4vJxhCUmIUihfuCJgV9dmMPwWM6aMHomh4VWkVunlvP8yPst48aeHEKPEj8jLLOhFdSdQ4__yeGI/s1600/Zelda002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI1H7bH-Wlv_qWeBwPVyXUtOw3QvfAdhixAfyZgliZEk0RdqtcT7povtXGhJNFrjP4vJxhCUmIUihfuCJgV9dmMPwWM6aMHomh4VWkVunlvP8yPst48aeHEKPEj8jLLOhFdSdQ4__yeGI/s1600/Zelda002.jpg" height="171" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Doing this right after jumping off a horse? Epic.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The open world aspect has received a lot of support as well, especially from me. But even bigger than that, apparently, the world will <a href="http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/17488/20141219/legend-of-zelda-wii-u-news-open-world-will-change-with-your-actions-and-choices-according-to-shigeru-miyamoto.htm">change according to your decisions and actions in the game</a>. That sounds so incredible. I've always been cynical of games that have those "custom paths" where all of the changes are essentially superficial, and so I hope the developers give it their all with Zelda Wii U in this regard. Most importantly, creating real, large-effect changes from your actions will encourage you to play the game over and over again to see all of the ways things could have happened (and I hope one of these paths is a romance route... just saying).<br />
<br />
While there's only a small amount of information to go on right now, I think that overall, people have a reason to be excited about this new game. I personally can't wait -- I wish I could have it by Christmas. Unfortunately, the estimated release date is some time in 2015; but this can be good too. Of course, it gives Nintendo time to read the things the fans want. It also gives them extra time to flesh things out and add more detail. This is such a huge project, I'm so anxious for its release, as well as the release of more information.<br />
<br />
So concludes this article. Thank you to all who participated in the poll. In addition, thank you to both <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/100908385478463069178">Zelda</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/113066832372633650130">communities</a> on Google+ who allowed me to conduct these polls; particular thanks to the former for allowing me to post my article there, and for being such a wonderful community to interact with! Special thanks to the individuals who gave me permission to use their comments in this article -- you're all such a great help!<br />
<br />
And, most importantly, thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<i>Below are the original polls. I stopped accepting newer votes or changed votes at ~1:00 AM EST on 12/20/14; that is, after that time, any votes that were cast in the poll were not included in this article. If you see inconsistencies between the numbers provided in the article and those you see on the poll data, this is why. Google+ won't allow me to shut down the polls, and I don't want to delete them in case I need them for future reference.</i> <i>Also, as stated, these polls are not listed in order of their having been conducted. I would still encourage looking at the data as of recent, because it's still fairly consistent with the data in the post, just with higher sample sizes.</i><br />
<br />
- Primary focus poll.<i> </i><a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/DR4YNM4hA7Y">(1)</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/Y282qyEUnRE">(2)</a><br />
- Story poll. <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/PcsWeZnfKt1">(1)</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/RcJDKPSpz9M">(2)</a><br />
- Emotional connection poll. <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/WFXmKQpr5DS">(1)</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/Lkp64JgPpTH">(2)</a><br />
- Fighting mechanics poll. <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/AWcaAkhg68J">(1)</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/2MnpdhCKaUP">(2)</a><br />
- Overall attitude poll. <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/MAU23K418Uk">(1)</a> <a href="https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/posts/Jt6iWyZknGp">(2)</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir
Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-36900030115599772812014-12-19T23:33:00.001-05:002014-12-21T23:29:04.100-05:00The Ethology Of Attraction To Bad Science: A Response To Social Ethology And Dorian FurtunăDorian Furtună is a Moldovan ethologist who runs a website called <a href="http://socialethology.com/">Social Ethology</a>, which is a website dedicated to research thereof, labelling it "<span class="st"><a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/dorian-furtuna-phd">the biological and instinctive foundations of human behavior</a>." As you can see, he also writes for <i>Psychology Today</i>, a website which I used to go to for tertiary readings for research in psychology, but now largely disregard as a forum for anyone and everyone to spout off whatever unchecked views they want (note this doesn't mean everything on <i>Psychology Today</i> is bad; far from it). This scenario is no different.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBi8JESm3W0VAMHbf5Y3nDmcdjNmfZ9gIo0GwYz8wAdGAFAyStQRuUb1MPRKHDJ0iPdBPnJYLKRBG3vXVQLUr_i0GIOanBkLjtWpnx28OYBnBxF012HaD4sYw71jq0Me2lfKKY2OoPLM0/s1600/photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBi8JESm3W0VAMHbf5Y3nDmcdjNmfZ9gIo0GwYz8wAdGAFAyStQRuUb1MPRKHDJ0iPdBPnJYLKRBG3vXVQLUr_i0GIOanBkLjtWpnx28OYBnBxF012HaD4sYw71jq0Me2lfKKY2OoPLM0/s1600/photo.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The asshole in question.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="st">I've <a href="https://plus.google.com/101452492032014121165/posts/SEhkKYCrTRm">had exchanges</a> with Dr. </span>Furtună in the past. Instead of responding to criticism, he simply says "wait for more" and continues on with his evidently poor research. It's a wonder how someone can get a PhD and then learn to completely ignore all dissent or critique of their work. I'm not sure what causes this, but unlike Dr. Furtună, I'm not prepared to offer an <i>ad hoc</i> explanation via natural selection.<br />
<br />
Recently, Dr. Furtună has published an article on his website entitled "<a href="http://socialethology.com/ethology-attraction-bad-boys">The ethology of attraction to bad boys</a>" (opening the link isn't imperative to understanding this post, but if you find yourself lost, you may want to consider it). It seeks to, of course, give an evolutionary explanation for why women like men who are more aggressive (or as he calls it, warlike) in nature. The arguments Dr. Furtună makes in his article are (perhaps unwittingly) bad, and normally I wouldn't give this kind of ridiculousness the time of day. However, upon visiting <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/101452492032014121165/posts">his feed</a>, I realized that he spams his articles all over Google+, even when the discussion page he sends them to has nothing to do with what he's talking about, or is only relevant at a very superficial level. This includes the anthropology community I'm a part of, where my last discussion took place, as well as in the psychology community, which I am also a part of. The fact that he is so eager to share his article with as many people as possible shows that his primary concern is getting views, which outshines his ability to appropriately and honestly examine evidence.<br />
<br />
Even with this alone, I still wouldn't care much about Dr. Furtună's work if it weren't for one key element that seals the deal -- never have I seen him even <i>consider</i> other potential explanations for the behavioural traits he discusses. In the article I'm responding to, he does not give any time to examine the evidence for hypotheses which are contradictory to his own position. This is just bad science writing, first of all. Second of all, it gives readers the impression that the debate over this material is definitively settled in favour of Dr. Furtună's position. It's not. Furthermore, much of the "evidence" he draws upon to support his position is so disgusting in nature, it's beyond comprehension.<br />
<br />
Thus, I see it as much needed for someone to respond to his sophistry, and so I am about to take him to task. I also won't treat him with the same grace I may typically treat people I critique; he deserves no such respect. This will be good for both of us as well -- while I'll be giving a few individuals a lesson on how to respond to bad arguments in the field of anthropology and psychology, I'll also be consequently giving Dr. Furtună more traffic. It will also satisfy my readers, as the poll suggests that most prefer when I write about anthropology and psychology; as such, I am now writing about both.<br />
<br />
This post will not only serve to provide rebuttals to Dr. Furtună's claims, but also give readers an overview of what to look for in scientific literature when taking a skeptical approach. You'll find that there are many such examples to look at in this particular case.<br />
<br />
(For the record, it's going to be a pain in the ass to do this article by quoting him so many times. Go ahead, try copy/pasting something from his article. See what happens every time. Also for the record, I am not interested whatsoever in a prolonged discussion with Dr. Furtună over this topic. If he says something which warrants another rebuttal post, it will be my last, if I even write it.)<br />
<br />
Without further ado, let us begin.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"It was not only the natural selection that favored warlike men, but also the sexual selection. In archaic times, the combative behavior implied not only chances of survival, but also a more significant reproductive success. Women’s preferences for combative individuals have evolved in parallel with men’s aggressiveness. Numerous studies have shown that women manifest a higher sexual attraction towards men with a warlike reputation, towards leaders and military men. In some societies, military men who are dressed up in their uniforms are being perceived as having a sex-appeal that is superior to those who wear simple clothes [Schreiber, Van Vugt, 2008]."</i></blockquote>
Dr. Furtună cites an unpublished manuscript as evidence for his claims. Unfortunately, it seems very few people actually have access to this manuscript. This is automatically suspect to me, but nonetheless I can't dismiss a claim exclusively for the source that is cited (in most cases, although I will have to do this frequently later on in the article). In scenarios where I cannot examine the source, I simply assume that the citation provides some evidence to what they say -- in this case, that women find a man in uniform more sexually appealing. In some societies. <i>Some</i> being the operative word here. There are numerous explanations <i>other</i> than an evolutionary one for why this might be the case, especially since (as Dr. Furtună concedes) this is a not a universal phenomenon. Socialization plays <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/masculinityfeminity-and-return-of-kings.html">a remarkable role</a> in societal standards of appeal and beauty. It is no different for men's sexual appeal.<br />
<br />
Beyond this, he only cites his source for the latter-most claim. He does refer to an article of his on the natural selection of male aggressiveness, but rigorous peer-reviewed evidence is far from met in that article. The funny thing in this paragraph is that Dr. Furtună already offers a counter-hypothesis to his own: women will favour men of higher status (who were, historically, often warlords or men of military status) so as to better themselves. This is also completely consistent with the selfish gene hypothesis by Dawkins, which he cites in his other article; but it has nothing to do with aggression. Less aggressive men who were born into wealth or royalty would find equal reproductive benefits, particularly in chiefdoms. Do I necessarily agree with this stance? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it <i>does</i> show how quickly an alternative hypothesis can slip under Dr. Furtună's nose, even when he cites it himself. I will make reference to this hypothesis later on in the article.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The women’s predilection for warriors and the military uniform’s sex-appeal represent a reminiscence of women’s ancestral preferences for men with high social status (resource owners); from times when the hierarchical position was directly associated with warlike abilities and aggressive behavior. From then, the symbol of the warlike man, who is in control and who has a combative and imposing behavior, is part of a strategy that favors men in their relationships with the opposite sex [Hardy, Van Vugt, 2006]. There are other consequences of the admiration of the masculine force, which marks the psychology of the sexual relationships of our times."</i></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1cz1tyPq4aZWsr3BE4aPxbQy40mUps_EXBgYgksv1yqrt22YjEJ0H0xbNQ5bP0TjlFGAeSub4NpE6Rc1I_J1652myzf3WAuEB-bebyNvXA46uF6Y0DiW09lcBk6Yst-ycuymTh9Dp460/s1600/hadzabe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1cz1tyPq4aZWsr3BE4aPxbQy40mUps_EXBgYgksv1yqrt22YjEJ0H0xbNQ5bP0TjlFGAeSub4NpE6Rc1I_J1652myzf3WAuEB-bebyNvXA46uF6Y0DiW09lcBk6Yst-ycuymTh9Dp460/s1600/hadzabe.jpg" height="231" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Hadzabe -- most hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here, Dr. Furtună once again acknowledges preference for social status, but does not consider that aggressive behaviour is not mutually inclusive with social status. One key part of this paragraph is what causes him to overlook this factor, and it's particularly ridiculous: where he talks about hierarchical positions in society. Social hierarchy is a very recent phenomenon in human history, and as mentioned, leaders are not necessarily granted their power through aggression and war. The legitimacy of power in many pre-state societies was through prosocial behaviour, modesty, and doing as much as possible for your community, and explicitly <i>not</i> yourself. This is readily seen among the !Kung and the Mehinacu, where they are set up with many social controls that prevent them from being too boastful or arrogant, and also demand of them that they preserve the fairly equal nature of their society, as well as <i>resolving</i> conflicts.<br />
<br />
In addition to all of this, social hierarchy isn't even a necessity. Most hunter-gatherer societies, with the exception of settled ones, are egalitarian in nature, where power is distributed mostly equally among men and women, and there are no hierarchical positions of power -- any that exist are mostly superficial in nature, such as the status of "headmen" in examples like the !Kung.<br />
<br />
And even ignoring all of that, sometimes sexual selection has<i> nothing</i> to do with the man himself. Among the Nuer, sexual selection is based on the prestige and appeal of their cattle, not the man. These explanations are all entirely inconsistent with the evolutionary hypothesis; and yet, despite these being very well known examples in anthropology, Dr. Furtună neglects to consider any of these.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"It is well known that young men who behave modestly and seem agreeable, selfless and shy are disadvantaged as regarding sexual relationships. On the contrary, those who are manipulative, arrogant, cunning, overconfident, who play hypermasculine roles, enjoy a higher number of sexual experiences with more partners <a href="http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/01/do-women-who-really-enjoy-sex-prefer-bad-boys/">[1]</a>. These effects are due not only to the gumption with which these men act, but also to the fact that women prefer this kind of men, with a more imposing behavior. Different studies have shown that the skillful men who have a dominant status and an assertive character are more attractive for women that those who are submissive and shy [Sadalla et al., 1987; Burger, Cosby, 1999]."</i> </blockquote>
His first citation is far from credible, and by no means does it go over a comprehensive review of the literature, but let's assume for a moment that the conclusions drawn are true: that women prefer dominant men for sex, but "nice guys" for relationships. Once again, this still shows that sexual selection would not exclusively favour "bad boys" -- there are different, but comparable pressures for men of both personality types. Men can be promiscuous and not settle down, or they can settle down and have many children. One can interpret this type of data in any way they want, but it doesn't solidly prove, as Dr. Furtună might suggest, that male dominance evolved via the processes of natural and sexual selection. As for having more sexual partners, did he ever once consider that this effect might be mitigated if the male in question considers the risk of pregnancy? Does he not realize that this is a risk many men consider? This completely destroys the idea that the actions which promote more sexual partners in men during modern times have evolved through sexual selection.<br />
<br />
For his second claim, we can see that he cites two sources: Sadalla et al. (1987) and Burger & Crosby (1999). He suggests that these sources provide evidence to the hypothesis that dominant men of assertive character are more attractive to women than shy men. This is where Dr. Furtună's neglect starts to become most readily available.<br />
<br />
[Short disclaimer: there is nothing terribly wrong with the sample sizes in the studies mentioned throughout these articles. Their weight, however, should not be overestimated, as Dr. Furtună has done. They can be used as evidence for further research, but <i>not</i> for the aggressive claims Dr. Furtună is making.]<br />
<br />
His first citation, Sadalla et al., was limited in many respects. Firstly, their largest sample size (Experiment 4) was 218 individuals; 114 women and 104 men. Their smallest sample size (Experiment 1) was 88; 46 women and 42 men. All samples were taken from students in an introductory psychology course at "a western state university." These are by far <i>not</i> representative samples of all populations; something which (unless I missed something) the study authors fail to even admit. Likewise, they commit the same fallacious insinuation about the evolution of male dominance that Dr. Furtună makes. The other shortcoming of this particular study is that it offers no predictions according to the sociocultural model they tacitly summarize -- it simply asserts at the end, in the General Discussion section, that the data does not support the sociocultural model. This is quite a leap in reasoning. This study is, also, limited by how old it is, and so cannot account for recent revisions of the sociocultural model, nor can it examine the data and predictions of post-2000 research.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7lbB3taWPo5uF6hWs_fDha9QechGKuae2nM9k5vVIYl7PlhaMZY7KtdYADzhGk1kE8sxskNRpmFxwoNePW7l3jQq-4tzZfl-kPHtoI6QpyAA5u0Ze9amoqImK5Ufx5ySeUIRmlJlOeuY/s1600/mother-son+fights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7lbB3taWPo5uF6hWs_fDha9QechGKuae2nM9k5vVIYl7PlhaMZY7KtdYADzhGk1kE8sxskNRpmFxwoNePW7l3jQq-4tzZfl-kPHtoI6QpyAA5u0Ze9amoqImK5Ufx5ySeUIRmlJlOeuY/s1600/mother-son+fights.jpg" height="222" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">But she's totally into him.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The other study is a bit more recent, having been conducted in 1999. It's still limited by sample size; in fact, it's smaller than the first study: Study 1 had 118 female undergraduate students, Study 2 had 50, and Study 3 had 50 as well. The funny thing about this study, however, is that it explicitly suggests that a dominance vs non-dominance model is not supported by their data, and that it may be reliant on the presence of other traits as well. When they provided the students with personality types of different men -- men with dominant personalities, and men without these traits -- they usually chose the latter. They also, when asked what traits they like in a potential partner, very rarely listed "dominant" as a characteristic. Instead, they said things like assertive, or confident. This study is definitely much better than the former, however, as it does not rule out either hypothesis: they still give time to the parental investment hypothesis, and say it may be supported by the data. The point being, however, is that a straightforward interpretation of the data does <i>not</i> support Dr. Furtună. He had to conflate assertiveness with dominance in a cleverly written sentence invoking the two to make it appear as though the data supports him, while leaving out the actual findings of the research he cited. Dishonest? I think so, but we'll see better evidence of that as we go on.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"At the same time, men get a higher prestige and are more attractive for women when they manifest their dominant character and their hostility towards the rivals (for example, towards the members of an opposing sport team) and not towards their colleagues or the persons who are nearby. As regarding a lasting romantic relationship or marriage, the interpersonal aggressiveness, unleashed by a man, could diminish the women’s interest (they being afraid of getting aggressively dominated) [Snyder et al., 2008]. Therefore, the assertive domination is favorable for conquests and courtship strategies for short periods of time, while the prestige (usually associated with social status and richness, but which can also include a prosocial behavior, empathy, intelligence, generosity) is going to have a long-lasting impact <a href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/07/07/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/">[2]</a>."</i></blockquote>
Again, Dr. Furtună doesn't seem to understand that what he just wrote doesn't make sense given the context of his argument. Success in the short-term and success in the long-term can <i>both</i> lead to very high reproductive success depending on the socially normative number of children a family unit is accepted to have. Besides this, Dr. Furtună's citations are quite hilarious.<br />
<br />
The first one he cites is Snyder et al. (2008) as supporting his statement that men get higher prestige and are more attractive to women when they are competitive in sports; yet, they don't get that some appreciation in the light of a long-term relationship. Before we examine <i>that</i>, however, I want to read the first paragraph of Snyder et al. Quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Sadalla, Kenrick, and Vershure (1987) published evidence indicating that women prefer men who are in high dominance over men who are low in dominance as potential dates (i.e. potential short-term relationship partners) and rate them as more attractive. Since then, despite numerous studies pointing to limitations of this result, it seems that a simplistic version of their conclusion - that "women prefer dominant mates" - has become conventional wisdom in psychology and related fields."</i></blockquote>
Do you see what I see? Snyder et al. (2008) just criticized the conclusions drawn from Sadalla et al. 1987) -- the <i>exact</i> same conclusions that Dr. Furtună is drawing here. I'm sorry, but I find this to be beyond hysterical. The dishonesty doesn't end here, however. Continuing with Snyder et al., Dr. Furtună suggests that their findings state that men "get a higher prestige and are more attractive for women when they manifest their dominant character and their hostility towards other rivals."<br />
<br />
But does the research actually say that? The answer is a flat out no. In Study 1, Synder et al. found that women preferred men of higher prestige than higher dominance. In Study 2, they examined the variables independently: higher prestige was favoured over lower prestige, while lower dominance was favoured over higher dominance. In Study 3, while higher dominance <i>was</i> preferred in the context of an athletic competition, lower dominance was preferred in any interpersonal situation, <i>even in short-term desirability</i>. They mention nothing about higher dominance conferring higher prestige; they examined these factors independently. Again, Dr. Furtună uses language to conflate everything in the study to support his views, reflecting that he has likely not read the study itself. That, or he has read it, and <i>still</i> included it as supporting the data, despite all of the evidence it brings contrary to his view. Notice, however, that the findings of Snyder et al. are actually consistent with my hypothesis earlier.<br />
<br />
For the second part of that paragraph, Dr. Furtună uses <i>The Art of Manliness</i> website as evidence for his claim, but it's a continuity from his prior claim. The website actually reviews quite critically some of the sources Dr. Furtună cited, but the point being, he misrepresented the findings of the research. Dominance was not preferred even in short-term desirability. Prestige was more desirable than dominance, and dominance was undesirable in both short- and long-term relationships.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"However, overall, in the course of humans’ evolution, the dominant individuals have been favored within the reproductive competition, one being able to find even today large categories of women who prefer “alpha males”, with an assertive and sexist approach <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men">[3]</a> [Hall, Canterberry, 2011]. Thus, many women who consider themselves attractive prefer men with a deeper, more masculine and dominant voice [Vukovic et al., 2008, 2010]. Also, the guys with more masculine faces are preferred, them being associated with a greater physical strength therefore, with better genes [Little et al., 2011]. And, the more difficult and unstable the living conditions are, the more emphasized are these preferences [DeBruine et al., 2011]; in regions were the epidemic situation is more dangerous, where the population is more vulnerable to diseases, men with masculine facial traits are more attractive to women than those with womanish faces, due to the fact that masculinity correlates with testosterone and with high resistance to infections <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/%20See%20more:%20http://socialethology.com/ethology-attraction-bad-boys%20Copyright%20%C2%A9%20Dorian%20Furtuna">[4]</a>."</i></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPSfpUXJzSDj3pje2Bc7gD1fjdXMWUvpBLcS1NTzKNk0snzc7ZzDa-7zqmBt3hSXL76f8dc96K4o6B4pOKGAFXWMc-z2R3jwFFc0tlQly1TzBVv22Od6lkI5v5yUMinPepVCu4O6lTgII/s1600/0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPSfpUXJzSDj3pje2Bc7gD1fjdXMWUvpBLcS1NTzKNk0snzc7ZzDa-7zqmBt3hSXL76f8dc96K4o6B4pOKGAFXWMc-z2R3jwFFc0tlQly1TzBVv22Od6lkI5v5yUMinPepVCu4O6lTgII/s1600/0.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">-has nothing to do with this.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There's so much to go over in this paragraph, so I'm going to try to make it as short as possible. I already addressed the claim in the first sentence earlier. For Vukovic et al. (2008), their sample size was 123, again all undergraduate women. They also used a computer to alter the voices to either higher-pitch (feminine) or lower-pitch (masculine). This just strikes me as odd since, as someone who has worked with voice software on literally hundreds of occasions in the past, I <i>know</i> how distorted a voice can be in either scenario, but most especially for increasing pitch. Increased pitch can sometimes also increase perceived speed, which could be a confounding variable. They also only used the recordings of four men and created sixteen pairs of voices, and used only 19 women to judge which was more masculine. There are just so many complaints I could come up with concerning how this study was conducted, but suffice it to say it's not very good. The author also neglects to mention the fact that perhaps the women who thought more highly of themselves were <i>confident</i>, and then perceived the "dominant voices" as also being <i>confident</i>, and thus it was a matter of matching personality traits.<br />
<br />
I've reviewed facial, "masculine" facial traits before in the article I cited earlier; but very quickly, "masculine" traits vary culture to culture, as do definitions of what it means to be masculine. "Masculine" just means "how a man should behave," and thus we can understand that the proposition being made is not meaningful. The thing about visually masculine traits, however, is that it has nothing to do with dominant behaviour. At the same time, it's important to note the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110497">following</a>:<br />
<br />
- Male-on-male aggression with men with masculine faces increases preference.<br />
- This same effect emerges in neutral situations.<br />
- Male-on-female aggression quashes this preference, due to women fearing this aggression will be directed at them.<br />
<br />
This becomes important later on. For now, let's move to the next paragraph.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The staggering case from a prison in Baltimore, where four female guards fell pregnant to same inmate, a gang leader named Tavon White, illustrated, even in anecdotal form, the phenomenon of woman attraction for dominant men <span id="goog_1799601321"></span><a href="http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/25/four-female-guards-fell-pregnant-to-same-inmate-in-one-american-prison-4962174/">[6]</a><span id="goog_1799601322"></span>. But let’s remember how many convicted killers (like Charles Manson) capture the hearts of law-abiding women, being assaulted with love letters and other signs of adoration while sitting in prison <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/09/justice/charles-manson-wife/">[7]</a>"</i></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuddGInOlaRkK7unOlYRWspVvOLM2OpYgZNlTdaOkgUpE39E_jlBGvtnWaA1IKZJCtXP1turaxV8DH4VAzw7U_SxB8m2RewUxKYgSnNkgZDcegRKoohJAmcK71LQCxcTq6iePWsiY5D3I/s1600/MTE5NTU2MzE2MzA4MTQ1Njc1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuddGInOlaRkK7unOlYRWspVvOLM2OpYgZNlTdaOkgUpE39E_jlBGvtnWaA1IKZJCtXP1turaxV8DH4VAzw7U_SxB8m2RewUxKYgSnNkgZDcegRKoohJAmcK71LQCxcTq6iePWsiY5D3I/s1600/MTE5NTU2MzE2MzA4MTQ1Njc1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It's because he was just such a freaking bad boy.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Ugh... The first claim is just stupid. Tavon White was running drug smuggling and the guards were embedded in the whole thing. They had sex with him for money, prestige, and for the gifts he showered them with -- not for dominance. The article he cited said that very clearly and concisely. As for the link relating to Charles Manson, the girl said she liked him for being an environmentalist. Even funnier, she said that he <i>doesn't tell people what to do.</i> How Dr. Furtună could interpret this as being evidence for his claims is beyond me. He didn't even read the articles, most likely. Either way, again, this could relate to prestige, since Charles Manson is quite famous. I say this with a heavy sigh because of just how obvious this was.<br />
<br />
He then goes on to talk about how women were sexually attracted to Osama Bin Laden, in some scenarios more than they were to their own husbands. Notice how the article he cites for this, a report from <i>Sabotage Times</i>, doesn't cite its own sources. Notice how a Google search of "Osamour syndrome" yields no results other than <i>Sabotage Times</i> and Dr. Furtună's own article. Notice how their poll has no mentioning of sample size either. Do you know why all of this is?<br />
<br />
<b>Because it's freaking satire.</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"From an evolutionary point of view, we are dealing with an instinctive inclination that comes from archaic times when males inherited and, in turn, transmitted genes connected with aggressive and dominant behaviour, who provide a sexual success, and women properly, had inherited preference for such type of males. Masculine aggressive character has evolved in parallel with feminine attraction for such a character. Effects of that archaic sexual selection are still strong today."</i></blockquote>
No, from a logical point of view, we're dealing with a guy with a PhD who doesn't know how to interpret comedy in a fake news article with fake poll data. Just look at the comments. I have Asperger Syndrome and even I could tell the whole thing was a joke.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In psychology, the term of Dark Triad is used to characterize the traits of a certain category of men who have the tendency to act violently and dominantly. The Dark Triad includes three sub-clinical traits: narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. These men are complacent, selfish and overconfident; they manipulate and exploit others without any scruples; they are impulsive and lacking empathy; they are impudent and possessive in their sexual relationship; they have sadistic inclinations. In an apparently paradoxically way, many women adore such types of men <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad">[10]</a> [Carter et al., 2014]. In fact, some women have fantasies about brutal sexual relationships, including rapes; these fantasies represent an unconscious expression of women to be sexually desirable, their wish to be possessed by men <a href="http://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2014/4/18/sex-question-friday-why-am-i-turned-on-by-rape-fantasies">[11]</a>, <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201411/don-t-call-them-rape-fantasies">[12]</a>."</i></blockquote>
This is where Dr. Furtună becomes particularly disgusting. First of all, the article he cites by <i>Psychology Today</i> explicitly says not to call them rape fantasies, which Dr. Furtună does anyway. Second of all, there's too much here to look at, so I'm going to go to the best source, which is almost always the peer-reviewed one; in this case, Carter et al. (2014). Again, it's limited by sample size; but there is one fundamental flaw in Carter et al.'s study, and that is that it doesn't examine the behavioural traits in action. It simply takes shortened summaries of different traits these individuals exhibit and gave them to the respondents piecemeal for evaluation. Seeing these behaviours in action, however, might yield completely different results.<br />
<br />
I want to withhold myself from completely attacking Dr. Furtună's comments until the end, so let's skip ahead and past the <i>50 Shades of Grey</i> part, since it's hardly relevant.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"If we analyze the things through the prisms of human ethology and evolutionary psychology, we understand that the attraction to bad boys, who have the traits from the Dark Triad, is explained by the fact that they are being associated with warrior qualities. Those who have such personal traits are also favored in hierarchical struggles and they usually reach the top of the pyramid of power."</i></blockquote>
Yes, Dr. Furtună. All "bad boys" are narcissists, Machiavellians and psychopaths. All of them could be given psychological examinations and come back with these results. All of them. That's why Carter et al. drew a dichotomy between the typical "bad boy" (low DT character) and the actual Dark Triad (high DT character). You're absolutely correct. Spot on. Bravo.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Therefore we understand that the natural selection has favored the formation of some masculine warlike traits that favored, in each generation, the ones who were more combative and who had an assertive character, because those were able to acquire more women, but it also has favored the women who preferred the warlike men, because they were able to gain access to more resources. A mutual strengthening of the respective strategies took place on a genetic level and they became typical for the human ethology. Maybe it is the instinctual predilection for tough and combative men that makes women not to leave their violent husbands and that explains their fantasies with forced sex <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy">[14]</a>."</i></blockquote>
Ignoring all of the claims we've already debunked, <i>really?</i> Did he <i>really</i> just suggest that women don't leave their violent husbands because they're sexually attracted to their domineering behaviour? How about fear, you nitwit? How about low self-esteem? How about self-victimization? There are infinitely better explanations for that type of behaviour than "they like their man being assertive."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"There are testimonies of rape’s victims in which the victims affirm that they had orgasm during the imposed sexual acts (different sources indicate a different rate that varies between 5%-10% and 50% of women who admitted having had orgasmic states) <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obinsite">[15]</a>. A study of 611 hospitalized women, which was made in Toronto, Canada, showed that almost 43% of them have been abused both physically and especially verbally at home in the last year, but more than half of them (54%) have declared that they would stay with their abusing husbands. The invoked motive is the feeling of safety that these women have when they are near their husbands [Panchanadeswaran et al., 2010]. All these considerations should make us look more profound at phenomenon of violence in general."</i> </blockquote>
I want to throw up. I'm going to take the most time addressing this paragraph because, if nothing else, I want the good doctor to see how disgustingly wrong this final segment is. If he ignores everything else, I want him to fully understand how much of an idiot he is here.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the first statement. In the very source he cites for his statistics on how many women have reported orgasms during rape, the author rejects the idea that the women liked it. She explains that this is a result of <i>fear</i>, not arousal. This is an example of excitation-transfer theory, where the residual excitation of one stimulus can amplify the excitatory response to another stimulus. She gives the example of tickling, where it can either be a pleasureful experience or a very bad one, but both produce the same response: laughing. Just because the person is laughing, though, does not mean they unconsciously enjoy being tickled. This is a stupid position to take. So is the position that women having orgasms speaks to their unconscious desire to have violent, dominant sexual intercourse. Again, <i>it's the fear. </i>This is yet <i>another</i> example of Dr. Furtună cherry picking his data.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX1DW-snA1qkcfrh6fwmiZsUD_kacu_VzIFTpKaWS4LLrCRk-TIf36AJu94wM8rgb8G3-O7meYp31MGkypR-g3MMiY3hYGxpY01oYOWGJYt4HBp0ZI_hE8iAWvDRAYlzQKPTDHXsoZn5g/s1600/e2843e3b46425ba3045d95adc953ebd4c4e02087140f749cce742ded83431d08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX1DW-snA1qkcfrh6fwmiZsUD_kacu_VzIFTpKaWS4LLrCRk-TIf36AJu94wM8rgb8G3-O7meYp31MGkypR-g3MMiY3hYGxpY01oYOWGJYt4HBp0ZI_hE8iAWvDRAYlzQKPTDHXsoZn5g/s1600/e2843e3b46425ba3045d95adc953ebd4c4e02087140f749cce742ded83431d08.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Enjoy" -- said only the biggest idiots ever.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But even ignoring all of this, however, remember the study I cited earlier that I said would be important? Well, this is why. If we were to concede that masculine facial features has <i>anything</i> to deal with dominant behaviour in men, then the association is still eliminated by perception of the woman's fear that the man will act aggressively against them. Thus, the idea that these women who have orgasms during rape are somehow still sexually attracted to their aggressor is, again, total nonsense.<br />
<br />
He, again, cites a study about women who would stay with their abusive husband; but this time, he cites a study giving the alleged motive for why they stay with their partners. What Dr. Furtună failed to mention was that Panchanadeswaran et al. (2010) used a sample of urban low-income minority women -- in other words, women who are most likely to be in need of financial assistance; which, I don't know, could be a massive confounding variable in the results.<br />
<br />
The thing is, the study doesn't even say that the women only stayed with their husbands because they felt safe. More than half of the respondents said that their husbands were highly dependable, which would serve to <i>mitigate</i> their decision to leave an abusive husband. They aren't inclusive factors. Their abusive, dominant nature isn't what caused them to stay with their husbands. It was their dependability.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this isn't even the worst part about this. Recall something Dr. Furtună said earlier in his article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"As regarding a lasting romantic relationship or marriage, the interpersonal aggressiveness, unleashed by a man, could diminish the women’s interest (they being afraid of getting aggressively dominated) [Snyder et al., 2008]."</i></blockquote>
And again, given the context of the data I warned would be important: how does <i>any</i> of this make any sense? These women would be significantly opposed to staying with their abusive husbands. So again, do you see what I see? Dr. Furtună makes a completely ridiculous claim which is (1) not true; (2) at odds with the data; (3) not evidenced by the source he cited; and, (4) contradictory to his own statements earlier in the article. All of Dr. Furtună's speculations about why women don't leave their violent, abusive husbands is completely inconsistent with his own sources; and not only that, it's inconsistent with his own damn claims.<br />
<br />
I don't need much of a closer for this one, but let me say this: to any science enthusiast who also happens to be a skeptic, do <i>not</i> falter just because you see a statement being made by someone who is supposedly qualified in their field. One person alone is not enough to settle the science; and, as we can see, individuals are capable of some particularly egregious errors and lies. I would speculate on my own that perhaps the reason Dr. Furtună paid so much attention to this alleged ethological approach to women liking "bad boys" is because he perceives himself as having many of the traits that he believes attract women. Maybe it's justification for his own sexist views.<br />
<br />
Whatever the case may be, I'm tired of seeing Dr. Furtună spam his articles all over Google+ and in communities that I am a participant in. I'm calling him out here. I dare him to respond.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<b>EDIT (12/21/14)</b>: It seems Dr. Furtună has seen this article and edited his own to remove his embarrassing use of a satire as evidence for his claims. I'll continue reading through it to see if he changes more, but you can download the original article in .txt <a href="http://m.uploadedit.com/b043/1419202119313.txt">here</a>. The dishonesty never ends!<br />
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoirAlexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-23822914177831960652014-12-12T22:35:00.002-05:002015-12-30T23:16:33.706-05:00Guns And Controllers: Do Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behaviour? A Review Of Meta-Analytic ResearchLet me be upfront concerning my views about this topic. Until now, when I decided to research the evidence and examine its credibility, I never gave much credence to the idea of violent video games causing aggressive behaviour. To me, it just seemed counter-intuitive: now more than ever, children of all demographics and backgrounds are playing video games, and many of the most favoured are clearly violent in nature. Meanwhile, the violent crime rate is decreasing to levels we haven't seen in decades. How could both of these facts be true at the same time if violent video games have significant impacts on behaviour?<br />
<br />
The answer is simple: plenty of factors play into crime. While the overall trend may be a decrease in violent crime, there still may be underlying factors which are keeping the rate of its decline lower than may be attainable. Does that mean I think that video games are a terribly important factor for consideration in this sense? Not really. I think that video games have the potential to affect behaviour, but that the real-world implications of this fact are minimal, manifesting in maybe only a handful of cases each year. I do think it has important societal implications in terms of our attitudes towards others, but one could consider these to be superficial concerns.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Kqupxb6yvfmmGvuqvNckeAiQVVVdOowXIDD6_V9S1N_kU8789SHX7in4pV4f1A0VI6vyWdXFnmJrjogEqVWlhfJjeuZd34YcixXYjKdlc0aAnMtkb-o9C9_EohS2VclX2n3uk7TU3tY/s1600/12GAME-articleLarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9Kqupxb6yvfmmGvuqvNckeAiQVVVdOowXIDD6_V9S1N_kU8789SHX7in4pV4f1A0VI6vyWdXFnmJrjogEqVWlhfJjeuZd34YcixXYjKdlc0aAnMtkb-o9C9_EohS2VclX2n3uk7TU3tY/s1600/12GAME-articleLarge.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">How likely is this? Would we be willing to accept it?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The implications of the research are not my concern. At present, the evidence for such claims as those above is unclear, and the evidence for behavioural effects from playing violent video games is up for scrutiny in itself. Here, I would like to present the best evidence we presently have available, and review how the academic community sees this issue. Again, I will not be going over what policies should be implemented, if any, in response to the literature; I will only be examining the question itself: do violent video games cause aggressive behaviour?<br />
<br />
The short answer is, probably. The long answer is that with the evidence we have, we can confidently state that violent video games have at least a minimal effect, but probably a fairly substantial effect on various behavioural and cognitive traits. Most researchers in this field do not deny the small correlations and causal evidence, but how significant these are depends on who you go to, as stated. The primary debate can be seen among meta-analytic reviews of the data from some prominent researchers of this topic.<br />
<br />
The first is Craig Anderson, who has been one of the most significant contributors to the scientific literature in this area. Anderson has conducted two meta-analyses to date of the literature: one in 2001, the other in 2010. The first one, entitled "<a href="http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/VideoGames1.pdf">Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, And Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature</a>," was published in the Psychological Science. Here, Anderson and Bushman -- another lead researcher in this field -- reviewed 35 research reports with a total of 4,262 participants, 46% of whom were under the age of 18. In 33 independent tests of 3,033 individuals, they found that video game violence was associated with heightened aggression. They note that the association is as strong as the effect of condom use on risk of HIV infection. They found that this association remained significant across gender, age, and experimental versus non-experimental design, thus showing that violent video games do result in real-world heightened aggression. In addition to this, in 8 independent tests of 676 participants, playing violent video games was negatively correlated with prosocial behaviour in both experimental and nonexperimental designs. In 20 studies of 1,495 participants, there was a causal link between violent video games and aggressive cognition. In 17 tests of 1,151 participants, playing violent video games resulted in aggressive affect. Finally, in 7 tests of 395 participants, violent video games were associated with physiological arousal.<br />
<br />
Their second meta-analysis was much more robust, as much research had been conducted since their first analysis with improved methodologies as well. In "<a href="http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10asisbsrs.pdf">Violent Video Games Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review</a>," published in Psychological Bulletin, Anderson et al. reviewed 130 research reports of over 130,000 participants. In 70 independent effects of 18,000 participants, violent video games were causally linked to both short-term and long-term aggressive behaviour. In 50 independent effects of over 12,000 participants, violent video games were causally linked to aggressive cognition. In 62 studies of over 17,000 participants, playing violent video games had a causal effect on aggressive affect. In 23 studies of 9,645 participants, violent video games had a negative effect on prosocial behaviour. Again, violent video games also had a causal effect on physiological arousal. Finally, presented as a new outcome variable in 32 studies of 8,528 participants, playing violent video games was causally linked to a decline in empathy and an increase in desensitization to violence. All of these effects existed regardless of country, culture, age, sex, or study design.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtwlggR9zrLy3wjHdl7Bi9FrkrCPHb8DSgimBL_xuq29h1xLmKMMtPvfreic2FBAM4aYzLeBx6uJi6sATnY9bIYJZ3ccMoINPLcsVqWyhTbfQ5e6cuCkuxk57v_GZnyxVkpC37Uz9zBzw/s1600/201403259105272.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtwlggR9zrLy3wjHdl7Bi9FrkrCPHb8DSgimBL_xuq29h1xLmKMMtPvfreic2FBAM4aYzLeBx6uJi6sATnY9bIYJZ3ccMoINPLcsVqWyhTbfQ5e6cuCkuxk57v_GZnyxVkpC37Uz9zBzw/s1600/201403259105272.jpg" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Craig Anderson, a.k.a. "The Target"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The latter of these two studies is considered to be paramount in this debate, as it seems to have the most superior study design. Some have <a href="http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/09/18/violence-video-games-a-weak-meaningless-correlation/">criticized</a> the methodology, although the arguments are not very strong. The first argument is that the study authors had to decide which methodologies were superior to others, and so the effect sizes increased to which studies they favoured, suggesting effect bias. This isn't an argument anyone familiar with meta-analytic research would make. If there is any question of whether or not the effect sizes granted to different studies was flawed, one can always read the methodology report. In this case, Anderson et al. excluded studies which included pilot testing of nonviolent video games and as well as studies which tested, for example, the physiological arousal of participants who played nonviolent video games as well as violent video games. If you wish to read their methodology, it's available, but there is nothing to suggest that it's unsound.<br />
<br />
The other argument presented in the article was that Anderson et al. included unpublished studies as well as published studies. Intuitively, this may seem like a valid point: if a study wasn't good enough to get published, then why should it be given considerable weight in comparison to published studies? The fact is, however, that this is also not a reasonable argument in terms of meta-analytic analysis. While differences exist between meta-analytic researchers and editors of journals which publish these meta-analyses, <a href="http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_10/10_3_2_including_unpublished_studies_in_systematic_reviews.htm">the overall attitude</a> is that the use of unpublished studies in meta-analytic reviews is preferable to account for publication biases.<br />
<br />
In fact, this was a major flaw in one of the competing meta-analytic reviews of the literature in this field. The lead study author for these studies was Christopher Ferguson, who can be viewed as the antithesis of Anderson. One of his own criticisms of Anderson's meta-analyses was that half of the studies he cites are conducted by himself. Again, this seems suspect at a visceral level, but is not faulty methodology as far as I know. Ferguson actually published two meta-analytic reviews of the scientific literature, but I can only seem to find access to the more recent one from 2009. Both had the flaw of not including unpublished studies, but we will review Ferguson's research as it's still important.<br />
<br />
Ferguson's meta-analysis was entitled "<a href="http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2808%2901037-8/abstract">The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review</a>," and was published in The Journal of Pediatrics. As stated, unlike Anderson's meta-analyses, Ferguson excluded unpublished papers, but claimed that this is standard meta-analytic procedure, and that they did this because they included an analysis on publication bias. They also excluded papers from before 1998, as they alleged the outdated methodologies may "pollute" the results. Ferguson and Kilburn examined 27 studies of an unspecified number of participants,
though only 15 of the studies dealt with video games. The results show
that the studies display a minimal correlation between playing video
games and aggressive behaviour, and that the effect size (as well as the
strength of the correlation) highly depend on the methodology. They
discuss multiple criticisms of Anderson & Bushman's meta-analysis in
2001, but Anderson et al. addressed most of these criticisms in their
2010 study. In addition, Rowell Huesmann <a href="http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/2010.Huesmann.NailingCoffinShutVideoViol.PsychBull.pdf">published a response</a> to critiques of Anderson's 2010 meta-analysis.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBARRAfykn4xE-1aHdkUHLq4SjCynp2QiiWjx1UHbNr4_BcUkX4B9y2nk0Etq1vDTfZgizL5QnyyC7PRSYI4s0EImlZ-9UuCqSWZwi2Z6755Zn_c_QbHc8XXyraMoFt4gZ3Ml-Up7LVHA/s1600/Ferguson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBARRAfykn4xE-1aHdkUHLq4SjCynp2QiiWjx1UHbNr4_BcUkX4B9y2nk0Etq1vDTfZgizL5QnyyC7PRSYI4s0EImlZ-9UuCqSWZwi2Z6755Zn_c_QbHc8XXyraMoFt4gZ3Ml-Up7LVHA/s1600/Ferguson.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">And in this corner... Christopher Ferguson</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As we can see, Ferguson's study is limited by sample size compared to the two meta-analyses led by Anderson. It should not be discounted, however, simply for its limitations -- it should only be noted that the weight of Ferguson's study may not be comparable to Anderson's studies. I'll admit, there is quite a heated battle between these two individuals, and so it would be beneficial to briefly defer to other reviews of the literature, namely two that have gotten the most attention.<br />
<br />
The first one, entitled "<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-12100-015">Violent Video Games and Aggression: Why Can't We Find Effects?</a>" was published by John Sherry in 2007. His goal was to challenge multiple theories of media impacts on violence and see if the evidence was consistent with them. He concluded that there was a minimal effect on behaviour by violent video games, and suggested that perhaps previous findings were amplified by methodologies. One example he gave was for exposure time: studies which had longer exposure times had smaller effect sizes, suggesting that the effects decrease over time. This isn't terribly inconsistent with prior findings, but Anderson et al. (2010) divided their results by study design and found that the effect persists even in longitudinal studies.<br />
<br />
The other meta-analysis has a lot more to discuss. Published by Greitemeyer and M<span class="name">ügge, the study was entitled "<a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259882692_Video_Games_Do_Affect_Social_Outcomes_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_the_Effects_of_Violent_and_Prosocial_Video_Game_Play">Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play</a>" and was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin this year, making it the most recent meta-analysis to date. The authors reviewed 98 independent studies of 36,965 participants to test both positive and negative social outcomes. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for violent and prosocial video game exposure. They note that the effects for both outcomes were reliable across experimental, correlational and longitudinal studies. Consistent with Sherry (2007), they found that studies with longitudinal designs had the lowest effect sizes, while experimental designs had the highest. In 43 independent studies of 21,215 participants, violent video games significantly effected violent behaviour. At the same time, in 6 independent studies of 693 participants, prosocial video games inspired prosocial behaviour, meaning that video games can play an effect on social outcomes regardless of what that outcome is. It could be argued (and I would agree) that a balance should be struck: violent video games should perhaps look into ways to incorporate prosocial behaviour while maintaining their violent nature for players who are interested in that type of game. Some studies have actually suggested this, but the overall effect is clear based on the data that violent video games cause a significant effect on social outcomes.</span><br />
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<span class="name">There are a lot of recent studies examining the relationship further, many of them conducted by Ferguson or Anderson, but I think I've covered enough ground here. Some individuals are not convinced by the literature, especially those (such as myself) who don't want to admit that some of their favourite video games have negative effects on social outcomes and may play a role, in some cases, in violent actions. In these cases where emotion clouds reason (again, such as in my own case), it's always informative to look at what the academic consensus is by looking to relevant scientific organizations and their public statements on the issue.</span><br />
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<span class="name">Without fail, the American Psychological Association (APA) <a href="http://www.apa.org/about/policy/interactive-media.pdf">released such a policy statement</a> in 2005. The statement reads that violent media across all mediums has a significant effect on aggressive behaviour, but there exists some nuance. For example, in the 16% of media depictions where violent behaviour is punished either physically or financially, it can actually inhibit aggressive or violent behaviour. Overall, however, the literature suggests that media does play a role in individual behaviour, psychology and social outcome.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<span class="name"></span><br />
<span class="name"></span>
<span class="name">This statement did not go without criticism. In response, Ferguson <a href="http://www.stetson.edu/today/2013/10/letter-to-apa-on-policy-statement-on-violent-media/">led an international group</a> of 228 media scholars, psychologists and criminologists to suggest that the APA revise their statement to address recent literature and possible methodological flaws in past studies. The statement is now up for review, a task force has been appointed to review the literature, and a revised statement is expected to be published some time this year; although, since it's December, I don't know how feasible that is. I will post the results at the bottom of this article if and when it comes up.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmmlyQSCh9pyokDStjc31pRlI82_68_g3BcByFC2Ns6RidYJCxu8vPtovS_cqXsXFwwIS9_EN0BggHP5gcHORL5kig4xfXlzPRDzJLqQJejrQpQuINByhLR5LxCPISaojyihtb_4KJYR0/s1600/2010-04-29-video-game-violence.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmmlyQSCh9pyokDStjc31pRlI82_68_g3BcByFC2Ns6RidYJCxu8vPtovS_cqXsXFwwIS9_EN0BggHP5gcHORL5kig4xfXlzPRDzJLqQJejrQpQuINByhLR5LxCPISaojyihtb_4KJYR0/s1600/2010-04-29-video-game-violence.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="name">So, if we want to individually look at the scientific literature, it seems that there is substantial evidence that violent video games do cause aggressive behaviour and other psychological effects, but that there may be some flaws in methodology, some overlooked studies, biases, etc. which may exaggerate how great the effect is. If we want to go by the consensus, it seems that there may not be one; however, as of 2005, the APA stance was in support of this interpretation of the literature. In addition, APA Executive Director of Science Steven J. Breckler <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virtual-violence.aspx">expressed support</a> of their prior conclusions, noting: "since then, the literature has evolved and, if anything, adds more support to that position. Nevertheless, this is an area of ongoing research, and other perspectives are emerging." To offer support to the opposing side, the author of that article suggests that there is disagreement among researchers. Of course I would agree with this conclusion; however, how broad that disagreement is, and whether or not it is a representation of the literature is up for interpretation.</span><br />
<span class="name"></span><br />
<span class="name">As much as I don't want it to be true, if one goes by the evidence or the APA's stance on the issue, it seems the only justifiable conclusion is that violent video games probably do cause aggressive behaviour and violent outcomes. How this effect manifests in different individuals, however, is up for debate and individual examination. I personally think that it is most likely to manifest in already desensitized individuals or those who are prone to such behaviours or outcomes, but the data seems to suggest that it goes beyond that. The concern now should be on settling the debate and further researching just how great these effects are, and what the implications are for real-world practices. Even if one doesn't like the findings of the research, it's important to not let our biases get in the way of objectivity and truth. Things can't always be what we want them to be.</span><br />
<span class="name"></span><br />
<span class="name"></span>
<span class="name">I wish that <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201212/yes-violent-video-games-do-cause-aggression">other researchers</a> would look more deeply into dissent and find the reasons for it, and give more credence to the opposing views. At the end, the author of that article states that violent video games without a doubt cause aggressive behaviour, and "don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise." This attitude seems unwarranted; while the research does lend more credence to her position, researchers shouldn't poison the well and act like the debate is absolutely settled and that anyone who doesn't think so is dishonest. <i>That</i> stance is dishonest, since the data is still under review. In the end, the only solution for the debate is time.</span><br />
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<span class="name">Thank you all very much for reading.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="name">[EDIT (12/30/15): I have written an article in regards to the APA's new resolution and report on this topic. You can read it <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2015/12/guns-and-controllers-apa-reviews-kotaku.html">here</a>.] </span><br />
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<span class="name"><br /></span>
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Science&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fe315012004-001&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Effects+of+Violent+Video+Games+on+Aggressive+Behavior%2C+Aggressive+Cognition%2C+Aggressive+Affect%2C+Physiological+Arousal%2C+And+Prosocial+Behavior%3A+A+Meta-Analytic+Review+of+the+Scientific+Literature.&rft.issn=&rft.date=2001&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=&rft.au=Anderson%2C+CA&rft.au=Bushman%2C+BJ&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Anderson, CA & Bushman, BJ (2001). "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, And Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature." <span style="font-style: italic;">Psychological Science</span> DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e315012004-001" rev="review">10.1037/e315012004-001</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+bulletin&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F20192553&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Violent+video+game+effects+on+aggression%2C+empathy%2C+and+prosocial+behavior+in+eastern+and+western+countries%3A+a+meta-analytic+review.&rft.issn=0033-2909&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=136&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=151&rft.epage=73&rft.artnum=&rft.au=Anderson+CA&rft.au=Shibuya+A&rft.au=Ihori+N&rft.au=Swing+EL&rft.au=Bushman+BJ&rft.au=Sakamoto+A&rft.au=Rothstein+HR&rft.au=Saleem+M&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, Rothstein HR, & Saleem M (2010). "Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review." <span style="font-style: italic;">Psychological bulletin, 136</span> (2), 151-73 PMID: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192553" rev="review">20192553</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+Pediatrics&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.jpeds.2008.11.033&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+Public+Health+Risks+of+Media+Violence%3A+A+Meta-Analytic+Review&rft.issn=00223476&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=154&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=759&rft.epage=763&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0022347608010378&rft.au=Ferguson%2C+C.&rft.au=Kilburn%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Ferguson, C., & Kilburn, J. (2009). "The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review." <span style="font-style: italic;">The Journal of Pediatrics, 154</span> (5), 759-763 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033" rev="review">10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Personality+and+Social+Psychology+Bulletin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1177%2F0146167213520459&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Video+Games+Do+Affect+Social+Outcomes%3A+A+Meta-Analytic+Review+of+the+Effects+of+Violent+and+Prosocial+Video+Game+Play&rft.issn=0146-1672&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=578&rft.epage=589&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fpsp.sagepub.com%2Fcgi%2Fdoi%2F10.1177%2F0146167213520459&rft.au=Greitemeyer%2C+T.&rft.au=Mugge%2C+D.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Greitemeyer, T., & Mugge, D. (2014). "Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play." <span style="font-style: italic;">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40</span> (5), 578-589 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213520459" rev="review">10.1177/0146167213520459</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Bulletin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fa0018567&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Nailing+the+coffin+shut+on+doubts+that+violent+video+games+stimulate+aggression%3A+Comment+on+Anderson+et+al.+%282010%29.&rft.issn=1939-1455&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=136&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=181&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2Fa0018567&rft.au=Huesmann%2C+L.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Huesmann, L. (2010). "Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010)." <span style="font-style: italic;">Psychological Bulletin, 136</span> (2), 179-181 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018567" rev="review">10.1037/a0018567</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Bulletin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fa0018567&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Nailing+the+coffin+shut+on+doubts+that+violent+video+games+stimulate+aggression%3A+Comment+on+Anderson+et+al.+%282010%29.&rft.issn=1939-1455&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=136&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=181&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2Fa0018567&rft.au=Huesmann%2C+L.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience"><i>Sherry (2007) was omitted from the sources since I couldn't find the DOI. This source is problematic for several reasons, including its lack of accessibility. I may consider omitting it from the article in the future depending on whether or not it becomes problematic.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Bulletin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fa0018567&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Nailing+the+coffin+shut+on+doubts+that+violent+video+games+stimulate+aggression%3A+Comment+on+Anderson+et+al.+%282010%29.&rft.issn=1939-1455&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=136&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=181&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2Fa0018567&rft.au=Huesmann%2C+L.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Psychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience"><i>*Additional studies have been mentioned in the comments section. I would suggest giving them a look to get a full review of the literature, as the above article is not comprehensive.* </i></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-31252209609479760812014-12-11T20:27:00.001-05:002015-01-28T15:16:51.169-05:00Depression And Stress/Mood Disorders: Causes Of Repetitive Negative Thinking And Ruminations<i>This is an article I've been working on for a long time, and have just managed to find the right encouragement to finish it due to recent research in the subject. Unlike most of my research articles, this one is specifically for someone who is very important to me, and by extension everyone who suffers from repetitive negative thinking but aren't sure why. I'm hoping it will improve their understanding, or just help them in some way, in figuring out the potential causes or cures for their symptoms.</i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSF2SXVUtqPLPfAVgAFUesr1vzwnCKlvPgHov2Td_y7f5H2sx6dg6UiBXzFpCbJzQOQqh3I3_-2-p_AxhWIRp0JYqb-ne2SXQFVZ2eQvUhgqWX2iYltBoU5En4FCF5rVaXnvqnC4X0PBI/s1600/negative-thinking-61.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSF2SXVUtqPLPfAVgAFUesr1vzwnCKlvPgHov2Td_y7f5H2sx6dg6UiBXzFpCbJzQOQqh3I3_-2-p_AxhWIRp0JYqb-ne2SXQFVZ2eQvUhgqWX2iYltBoU5En4FCF5rVaXnvqnC4X0PBI/s1600/negative-thinking-61.jpg" height="245" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not always in snippets like this, but just as cluttering.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If I were to pinpoint the one general topic that brought me into psychology, it would be mood disorders. Mood disorders, such as depression or mania, have always been of great interest to me, primarily because many people I have known have suffered from them, including myself. The people who read this who have shared such experiences know that these types of things are not something a person just cures or recovers from: one learns to cope with them, and adaptation is often spontaneous or a result of <i>ad hoc</i> motivations and encouragements. Still, even during these more constructive times, symptoms will still persist. One of these, which is quite familiar to me and many others, would be repetitive negative thinking, or RNT.<br />
<br />
While most people would just describe this as a general descriptor of how they feel or what they're going through, it's actually a clinically significant term that lends a lot of research in the field of psychology. RNT is <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Cognitive_Behavioural_Processes_Across_P.html?id=S2A4AQAAIAAJ">defined as</a> abstract, perseverative, negative focus on one's problems and experiences that is difficult to control. RNT <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672052/">has been found</a> to prolong negative affect, or the character trait of having negative emotions, and impair cognitive, behavioural and interpersonal performance. Individuals who suffer from RNT usually develop it during adolescence, after which it becomes <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17324030/">difficult to stop</a>. This is very important for clinical purposes, as it informs the priorities in intervention and prevention of RNT. <br />
<br />
RNT has been associated with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672052/">numerous stress and mood disorders</a>, including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and social anxiety disorder. While repetitive thought (RT) is generalized and can have either positive or negative consequences, RNT can be reliably distinguished from other RTs such as obsession or functional repetitious thoughts, thus many have supported it as <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2009-03669-003">a transdiagnostic process</a>. This implies that it is of clinical and theoretical significance and interest, and has led many researchers to consider causes or risk factors for RNT, but the research is still open, one reason being that researchers do not always approach RNT from the same perspective or measurement. In this post, I would like to address primarily the risk factors for RNT and its similar descriptor, ruminations, and possible preventative measures or cures. The reason for this is while RNT is symptomatic of individuals with mood or stress disorders, it is also in itself <a href="http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327%2813%2900492-8/abstract">a risk factor</a> for those disorders, and so treating it as early as possible can be crucial for childhood development and adolescence.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSwAfAeDVTG5DYsadqzc4c0HkWtT6nnveEJR3605frT-P4HasdB6uR3kztYWA0YqYoXioSFKU4p2Z6UGhq2EJKYuz36f5XxT_NCFsyo2e8BB0UR0PFc3a46dIoO2FRDcKWv_wUTDWPhGs/s1600/220px-Inside_my_head_cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSwAfAeDVTG5DYsadqzc4c0HkWtT6nnveEJR3605frT-P4HasdB6uR3kztYWA0YqYoXioSFKU4p2Z6UGhq2EJKYuz36f5XxT_NCFsyo2e8BB0UR0PFc3a46dIoO2FRDcKWv_wUTDWPhGs/s1600/220px-Inside_my_head_cropped.jpg" /></a></div>
One risk factor for RNT and ruminations is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22077906">early family context and child temperament</a>. Early family contexts which are characterized by over-controlling parenting or negative-submissive expression predict high levels of RNT -- or as its characterized in the study, adolescent ruminations. Further, child temperament moderates this association. Children with negative affect and low levels of effortful control, the ability to suppress a dominant response to perform a subdominant response, show an additional influence on adolescent rumination. This means that children who are prone to think negatively, but are less likely to suppress domineering behaviour from their parents, will be at even greater risk of adolescent rumination than children who only have the early family context. To counter this, some researchers <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16865031">have suggested</a> that intervention models are preferable, and that intervention should occur as soon as possible to prevent the development of ruminations.<br />
<br />
Another risk factor is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253178/">being the child of a depressed mother</a>. Children of mothers who have a history of major depression are at higher risk for ruminations than children with mothers who have no such history. This also coincides with prior research which shows that children of mothers with depression are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17716050/">3-4 times more likely</a> to be diagnosed with depression as well. In addition, children who have past histories of depressive episodes and ruminations are more likely to exhibit such behaviours currently than those who have no such history. The nature of these relationships has been suggested as environmental in nature, as the study at the beginning of this paragraph suggests, or genetic. The most popular explanation for the latter association is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1757671/">responsive</a>, meaning that how you respond to your own depressive behaviours can have prolonging effects.<br />
<br />
The genetic explanation is not without evidence, though, in a general sense. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2011.00715.x/pdf">Research has examined</a> the relationship between the serotonin transporter polymorphism 5-HTTLPR, the brain-deprived neurotropic factor polymorphism BDNF Val66Met, and ruminations. Individuals with two short alleles of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism or two Met alleles of the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism have been shown to ruminate more under conditions of life stress than those with other genotypes. Furthermore, accumulation of these risk alleles across genes is associated with higher levels of rumination. This suggests that these two polymorphisms moderate the relationship between life stress and ruminations.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrmjpViRVgNHr2mcuL64RNm4bSBMTPGfwnDRpTmHhJ-jpuFVJSjyfWCmAMMg3-POINlPwCFsb2C4UUeSjE4jM_KBbhbFAdYz-KcHaX1WmRbV42r2pgdwXSaR6vm6wVsU3idC9cmZoCp2c/s1600/16depressive.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrmjpViRVgNHr2mcuL64RNm4bSBMTPGfwnDRpTmHhJ-jpuFVJSjyfWCmAMMg3-POINlPwCFsb2C4UUeSjE4jM_KBbhbFAdYz-KcHaX1WmRbV42r2pgdwXSaR6vm6wVsU3idC9cmZoCp2c/s1600/16depressive.gif" height="215" width="320" /></a></div>
One final risk factor for RNT is <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1025679223514#page-1">gender</a>. Women are much more likely to ruminate than men, specifically during depression. While it has been suggested that men are more likely to attempt to distract themselves during depression, this has not been substantially supported by the data, and would still be consistent with the maintenance theory; that is, ruminations may serve as a distraction from depressive symptoms. In addition to its particular applicability here, the higher risk for RNT in women may also explain the higher prevalence of depression in women than in men.<br />
<br />
The reasons for expressing RNT are numerous, but this doesn't get to how to prevent it. As mentioned earlier, some researchers have suggested that intervention methods at an early age would be most effective, since RNT is persistent and can start to develop as early as preschool. This seems to be the most favoured approach, however what of individuals who suffer from RNT but are too old for intervention methods, or individuals who received intervention but still exhibit RNT? What can be done for them?<br />
<br />
Working off the maintenance theory, cognitive avoidance strategies may have a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0887618595000026">paradoxical effect</a> on RNT. Individuals who try to place emphasis on suppressing RNT and ruminations unintentionally place greater focus on the thoughts themselves, and make it harder to get rid of them. In addition, by increasing their likelihood of reoccurring or persisting, avoidance strategies have negative long-term consequences by decreasing the individuals experience in coping or dealing with RNT. This suggests that the best way to deal with RNT is not to suppress the thoughts, but reflect on them; and as ruminations are characterized by focusing on the consequences of certain events and actions, to try to "think positive," which is, of course, easier said than done.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_J-zQfJ9Ddqkv2j7RFlvqYuei9K4Mmb0WvWetGwH9aGwn-C9sH1uYrhoTn69SB8nbruox3wHLiFDcm1g3wtib40TZPiJ_kwwl9V0cCAhbC9Aiy6gCQogIex6GBYL5S-Ekaeh-puqXcdI/s1600/dog_sleeping.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_J-zQfJ9Ddqkv2j7RFlvqYuei9K4Mmb0WvWetGwH9aGwn-C9sH1uYrhoTn69SB8nbruox3wHLiFDcm1g3wtib40TZPiJ_kwwl9V0cCAhbC9Aiy6gCQogIex6GBYL5S-Ekaeh-puqXcdI/s1600/dog_sleeping.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Or, you could just look at this...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Recent research suggests that <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10608-014-9651-7">sleep</a> may be able to moderate RNT, and that RNT is associated with both timing of sleep and sleep duration. Individuals who go to bed later, or individuals who sleep less, are at higher risk for ruminations than individuals who go to bed earlier, or sleep longer. This association exists in both individuals with disorder-specific ruminations or from a transdiagnostic approach. While this may only suggest that individuals who suffer from RNT get less sleep or take longer to fall asleep, the opposite is just as likely to be true. This gives a lot of agency to all individuals who suffer from RNT, and is thus, in my view, a good approach to take to moderate ruminations.<br />
<br />
Finally, it may be good to just <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260108603093">talk about things</a>; thinking and talking about persistent negative thoughts, in the right circumstances, can result in healthier individuals. Healthy self-disclosure can be beneficial to individuals suffering from RNT if their experiences sharing their feelings result in an increased understanding about the source of one's problems; in which case, I hope this article helps in itself. Individuals who disclose their feelings in the context of supportive relationships can experience growth and benefit in dealing with RNT and ruminations, and so confession can be a viable option for individuals suffering from them.<br />
<br />
More research needs to be conducted concerning the causes of RNT; however, multiple associations have been made, and some of the ones discussed in this article are quite rigorous in nature. Multifaceted approaches in examining the causes of RNT may help reconcile for the differences between disorder-specific research and transdiagnostic approaches. This can help us better understand the nature of this affliction and improve our resources in knowing how to deal with or prevent them, so as to develop the onset of depression and other mood/stress disorders as well as promote healthier, happier individuals.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a>Sources:<br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Genes%2C+Brain+and+Behavior&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1601-183X.2011.00715.x&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=5-HTTLPR+and+BDNF+Val66Met+polymorphisms+moderate+effects+of+stress+on+rumination.&rft.issn=16011848&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=740&rft.epage=746&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.wiley.com%2F10.1111%2Fj.1601-183X.2011.00715.x&rft.au=Clasen%2C+P.&rft.au=Wells%2C+T.&rft.au=Knopik%2C+V.&rft.au=McGeary%2C+J.&rft.au=Beevers%2C+C.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Clasen, P., Wells, T., Knopik, V., McGeary, J., & Beevers, C. (2011). 5-HTTLPR and BDNF Val66Met polymorphisms moderate effects of stress on rumination. <span style="font-style: italic;">Genes, Brain and Behavior, 10</span> (7), 740-746 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2011.00715.x" rev="review">10.1111/j.1601-183X.2011.00715.x</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Developmental+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2Fa0019813&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+influence+of+child+gender+role+and+maternal+feedback+to+child+stress+on+the+emergence+of+the+gender+difference+in+depressive+rumination+in+adolescence.&rft.issn=1939-0599&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=842&rft.epage=852&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2Fa0019813&rft.au=Cox%2C+S.&rft.au=Mezulis%2C+A.&rft.au=Hyde%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Cox, S., Mezulis, A., & Hyde, J. (2010). The influence of child gender role and maternal feedback to child stress on the emergence of the gender difference in depressive rumination in adolescence. <span style="font-style: italic;">Developmental Psychology, 46</span> (4), 842-852 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019813" rev="review">10.1037/a0019813</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Cognitive+Therapy&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1680%2Fijct.2008.1.3.192&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Repetitive+Negative+Thinking+as+a+Transdiagnostic+Process.&rft.issn=1937-1209&rft.date=2008&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=192&rft.epage=205&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atypon-link.com%2FGPI%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1680%2Fijct.2008.1.3.192&rft.au=Ehring%2C+T.&rft.au=Watkins%2C+E.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Ehring, T., & Watkins, E. (2008). Repetitive Negative Thinking as a Transdiagnostic Process. <span style="font-style: italic;">International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 1</span> (3), 192-205 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ijct.2008.1.3.192" rev="review">10.1680/ijct.2008.1.3.192</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Anxiety+Disorders&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2F0887-6185%2895%2900002-6&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Strategies+used+with+intrusive+thoughts%3A+Context%2C+appraisal%2C+mood%2C+and+efficacy.&rft.issn=08876185&rft.date=1995&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=201&rft.epage=215&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2F0887618595000026&rft.au=Freeston%2C+M.&rft.au=Ladouceur%2C+R.&rft.au=Provencher%2C+M.&rft.au=Blais%2C+F.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Freeston, M., Ladouceur, R., Provencher, M., & Blais, F. (1995). Strategies used with intrusive thoughts: Context, appraisal, mood, and efficacy. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 9</span> (3), 201-215 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0887-6185(95)00002-6" rev="review">10.1016/0887-6185(95)00002-6</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Abnormal+Child+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1007%2Fs10802-011-9554-y&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Brooding+Rumination+and+Risk+for+Depressive+Disorders+in+Children+of+Depressed+Mothers.&rft.issn=0091-0627&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=317&rft.epage=326&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1007%2Fs10802-011-9554-y&rft.au=Gibb%2C+B.&rft.au=Grassia%2C+M.&rft.au=Stone%2C+L.&rft.au=Uhrlass%2C+D.&rft.au=McGeary%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Gibb, B., Grassia, M., Stone, L., Uhrlass, D., & McGeary, J. (2011). Brooding Rumination and Risk for Depressive Disorders in Children of Depressed Mothers. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40</span> (2), 317-326 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9554-y" rev="review">10.1007/s10802-011-9554-y</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Cognition+%26+Emotion&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F02699931.2011.621932&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Early+family+context+and+development+of+adolescent+ruminative+style%3A+Moderation+by+temperament.&rft.issn=0269-9931&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=916&rft.epage=926&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F02699931.2011.621932&rft.au=Hilt%2C+L.&rft.au=Armstrong%2C+J.&rft.au=Essex%2C+M.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Hilt, L., Armstrong, J., & Essex, M. (2012). Early family context and development of adolescent ruminative style: Moderation by temperament. <span style="font-style: italic;">Cognition & Emotion, 26</span> (5), 916-926 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.621932" rev="review">10.1080/02699931.2011.621932</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Child+%26+Adolescent+Psychiatry&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1097%2F01.chi.0000222878.74162.5a&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Contextual+Emotion-Regulation+Therapy+for+Childhood+Depression%3A+Description+and+Pilot+Testing+of+a+New+Intervention.&rft.issn=08908567&rft.date=2006&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=892&rft.epage=903&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS089085670961889X&rft.au=KOVACS%2C+M.&rft.au=SHERRILL%2C+J.&rft.au=GEORGE%2C+C.&rft.au=POLLOCK%2C+M.&rft.au=TUMULURU%2C+R.&rft.au=HO%2C+V.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">KOVACS, M., SHERRILL, J., GEORGE, C., POLLOCK, M., TUMULURU, R., & HO, V. (2006). Contextual Emotion-Regulation Therapy for Childhood Depression: Description and Pilot Testing of a New Intervention. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45</span> (8), 892-903 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000222878.74162.5a" rev="review">10.1097/01.chi.0000222878.74162.5a</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Affective+Disorders&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.jad.2013.06.014&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+relationship+between+worry%2C+rumination%2C+and+comorbidity%3A+Evidence+for+repetitive+negative+thinking+as+a+transdiagnostic+construct.&rft.issn=01650327&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=313&rft.epage=320&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0165032713004928&rft.au=McEvoy%2C+P.&rft.au=Watson%2C+H.&rft.au=Watkins%2C+E.&rft.au=Nathan%2C+P.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">McEvoy, P., Watson, H., Watkins, E., & Nathan, P. (2013). The relationship between worry, rumination, and comorbidity: Evidence for repetitive negative thinking as a transdiagnostic construct. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Affective Disorders, 151</span> (1), 313-320 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.014" rev="review">10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.014</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F%2F0021-843X.100.4.569&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Responses+to+depression+and+their+effects+on+the+duration+of+depressive+episodes.&rft.issn=0021-843X&rft.date=1991&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=569&rft.epage=582&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2F0021-843X.100.4.569&rft.au=Nolen-Hoeksema%2C+S.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100</span> (4), 569-582 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.100.4.569" rev="review">10.1037//0021-843X.100.4.569</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Abnormal+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0021-843X.116.1.198&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Reciprocal+relations+between+rumination+and+bulimic%2C+substance+abuse%2C+and+depressive+symptoms+in+female+adolescents.&rft.issn=1939-1846&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=116&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=198&rft.epage=207&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2F0021-843X.116.1.198&rft.au=Nolen-Hoeksema%2C+S.&rft.au=Stice%2C+E.&rft.au=Wade%2C+E.&rft.au=Bohon%2C+C.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Stice, E., Wade, E., & Bohon, C. (2007). Reciprocal relations between rumination and bulimic, substance abuse, and depressive symptoms in female adolescents. <span style="font-style: italic;">Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116</span> (1), 198-207 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.198" rev="review">10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.198</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Cognitive+Therapy+and+Research&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1007%2Fs10608-014-9651-7&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Duration+and+Timing+of+Sleep+are+Associated+with+Repetitive+Negative+Thinking.&rft.issn=0147-5916&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1007%2Fs10608-014-9651-7&rft.au=Nota%2C+J.&rft.au=Coles%2C+M.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Nota, J., & Coles, M. (2014). Duration and Timing of Sleep are Associated with Repetitive Negative Thinking. <span style="font-style: italic;">Cognitive Therapy and Research</span> DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9651-7" rev="review">10.1007/s10608-014-9651-7</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Sex+Roles&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1025679223514&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Response+Style+Theory+Revisited%3A+Gender+Differences+and+Stereotypes+in+Rumination+and+Distraction.&rft.issn=03600025&rft.date=1997&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=11%2F12&rft.spage=771&rft.epage=792&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1025679223514&rft.au=Strauss%2C+J.&rft.au=Muday%2C+T.&rft.au=McNall%2C+K.&rft.au=Wong%2C+M.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Strauss, J., Muday, T., McNall, K., & Wong, M. (1997). Response Style Theory Revisited: Gender Differences and Stereotypes in Rumination and Distraction. <span style="font-style: italic;">Sex Roles, 36</span> (11/12), 771-792 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025679223514" rev="review">10.1023/A:1025679223514</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Bulletin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1037%2F0033-2909.134.2.163&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Constructive+and+unconstructive+repetitive+thought.&rft.issn=1939-1455&rft.date=2008&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=206&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.apa.org%2Fgetdoi.cfm%3Fdoi%3D10.1037%2F0033-2909.134.2.163&rft.au=Watkins%2C+E.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Watkins, E. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. <span style="font-style: italic;">Psychological Bulletin, 134</span> (2), 163-206 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163" rev="review">10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163</a></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-18889991709972956492014-12-06T22:36:00.004-05:002014-12-10T18:51:56.052-05:00RE: How to Paint Yourself Into A Corner on Race Realism -- A ReflectionThis evening, Spawktalk, who goes by the name of Sean Last for The Right Stuff (TRS), <a href="http://therightstuff.biz/2014/12/06/how-to-paint-yourself-into-a-corner-on-race-realism/">wrote a rebuttal</a> to my first post on the topic of race, <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/01/lewontins-fallacy-and-race.html">"Lewontin's Fallacy" and Race</a>. As I explained in the comments on his article, I've opted not to reply for a multitude of reasons, but am still interested in writing a reflection on the discussion we had. First, though, I want to talk about my experiences reading the article first.<br />
<br />
Having been familiar with the kind of articles TRS produces, I was honestly a bit nervous. They're typically, even as Sean admitted, quite inflammatory and hostile, especially towards liberals (which, I suppose, is what they might see me as, though I'd disagree). I was surprised to find that the only things that caused my brow to furrow while reading his article were the title (which Michael Enoch admitted was not Sean's doing) and the subtexts under the pictures (which were funnier than they were offensive). It was a pleasant surprise, although it really shouldn't have been. My exchange with Sean was quite friendly, and so I shouldn't have suspected his rebuttal to be much different.<br />
<br />
The comments were even more surprising, at least initially. My experiences on TRS have told me that the commenters can and will be very vicious in their responses, and can quickly reject any type of reasoned discussion in exchange for aggression and toxicity. This was by far not the case tonight. The commenters were friendly, gracious, and quite nice to speak to. As one commenter expressed, it was a real breath of fresh air. As I said there as well, there's no reason that people of different views can't have a friendly discussion. While this was initially the case, now the comments seem to have devolved into the typical exchange I'd expect there. It's a shame, but what can you do?<br />
<br />
To reflect on the discussion itself, it was quite enjoyable. Sean brought up some interesting points, and there were moments where I had to concede to his arguments, and ultimately I took away some new perspectives; namely how race realists typically define "race." To Sean, race does retain a degree of arbitration, and it is only one of a multiplicity of ways in which someone can examine human genetic variation. I came to realize this isn't entirely inconsistent with my own views; the conclusions we draw, however, regarding the significance of racial categories, or whether or not those categories are objective or biological in nature, is what we ended up having to agree to disagree on.<br />
<br />
A lot of the points in the article seemed to be things I've addressed already, either in response to commenters or in sections of my other posts on the topic. Sean and I do fundamentally disagree on one factor which I think is important to bring up. Say, for example, that the social ramifications of racial categories is what has caused group differentials in IQ. To Sean, this is still a validation of race as a human taxonomy. To me, this is evidence of social construction, specifically <i>not</i> of biological validation. I don't see us reconciling this difference in interpretation, but I think it's interesting to note the stark contrast between the conclusions we drew from the same point. It just further shows the complication behind this subject.<br />
<br />
Sean also brought up a point about the AAA, AAPA and HGP's definitions of race, and how they are problematic given race realists' definition of race. I absolutely agree, and I emailed the AAA on their article expressing my concerns. I've yet to receive a reply, and so I hope others will ask too, demanding a higher priority on the question. At the same time, Sean and I disagree on our trust in these organizations. I trust the consensus view of anthropologists while Sean is cynical of them. While I believe that these organizations have a much greater advantage in terms of access to scientific literature regarding the subject, Sean believes our access is comparable to theirs. Again, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.<br />
<br />
I don't think that Sean fully understands what I mean when I talk about the social or cultural construction of race, and so I'll clarify my views here. When one speaks about the social construction of race, we are drawing attention to its origins, its modern usage, and its social ramifications. One could argue that all things are socially constructed, but this is usually very uninformative. For example, we can talk about the social construction of a hammer; however, hammers were explicitly invented by humans, and so we naturally define what it is and what qualifies as a hammer. We could also talk about the social construction of grass, but this has a pretty universal consensus. Having said all of that, I do not believe that "race" as a general taxonomy is overwhelmingly a social construct. When I say that race is a social construct, I mean that our decision as to what groups of humans qualify as different races is socially constructed; that is, the classification itself is not overwhelmingly a social construct, but what people we choose to put into that classification (for humans, anyway) is. Another way to put it: race is "a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation" (Relethford 2009). I love that quote.<br />
<br />
If I think of anything else to say about our exchange, I'll just keep adding it onto this post. All in all, I enjoyed the past two months of discussion over this topic, though there were major time gaps between our replies. I think that Sean puts a lot of thought into the responses he makes, and as I stated on his article, I greatly respect his intellect and passion for the subject. He seems to be, to me, an intellectually honest person, and I hope that he dedicates his time and effort to a related field of study later on in his career. While I personally believe racial categorization is problematic and mostly uninformative, there is no reason to stop someone who disagrees from contributing to the academic discussion over this issue. Our disagreement is based on our experiences, and so a shared experience in the future might bring us and like-minded individuals closer to an agreement.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-37901981089089055762014-12-03T23:48:00.005-05:002015-02-01T17:59:49.899-05:00The Legality And Suitability of President Obama's Immigration Executive Actions<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions in order to address our broken immigration system. This series of executive actions entails a broad array of initiatives, including expanding upon the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the establishment of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, the expansion of usage of provisional waivers, and a series of initiatives which aim to improve, clarify and modernize immigrant/nonimmigrant programs and promote education and awareness of the naturalization process <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction">[1]</a>. This series of initiatives have not yet been implemented. They also do not aim to permanently establish immigration law; rather, it is a temporary solution until a comprehensive reform is passed by Congress and signed by the President; as the President stated the night he announced his actions: "And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our
immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting
where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill" <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration">[2]</a>.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the President's actions have stirred up much disapproval (as is to be expected), with people claiming the actions as unconstitutional and, as of the time I'm writing this article, a coalition of 17 states intending to "sue" the Obama administration <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2014/December/Testimony-Presidents-Executive-Action-Not-Constitutional/">[3]</a><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/texas-leads-17-states-suing-obama-administration-over-immigration-action-n260956">[4]</a>. Arguments against the President claim that his unilateral action is an unprecedented seizure of power, are unconstitutional, and are even contradictory, citing past times where the President stated he would not and could not constitutionally change immigration law. Others anticipate the legal, political and demographic consequences of the President's actions with reproachfulness. Just as many reflect on how few people approve of these initiatives. Ultimately, the President's actions have sparked much controversy, and people are trying to make sense of the whole ordeal, all the while keep up with the latest political retaliations.<br />
<br />
I will address all of these concerns and accusations within the contents of this post, as well as provide my own take on the situation. Prior to doing so, however, I must organize this into something that will actually make sense to people who aren't familiar with the issue. This post will order as such:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHiBS60VTb1sBONvA5XuwyQ2kxzY1DWb6NSQIx3DtA5dfksrFepL7psY-bImDUwuoDmRfZcBriEDAjCHrxYF4Oob9kF4chGYSpmKZkJdzdA643X64o5I3irG7ylJjf0qMbPEEu4U8T4OMr/s1600/1141114_obama_629_pete_souza_1160x629.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHiBS60VTb1sBONvA5XuwyQ2kxzY1DWb6NSQIx3DtA5dfksrFepL7psY-bImDUwuoDmRfZcBriEDAjCHrxYF4Oob9kF4chGYSpmKZkJdzdA643X64o5I3irG7ylJjf0qMbPEEu4U8T4OMr/s1600/1141114_obama_629_pete_souza_1160x629.jpg" height="215" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"We've got some shit to clear up." - President Barack Obama, Dec. 3 [Joke]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
1: The background and history preluding the President's actions.<br />
2: The case for the legality and suitability behind the President's actions.<br />
3: The details of the initiatives set forth by the President's actions<br />
4: The misconceptions and arguments against the President's actions.<br />
5: The predicted/suggested actions Republicans in Congress will/should take.<br />
<br />
This post will not be comprehensive. It will be a summation of what I personally believe to be the most important points to bring up regarding the issue in a way that sheds light on the current situation and may help people come to their own conclusions. Likewise, this is not definitively the 'answer' to the issue. This is just my take, which will naturally have its own flaws and shortcomings. I do not expect to end any debate on this issue, and I hardly expect anyone to completely change their mind; however, I have seen many people slowly become more sympathetic to the President's initiatives after healing all the details that seem to elude the common public/media limelight. I anticipate this shall be no different, and am hoping to hear from people who have benefited from this post.<br />
<br />
I welcome discussion and critique. Please remain cordial and read the Comment Guidelines before continuing.<br />
<br />
<b>Background And History</b><br />
<br />
As of 2013, the Obama administration reached a record number of 438,421 undocumented immigrants deported <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/">[5]</a>. Many see this as a good thing, but many bad as well. To me, this is a reflection of flawed immigration policy. It's a desperate effort to reconcile the growing number of undocumented immigrants in the United States, the public and political unrest in response, and the lack of any comprehensive immigration reform being passed by Congress. Buchanan would call it a "State of Emergency," and I might agree, but for different reasons. The Obama administration's record deportations has resulted in major constituency disappointment, with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus criticizing the administration's actions and the majority of the Hispanic electorate expressing disapproval <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/under-pressure-obama-calls-for-immigration-enforcement-review/">[6]</a><a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/11/americans-split-on-deportations-as-latinos-press-obama-on-issue/">[7]</a>. While some people might not appreciate this sentiment, it is of political importance. Any President, Obama not excluded, must gain 36-40% of the Hispanic vote in order to win. By winning that segment, the President owes a lot of responsibility for catering to his Hispanic constituents. Not doing so would lead to a devastation of the Democratic Party's success in the next presidential election. I will touch up on why and how this applies to the Republican Party as well later on.<br />
<br />
All things considered, immigration policy is a national issue. It is a source of division among the American public and represents a pressing issue regarding how we handle our international constituencies as well as the electorate at home. Playing the wrong cards can lead to a dramatic failure for the party held responsible by the public at large. That said, reform is urgent, and attempts have not succeeded in recent years.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ1mkAIEXJbwxV3YrZ2OyGTBuWBIB-oMq0mhhSZfdNvXZBh67jFN9R3ntHlqdXljhYV9-LJ-1fFa1PXrvOcn1KSUTA6pvW4s4cTYk8tkGY1H33g2S31UB29z2QyrbhKQEgfVocVV_E-oyL/s1600/dream-act.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ1mkAIEXJbwxV3YrZ2OyGTBuWBIB-oMq0mhhSZfdNvXZBh67jFN9R3ntHlqdXljhYV9-LJ-1fFa1PXrvOcn1KSUTA6pvW4s4cTYk8tkGY1H33g2S31UB29z2QyrbhKQEgfVocVV_E-oyL/s1600/dream-act.jpg" height="228" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It didn't work.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Consider the DREAM Act, which in all of its manifestations has been lingering around since as early as 2001. The aim of the DREAM Act was to give permanent residency to minors who were of good moral standing, had graduated from U.S. high schools and had lived in the United States for at least five years prior to its enactment <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/729">[8]</a>. There also existed provisions for temporary residency and other benefits for alternative qualifications such as serving in the military. Many renditions of the bill up until 2012 had been debated, altered, batted around the Senate and the House with one version of the bill being passed in the House in 2010 <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40567180/ns/politics-capitol_hill#.VH-r-Mmmve4">[9]</a>, but ultimately nothing being done; thus in response to the DREAM Act's failure, on June 15, 2012, the President announced that his administration would stop deporting young illegal aliens who fit the criteria that would have been applied by the act <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html?hpt=hp_t1">[10]</a>. Exactly two months later, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications under the DACA, which shares great similarities with the DREAM Act.<br />
<br />
Complaints about this move were made by many who opposed the Obama administration's policies on immigration, and the criticisms were similar to what we see today with the issue in question. After the President stated that he would not try to change immigration law, many supposed that that's exactly what he did. Many thus claimed illegality, hypocrisy, attempts to circumvent the law-making process; the Arizona state governor even passed his own executive order in response <a href="http://www.natlawreview.com/article/arizona-responds-to-deferred-action-program-blocking-privileges-dreamers">[11]</a>. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent out a memo to immigration, borders and customs officials stating to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the criteria set out by the DACA. The same exercise of selective enforcement is being used now to justify the President's executive actions.<br />
<br />
We will get to this in the critique section; for now, it is only important to note that this up and back is not a recent phenomenon. Dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's immigration policy and means of implementing it are engrained in his presidency, and this comes from both the left and right. The legality of the DACA is not my concern, although this academic consensus (from personal experience and research) is that it was within the confines of the law. This post is only addressing the concerns of legality over the President's recent executive actions, which is the case I will make in the next segment.<br />
<br />
<b>Legality Of The President's Executive Actions </b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdcuQin7im3Nxx0SFhctDInbAiJIeDjYNEcPngQLjnZ0_rzcqqV6IaIbUmgA2rSNO1bCoxNWDlFnW7kdMdzX8Lp5f4cdEyegdE_e94dFwwS8iGzODRcrw2zq1yQHE3zq40NzI1RV_-GcZj/s1600/Colorado-law-book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdcuQin7im3Nxx0SFhctDInbAiJIeDjYNEcPngQLjnZ0_rzcqqV6IaIbUmgA2rSNO1bCoxNWDlFnW7kdMdzX8Lp5f4cdEyegdE_e94dFwwS8iGzODRcrw2zq1yQHE3zq40NzI1RV_-GcZj/s1600/Colorado-law-book.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Break open the books!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Before we address the legal basis for the President's actions, I should first clarify on one point that I see many conservatives bringing up. Piecemeal quoting of the President has been passed around and even used to question (interrogate) the current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson on the legality of the executive actions <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/02/jason_chaffetz_confronts_dhs_secretary_johnson_on_immigration.html">[12]</a>. Johnson expressed his own skepticism of the quotes being used, and I can see why. The most common one in question is where President Obama stated to dissenters "I just took action to change the law." Many are interpreting this as the President's explicit admittance that, despite him saying before that he can't change the law, he did it anyway. This is not what this means. "Taking an action to change the law" is not the same as "changing the law," much in the same way that "taking an action to end world hunger" is not the same as "ending world hunger." The President fully acknowledged that what he is doing is not changing the law, but is instead providing an incentive for Congress to pass their own bill. This is a temporary solution - one that Republicans in Congress would be smart to revise or replace, and again I will explain why later on. For now, it just seemed important for me to get this semantic debate out of the way and get to the substantive part of the legal arguments.<br />
<br />
So the question stands, are the President's actions legally defensible? My answer is yes. One can use both a theoretical yet pragmatic basis for this argument, or a literal, legal one. I will begin with presidential theory.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Theoretical Justification</b></i> <br />
<br />
The history of the President's unilateral action in policy making is not recent. The President has always acted unilaterally; one only needs to look at the Louisiana Purchase, emancipation of slaves, Japanese internment, military desegregation, affirmative action or regulatory review to get the most well-known and understood examples of this <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~whowell/papers/UnilateralAction.pdf">[13]</a>. The reason for this is that the unilateral powers of the presidency are not explicitly stated in the formal structure of the American government, which has led most people to associate the presidency with only the expressed powers granted to it by the Constitution. This lack of specification allows the President to act in ways that he assumes powers which are not explicitly granted to him, but are abdicated by the other branches of government in times where broad delegations of authority may be seen as preferable by lawmakers. Situations where this may happen include when their policy goals are consistent with the president's, when they are dependent on the experience/expertise of the administration, when they find it fashionable or preferable to shift responsibility and accountability to the executive, when Congress fails to come up with any specific preferences for policy action, when decent policy is impossible to design without assigning broad powers to the executive, or when certain policies require the speed, flexibility and secrecy that can only be found in unilateral presidential action in order to be successful.<br />
<br />
The latter is exactly what we see, for example, when we look at presidential war powers. Congress, despite having made efforts in the past to provide clear outlines for presidential war powers and under what situations they require deference to Congressional authorization <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp">[14]</a>, has slowly abdicated powers greatly to the president. At the same time that House Speaker John Boehner is stating that the President should seek Congressional authorization before initiating military action against ISIS, Congress is failing to come to any agreement on authorization <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/boehner-obama-war_n_5895742.html">[15]</a><a href="http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/boehner-obama-hasnt-requested-isis-war-authorization-pelosi-he-doesnt-need-one/?dcz=">[16]</a>. The reason is because Congress does not want such liabilities to be returned to them, and despite the claims by Republican leaders, they would rather him simply act on his own. Besides that point, the President has historically acted unilaterally in his exercise of war powers <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psq.12030/abstract">[17]</a>. <br />
<br />
Why are war powers relevant to this discussion? This is part of a consistent tug-o'-war between the branches of government for unilateral power which is inherently a part of the checks and balances system. Unilateral presidential action can be considered a theoretically viable, legal and preferable course of action in current times. One might disagree with the current imperative, but it can be argued on this basis that the President's executive actions are justifiable in accordance with the way the institutional presidency operates. This is the theoretical argument. Now we will turn to the legal one.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Legal Justification</b></i><br />
<br />
Here, we will return back to the concept of enforcement discretion. Enforcement discretion is the power of government officials to choose whether or how to punish an individual who has violated the law. Enforcement discretion is implemented most often for practical reasons. The most commonly used example of this is traffic violations, specifically speeding. Many people drive over the speed limit, and this goes to such an extent that police officers would find it impossible to ticket every individual who commits this particular traffic violation. Thus it behooves a police officer to only go after individuals who commit it to the most dangerous extent in the most extreme examples of reckless driving. Enforcement discretion exists in this way - where action is taken against some individuals and not others - or in such a way that enforcement of the law is only applied to some parts of it, but not others. In this case, we have millions of undocumented immigrants and a broken immigration system which cannot address the problem; thus, it may be reasonable for the DHS to exercise enforcement discretion in executive action. But is this legally justifiable? Again, the answer is (mostly) yes.<br />
<br />
With the number of people in the United States, all immigration violations cannot be addressed or prosecuted with the limited resources available. In such situations, going by historical precedent dating back as early as 1975, the Secretary of Homeland Security may defer to enforcement discretion <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf">[18]</a>. Said precedents were made in the context of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), but these powers were transferred to the DHS in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. As such, since these powers were transferred to the DHS - an executive agency - Congress also grants permission to the DHS to take discretionary action in the prosecution of the law, which is rooted in the President's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">[19]</a>, which reflects a recognition that "faithful" execution of the law does not necessarily entail "act[ing] against each technical violation of the statute" that the agency is charged with enforcing <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=470&invol=821">[20]</a>, consistent with the conditions of enforcement discretion. In the absence of legislative direction by Congress, an agency's non-enforcement determination is "a special province of the Executive."<br />
<br />
There are many legal conditions and precedents for the application of enforcement discretion and non-enforcement determination as it applies to immigration law, and clarifications on how deferred action differs from other enforcement discretion actions, but I won't get into that here. The DHS released a memorandum opinion on the matter to display the legal justification for the President's executive actions, which provides more detail <a href="http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf">[21]</a>. Suffice it to say, however, that there exists clear legal justification for the Executive to implement enforcement discretion when treating immigration law. This justification covers the DHS's proposed policies to prioritize removal of certain groups of illegal aliens in the United States as well as its proposed deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents There was actually another proposed deferred action, which would extend eligibility to parents of DACA recipients; however, this deferred action differed from others and did not seem to pursue precedents set by Congress, thus the DHS did not find it permissible under enforcement discretion. They did retain their authority, however, to issue such eligibility on an <i>ad hoc</i> basis. <br />
<br />
<b>Executive Actions on Immigration</b><br />
<br />
So now we know that the executive actions were legally justifiable. But what were they? The President's wording in his address to the American public didn't exactly clarify what the details were of the policy initiatives being set out. One thing I would like to comment on approvingly, however, is the President's use of Scripture, which conservatives criticized but were not overwhelmingly in agreement on to what extent they disliked it <a href="http://thedailybanter.com/2014/11/bill-oreilly-call-bullshit-ed-henrys-obama-immigration-speech-attack/">[22]</a>. It was a bold move which got a lot of attention, both approving and disapproving, from the public, but it was a genius one. Ed Henry is right that it was political salesmanship; but unlike Henry, I'm not stating that as a bad thing. It reveals how meticulous Obama and his speech writers were in paying attention to the precise wording of his public statement. I give kudos to him for that.<br />
<br />
Getting back on topic, what most people probably aren't familiar with are the specific actions set out by these initiatives. I'm going to cover those here, but if you want the same summary from a different source, please see the first link under "Sources" at the bottom.<br />
<br />
The first initiative expands upon the population which is eligible for deportation relief under the DACA. It allows individuals born prior to June 15, 1981 to apply for DACA eligibility provided they meet all of the requirements. These requirements are that they must have had continuous residence in the United States since January 1, 2010 - an extension of the previous June 15, 2007, must not be an enforcement prior, either be the parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident or be an individual who arrived in the U.S. prior to turning 16 years old, and there must not be present any factors which would make grant of deferred action inappropriate <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/how-president-obama-s-executive-action-impacts-undocumented-immigrants">[23]</a>. Applications are not being accepted yet and will not be for several months. This also encompasses the second initiative, which I will not detail separately to save time.<br />
<br />
The third initiative expands the provisional waiver program of 2013 to sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or the spouses, sons or daughters of lawful permanent residents. It also plans to clarify the meaning of the "extreme hardship" standard required for a waiver, which has been somewhat ambiguous and problematic up until now. Said clarification has not been made yet, but it is suggested to consider factors such as "family ties to the United States and the country of removal, conditions in the country of removal, the age of the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, the length of residence in the United States, relevant medical and mental health conditions, financial hardships, and educational hardships" <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_i601a_waiver.pdf">[24]</a>.<br />
<br />
The fourth initiative seeks to "modernize, improve and clarify immigrant and nonimmigrant programs to grow our economy and create jobs." I will also not review this initiative in full detail as it's rather long. The fifth and final initiative aims to promote the naturalization process by promoting citizenship education and public awareness for lawful permanent residents, allowing applicants to use credit cards to pay for the application fee, and assessing the potential for partial fee waivers in the next biennial fee study. In addition to these initiatives, the White House also notes that recent border crosses will be a deportation priority, and that you will not qualify if you commit fraud.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Kr3g8xoPAdAMkO36H0taRhKSgK8yZEwhwC6JsyNlBV7cL_afpVoWcwpN2B1cu0x_YWz-c6GNSPhuySMmXXxL5l1bRUSA191T6IjNsgMuB20nrLvZk8Kl3IXQMcrkDmFuTeMLDIQD03T4/s1600/resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-i-don-t-understand-therefore-aliens-29e979.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8Kr3g8xoPAdAMkO36H0taRhKSgK8yZEwhwC6JsyNlBV7cL_afpVoWcwpN2B1cu0x_YWz-c6GNSPhuySMmXXxL5l1bRUSA191T6IjNsgMuB20nrLvZk8Kl3IXQMcrkDmFuTeMLDIQD03T4/s1600/resized_ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-i-don-t-understand-therefore-aliens-29e979.jpg" height="282" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Out of context, but appropriate. He should be a lawmaker.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Misconceptions And Arguments </b><br />
<br />
Now that we have reviewed what the actions entail, we should address what misconceptions people have of them and the reasons people don't like them. These include issues of legal context and precedence, demographics, etc. Again, this will not be comprehensive nor exhaustive. I will only be rebutting the misconceptions and arguments I have personally heard and feel important to address.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Amnesty</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>A big one that I have to address constantly is the claim that the President is granting amnesty. The term "amnesty" has been applied to just about every action the President has taken in immigration policy. It just isn't the case.<br />
<b><i> </i></b><br />
Amnesty, by definition, is the pardoning of a group or class of individuals who have committed a crime and are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted. It can be described as "giving something for nothing," where the party in question goes without punishment and receives the pardon without taking any action on their own. This is, even admitted among conservative media, not what Obama's immigration initiatives are <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/20/megyn-kelly-admits-obamas-executive-action-isnt-amnesty-fox-news-and-republicans-purposefully-lie/">[25]</a>. Setting aside the fact that the applicants must apply, pass background checks and meet other qualifications, they also have to pay an application fee of $465. This is inconsistent with what amnesty implies by definition. The term is used to describe immigration policy in order to invoke rejection and fear from the American public.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Executive Order</b></i><br />
<br />
This misconception may not be intended, but I see consistent confusion among media outlets between the terms "executive action" and "executive order." This may not seem like an important point to cover, but there is a very clear distinction between the two.<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b> </b></i>An executive action is an opinion or nonbinding statement made by the President usually as a suggestion to Congress or his agencies to take action. Anything the President says can, in one way or another, be defined as an "executive action" of sorts, because it is just some proposal for action by the Executive. As stated, these are not legally binding, although it should be noted that the word of the President carries a great amount of weight even if it isn't <i>de facto</i> legally binding.<br />
<br />
An executive order is different. An executive order is a legally binding mandate ordered by the President and published in Federal Register, which holds the weight of law. It can be repealed by the courts or Congress or by another president, but it is law until such repeal. As such, we can tell clearly by the difference between "executive action" and "executive order" whether or not the President has actually changed or created immigration law.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Executive Action is Inconsistent With Public Will</b></i><br />
<br />
Some argue that the actions taken by the President are unjustifiable in the sense that the American public rejects it, and that the exercise of enforcement discretion in this scenario is not consistent with that of the public will. Firstly, I have not seen in any legal document that enforcement discretion must consider public approval, especially in the case of immigration law. I would be happy to hear from anyone who has such documentation.<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE1qtMlRF1tx8Vs0hpNzQBm5_WlfK-1-OIGvVreW-l0YK045DcbuivZr4oysM2r7oiTl5noP4VTl2zxk_gv52GYEhyEm5O27vgJ_zko-vDiXI1lelnadfVDFpP5FyKFjwUUskLOPU2K3Fu/s1600/6a00d8341c652b53ef016305fd1e8e970d-800wi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE1qtMlRF1tx8Vs0hpNzQBm5_WlfK-1-OIGvVreW-l0YK045DcbuivZr4oysM2r7oiTl5noP4VTl2zxk_gv52GYEhyEm5O27vgJ_zko-vDiXI1lelnadfVDFpP5FyKFjwUUskLOPU2K3Fu/s1600/6a00d8341c652b53ef016305fd1e8e970d-800wi.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That's not how it works, America. Well, not necessarily...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But the idea that this is inconsistent with the public will is ill informed to begin with. There aren't any clear numbers on the approval of the President's executive actions. Recent polls show that 48% and 38% of the public disapprove and approve of executive actions regarding immigration respectively, but these are divided among party lines <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-reform/nbc-wsj-poll-nearly-half-oppose-executive-action-immigration-n251631">[26]</a>. 63% of Democrats support the President's executive actions, while only 11% of Republicans and 37% of Independents support it; but these numbers rise when informed of the substance of the initiatives. At the time of this poll, Hispanic approval of the President's executive actions (while the sample size was small) was at
about 43%; however, recent data shows that President Obama's approval
rating among Hispanics has risen to 68% in light of these recent
initiatives <a href="http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/12/03/on-heels-immigration-executive-action-obama-approval-rating-among-latinos-rises/">[27]</a>. The ultimate numbers for approval change from poll to poll <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/obama-immigration-polls_n_6198302.html">[28]</a>, and so making any claim on these grounds is difficult.<br />
<br />
The thing is, however, that it doesn't even matter. While it's important to consider public opinion in politics, especially in America, the President's executive actions can be seen as a response to years of inaction by Congress. The people may seem to prefer that the President negotiate with Congress on immigration reform, and so his actions may actually promote that and be consistent with public approval. All in all, however, this is a pragmatic issue and cannot be held back by considerations of whether or not the majority of Americans are on board with this. The institutional presidency warrants actions which may not be consistent with public opinion, and this cannot be helped in most cases, including this one.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Anchor Babies And Immigrant Youth</b></i><br />
<br />
I personally love these two.<br />
<br />
As is tradition, it is suggested by some that these recent actions the President has taken will increase the number of immigrants coming into the United States. The grounds for this are that the recent actions grant citizenship to parents of United States children, and thus further promote "anchor babies." Anchor babies are babies who are born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, intentionally so that the baby will automatically gain citizenship in accordance with the Constitution, and the parents will be automatically granted a pathway to citizenship.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHFpSO92qANwXCKNF_UHLrqZnJ-fj7NR12EwidPhKd7jXVjzyPi00eNzF8Gok39Jm323HI3CMIFSCPHq5X81kxzTFmMH5GC_YhrKAz7xrU5JqSBNeIkfSO20tKoPu9yscV8kq5kV5h8BPT/s1600/anchor_baby_xlarge.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHFpSO92qANwXCKNF_UHLrqZnJ-fj7NR12EwidPhKd7jXVjzyPi00eNzF8Gok39Jm323HI3CMIFSCPHq5X81kxzTFmMH5GC_YhrKAz7xrU5JqSBNeIkfSO20tKoPu9yscV8kq5kV5h8BPT/s1600/anchor_baby_xlarge.jpeg" /></a>The problem with this is that parents or guardians are only eligible, as stated earlier, if their child is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident who has continuously resided in the country since January 1, 2010. This eliminates any possibility for parents to have their children now, since they will <i>not </i>be eligible; in fact, they will be prioritized by the new executive actions. The same applies for young immigrants who come to the United States now after the President's statements have been made public.<br />
<br />
One might make the counterargument that these immigrants will be given the impression that if they act now, the date will be extended again in the future and make them eligible. I will admit, at a visceral level this sounds plausible. Intuitively it makes sense that people will see this as a slippery slope, and in fact there may be some noise near the border (mostly by groups who would benefit from it, i.e. smugglers) that this will be the case; however, intellectually it would be hard to back up with evidence. Most people, in my experiences, do not consider these types of things when changing locations, even within the U.S. Most people are unfamiliar with how the law affects them, and so I do not see this (intellectually) as a huge possibility, although my gut feeling will always tell me there is some truth to the statement.<br />
<br />
<i><b>The President Has Set Legal Precedent</b></i><br />
<br />
This will be the last argument I address in the post, although I encourage more (in moderation) in the comments section. Opponents of the President's executive actions argue that the President has now set a legal precedent, by acting under enforcement discretion, for the government to do anything it wants in enforcing the law, undermining the rule of law <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/21/365684952/boehner-we-will-not-stand-idly-by-as-president-undermines-the-rule-of-law">[29]</a>.<i><b> </b></i>This is another slippery slope argument that I like to address, because it doesn't make any sense. As established, there are clear legal precedents in the context of immigration law and the execution of the law by the Executive that justify and provide legal basis for the President's actions. These do not apply universally to all aspects of the law, and does not suggest the undermining of the rule of law any more than does the traditional example of enforcement discretion of traffic violations. We have this discretion for a reason, and exercising it does not imply that pardons or excuses will be given to all people for all reasons.<br />
<br />
<b>What Should Republicans Do?</b><br />
<br />
This is the most crucial question to be asked regarding the President's executive actions. What should Republicans do in response to the President's initiatives? It's a tough decision to make, and here is why.<br />
<br />
As stated earlier, winning the presidency is contingent upon gaining 36-40% of the Hispanic vote. This means that no matter what, Republicans must pander to their Hispanic constituencies if they want to win the next presidential elections. This is problematic given the current state of affairs. In 2013, 89% of Hispanic voters supported a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants meeting certain requirements <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/ph-2013-12-immigration-02-06/">[30]</a>, but specifically 55% stated that deportation relief is their primary concern <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/ph-2013-12-immigration-01-01/">[31]</a>. Republicans are now faced with the challenge of coming up with a comprehensive immigration reform to replace the President's executive actions.<br />
<br />
But opposing "amnesty" hasn't stopped Republicans in the past, so why would it now? This is where the tangled web is woven. Consider what I think are the three primary reasons conservatives oppose granting citizenship to unauthorized immigrants:<br />
<br />
1: Depression of wages.<br />
2: It's not fair.<br />
3: Change of voter demographics.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil69x7caEgqeEgkwMhrJLeuEiPmdKIClR9WbsnwCWyJ-yOTywS2wRT7-dHO6UUXomqPM0yH-dS3Ze5OsqshN5XIgKf9SHfXrKS7IwlHTr2nsHSy4EdYzvXR4LWEtpxKggaVk6mZdppkKKN/s1600/1ec0667354eae3d8178511551c8959e1e49384708f9b4ddf5420d39898e8680b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil69x7caEgqeEgkwMhrJLeuEiPmdKIClR9WbsnwCWyJ-yOTywS2wRT7-dHO6UUXomqPM0yH-dS3Ze5OsqshN5XIgKf9SHfXrKS7IwlHTr2nsHSy4EdYzvXR4LWEtpxKggaVk6mZdppkKKN/s1600/1ec0667354eae3d8178511551c8959e1e49384708f9b4ddf5420d39898e8680b.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">- John Boehner, circa right now -</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
All of them have their fair bases, but they've all been addressed, if not by past research then by the current actions. The immigrants who will be gaining a path to citizenship by these executive actions will have work visas, and thus will be eligible and probably will be working already in the United States. This will not have any drastic effects on the supply of labor as they will already have jobs (i.e. they were already in the work force). But what about the competition this poses? Well, immigrant competition does not constitute a significant portion of job competition <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w16439">[32]</a>. Is it fair? Of course it is, since these immigrants have to wait months before applying, have to meet certain qualifications, are not likely to be committing crimes and will have to pay the application fee. The change of voter demographics? Well as shown, Hispanic/Latino support for the President didn't change until he addressed the issue of immigration, and so such action among Republicans should have the same effect, yes? Not quite, since for anything that Congress passes and the President signs, we know who will get credit. <br />
<br />
So what is the Republicans' best course of action? I think the midterm elections offer some interesting predictions for this. Although the Republicans are traditionally a defensive, obstructionist party, especially when it comes to the Obama administration, inaction now will lead to complete loss of constituency support for the next elections. The new Republicans coming into the Senate, however, are mostly coming from states which voted for President Obama in 2012 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/us/politics/midterm-elections.html">[33]</a>. Why is this the case? Because these states have large independent electorates. Pandering to the conservative electorate, then, will not do as much good as Republicans would want for these new Senators. They have to cater to their independent constituencies now, which means they will want to steer clear from any hard-right solutions to immigration reform, or the possibility of a government shutdown <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/11/21/365555016/whos-dreaming-now-obama-opponents-do-a-weapons-check-on-immigration">[34]</a>. Likewise, with the new support Obama has from Hispanics, the will want to create legislation which can compete with President Obama's executive actions in appeal.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The conclusions to be drawn here are numerous. The President's executive actions are legally and practically defensible, and they offer some good (but temporary) solutions to our broken immigration system. Nonetheless, many will oppose these actions as being illegal, unconstitutional, monarchical, etc. The good news however is that we have some good pressure for the new Republican majority Congress to write up legislation to compete with President Obama and reaffirm Congressional debate and negotiations over this issue. Perhaps we will see an end to Congressional gridlock on immigration reform as a result of this. Perhaps not.<br />
<br />
All I can say is that this will be very, very interesting to observe in the future.<br />
<br />
Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you all next time!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sources: <br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction">Executive Actions on Immigration - USCIS</a><br />
<br />
[2] <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration">Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration - Office of the Press Secretary</a><br />
<br />
[3] <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2014/December/Testimony-Presidents-Executive-Action-Not-Constitutional/">Obama's Executive Action 'Not Constitutional' - CBN News</a><br />
<br />
[4] <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/texas-leads-17-states-suing-obama-administration-over-immigration-action-n260956">Texas Leads 17 States Suing Obama Administration Over Immigration Action - CBS News</a><br />
<br />
[5] <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/">U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 - Pew Research Center</a><br />
<br />
[6] <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/under-pressure-obama-calls-for-immigration-enforcement-review/">Under pressure, Obama calls for immigration-enforcement review - The Washington Post</a><br />
<br />
[7] <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/11/americans-split-on-deportations-as-latinos-press-obama-on-issue/">Americans split on deportations as Latinos press Obama on issue - Pew Research Center</a><br />
<br />
[8] <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/729">S.729 - Dream Act of 2009 - 111th Congress</a><br />
<br />
[9] <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40567180/ns/politics-capitol_hill#.VH-r-Mmmve4">House OKs bill aimed at illegal youth immigrants - MSNBC</a><br />
<br />
[10] <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html?hpt=hp_t1">Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants - CNN</a><br />
<br />
[11] <a href="http://www.natlawreview.com/article/arizona-responds-to-deferred-action-program-blocking-privileges-dreamers">Arizona Responds to Deferred Action Program by Blocking Privileges for DREAMers - National Law Review</a><br />
<br />
[12] <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/12/02/jason_chaffetz_confronts_dhs_secretary_johnson_on_immigration.html">Jason Chaffetz Confronts DHS Secretary Johnson On Immigration: "Did Obama Change The Law?" - Real Clear Politics </a><br />
<br />
[13] <a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~whowell/papers/UnilateralAction.pdf">Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory - Moe & Howell</a><br />
<br />
[14] <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp">War Powers Resolution - Yale Law School</a><br />
<br />
[15] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/boehner-obama-war_n_5895742.html">Boehner: 'I'd Bring The Congress Back' If Obama Asks For War Authorization - Huffington Post</a><br />
<br />
[16] <a href="http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/boehner-obama-hasnt-requested-isis-war-authorization-pelosi-he-doesnt-need-one/?dcz=">Congress in No Rush to Return for ISIS War Authorization - Roll Call</a><br />
<br />
[17] <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psq.12030/abstract">"Generalissimo of the Nation:" War Making and the Presidency in the Early Republic - Adler</a><br />
<br />
[18] <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf">Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion - Department of Homeland Security; see, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Operation Instructions § 103.1(a)(1)(ii)(1975)</a><br />
<br />
[19] <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">U.S. Constitution Article II § 3</a><br />
<br />
[20] <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=470&invol=821"><i>Heckler v Chaney</i>, 470 U.S. 821, 831</a><br />
<br />
[21] <a href="http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf">The Department of Homeland Security's Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others - Department of Homeland Security</a><br />
<br />
[22] <a href="http://thedailybanter.com/2014/11/bill-oreilly-call-bullshit-ed-henrys-obama-immigration-speech-attack/">Bill O'Reilly Has To Call Bullsh*t On Ed Henry's Obama Immigration Speech Attack - The Daily Banter</a><br />
<br />
[23] <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/how-president-obama-s-executive-action-impacts-undocumented-immigrants">Five Things to Know About How President Obama's Executive Action Impacts Undocumented Immigrants - The White House Blog</a><br />
<br />
[24] <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_i601a_waiver.pdf">Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program - Department of Homeland Security</a><br />
<br />
[25] <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/20/megyn-kelly-admits-obamas-executive-action-isnt-amnesty-fox-news-and-republicans-purposefully-lie/">Megyn Kelly Admits Obama's Executive Action Isn't Amnesty, Fox News And Republicans Purposefully Lie - Addicting Info</a><br />
<br />
[26] <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-reform/nbc-wsj-poll-nearly-half-oppose-executive-action-immigration-n251631">NBC/WSJ Poll: Nearly Half Oppose Executive Action on Immigration - NBC</a><br />
<br />
[27] <a href="http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/12/03/on-heels-immigration-executive-action-obama-approval-rating-among-latinos-rises/">On heels of immigration executive action, Obama's approval rating among Latinos rises sharply - Fox News</a><br />
<br />
[28] <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/obama-immigration-polls_n_6198302.html">How Much Support Does Obama Have On Immigration? - Huffington Post</a><br />
<br />
[29] <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/21/365684952/boehner-we-will-not-stand-idly-by-as-president-undermines-the-rule-of-law">Boehner: 'We Will Not Stand Idly By As President Undermines The Rule Of Law' - NPR</a><br />
<br />
[30] <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/ph-2013-12-immigration-02-06/">Views of Current Immigration Policy Proposals - Pew Research Center</a><br />
<br />
[31] <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/12/19/on-immigration-policy-deportation-relief-seen-as-more-important-than-citizenship/ph-2013-12-immigration-01-01/">Relief from Deportation or Pathway to Citizenship? - Pew Research Center</a><br />
<br />
[32] <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w16439">Immigration, Offshoring And American Jobs - Ottaviano et al.</a><br />
<br />
[33] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/us/politics/midterm-elections.html">Riding Wave of Discontent, G.O.P. Takes Senate - New York Times</a><br />
<br />
[34] <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/11/21/365555016/whos-dreaming-now-obama-opponents-do-a-weapons-check-on-immigration">Who's Dreaming Now? Obama Opponents Do A Weapons Check On Immigration - NPR</a><br />
<br />
Further Reading:<br />
<br />
- <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-action">Immigration Action Key Facts - DHS</a><br />
<br />
- <a href="http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Gun-Control/a/Executive-Actions-Versus-Executive-Orders.htm">The difference between executive actions and executive orders.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-20949249455762910692014-11-29T22:23:00.001-05:002014-12-10T18:53:05.409-05:00Global Warming Denial: What Does it Take? A Case Study of Climate Change Denialists<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
In the mid-1970s after the consensus <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm">dismissed the bullshit idea</a> of "global cooling," serious concerns were raised about global climate change: its impact on the earth, and how we were (and still are) contributing to it. Vast research efforts were put into this issue, and now the international community is on board to combat the effects of global warming. The official consensus is now that global climate change is real, it's happening, and we're responsible for it.<br />
<br />
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/6d3c698ecfbe01639a00d7beb482b5c4.htm">recently reported</a> that this past October was the fifth month this year to reach record temperatures; and that unless we find some drastic decline in the temperature in November and December, 2014 will mark the hottest year on record. The effects will be catastrophic if global temperature means continue to increase as they have been. Some infectious diseases and parasitic insects will likely multiply at alarming rates from increasing heat, the sea levels will rise from the melting of the ice caps, and of course it will be very, very hot. The effects of global warming are numerous, and we're all ready to jump on board to help remove our carbon footprints and mitigate the effects of this dramatic rise on global temperatures. Or are we?<br />
<br />
This blog has covered global warming denial in the past, and the results have been quite hilarious. Some denialists dispute the consensus over global warming, which has been addressed <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/01/global-warming-denial-face-against-facts.html">here</a>. To summarize, there are numerous studies which all suggest that at <i>least</i> 90% of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that we're responsible for it. These studies all had different methodologies, but came to concordance on the conclusion. Denialists dispute the validity of these studies, but when the results have been replicated by multiple different methods, it's hard to argue that they're all wrong. Some also dispute based on the wording of the questions asked, suggesting that they're ambiguous and that even 'climate realists' would respond "yes" to most of the questions. This is, of course, a major semantics debate; and in the face of a semantics debate, it's helpful to apply Occam's razor and take the more parsimonious conclusion. The result is simple: the consensus on global climate change is solid.<br />
<br />
Others will outright ignore the consensus and try to argue based on their knowledge, or what they've read online, that global warming isn't happening. Many of these arguments, as well, <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/08/global-warming-denial-common-arguments.html">have been addressed on this blog</a>. I won't go through a summary of those talking points, but I would highly recommend reading the linked post. Basically, scientific evidence is also not on the side of denialists (no surprise there).<br />
<br />
Given the evidence, it's fairly obvious that denialists of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) don't have a leg to stand on. Why, then, do they persist? What does it take to convince a denialist?<br />
<br />
<b>Extreme Weather</b><br />
<br />
Many scientists up until now have believed that with enough droughts, floods, heat waves and other examples of extreme weather, climate change "skeptics" (quotes because I don't like this warm, fuzzy term being used for such persistent denialists) will come to terms with reality and start addressing it appropriately. This isn't without evidence [<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1930/abstract">Hamilton & Keim, 2007</a>; <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8646857&fileId=S0022381612000448">Egan & Mullan, 2012</a>], and seems reasonable enough - both studies have displayed that there is a correlation between regional weather experiences and political orientation concerning global climate change. It makes sense that if someone is getting the worst of something, they are more likely to support a theory which addresses their concerns.<br />
<br />
As recent research shows, however, this hypothesis is not very robust and has mixed support. Moreover, it is only one piece of the puzzle. The winter of 2012 was the fourth warmest winter on record going back to 1895; and yet when asked whether or not they attribute this to climate change, only 35% of respondents said yes [<a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n12/full/nclimate2443.html">McCright et al., 2014</a>]. Granted, the study does find that individual experiences with weather anomalies has a significant effect on perceived warming; however, it still shows that even direct consequences of global warming aren't enough to convince some people. How about that? Climate change denialists are Monty Python's Black Knights.<br />
<br />
<b>Political Party</b><br />
<br />
Although intuitive, the study by McCright et al. clarifies that there is
an association between political party identification and climate
change denial. This is not the first time the lead study author has
established said association [<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x/abstract;jsessionid=5817A45315B625ADED6AC35BDD0C6642.f01t02">McCright et al., 2011</a>], but it raises an important question of politicization of climate change and how it affects people's perceptions of the issue.<br />
<br />
We should all be familiar with the efforts by Bush aides <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63">to quash research and publication thereof</a> concerning climate change. This was a major strike for party politics in science - governmental influence can be non-transparent in some scenarios, and the officials we have in government may be influencing the publication of important scientific research. Publication bias is definitely not an unheard of phenomenon, but I believe most Americans like to think that "the system" is not so corrupt. Perhaps it is. Certainly McCright thinks so: his research and examination of conservative anti-reflexivity and its impact on climate science and policy speaks for itself [<a href="http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-3/100">McCright & Dunlap, 2010</a>].<br />
<br />
Don't think that conservatives are exclusive in science denialism, however. While conservatives are more likely to take a stance against global warming, liberals are more traditionally associated with anti-GMO sentiments [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637">Lewandowsky et al., 2013</a>], although this connection is not too strong. I can support that conclusion, however. Regardless, it stands to be said that conservativism and free-market ideology serve as good predictors for rejection of science.<br />
<br />
Denialism can come from within the scientific community as well. Naomi Oreskes, who is well known for her study which contributed to the establishment of public knowledge of a scientific consensus on climate change [<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full">Oreskes, 2004</a>], wrote a book, one that I would highly recommend, with Erik Conway on the political underpinnings and implications of research on several key and contentious issues in historic scientific discourse entitled <i>Merchants of Doubt</i>. The authors draw attention to seven issues - acid rain, smoking, secondhand smoking, the ozone hole, global warming, the Strategic Defensive Initiative, and the banning of DDT - and clarifies the scientific consensus on all of them, as well as pinpointing which small groups of scientists have been largely responsible for the unfounded charges against the consensus, which science reporters and internet bloggers had uncritically repeated.<br />
<br />
<b>Internet</b><br />
<br />
I and my coauthor <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/evolutionary-sins-gender-gap-in-spatial.html">share the concerns</a> raised by Oreskes and Conway regarding science reporting and internet blogging of scientific research, which has become very weak and uncritical in recent years; though I can't argue from experience that it has ever been too strong. Needless to say, the internet may play an even more crucial role in the public's perception of climate change that one may think.<br />
<br />
This gets into a research topic that is of personal interest to me. I've always been interested in the ideological implications of internet filter bubbles and how web pandering to people of specific interests serves to uphold the biases and preconceptions they may have on an issue. Not everyone is familiar with filter bubbles, so let me provide two examples of how a filter bubble works: both of which are very real.<br />
<br />
Let's use the example of hypothetical person A (HPA) and hypothetical person B (HPB). HPA (who I have modeled after myself) is very fascinated with international politics and loves to look at the historical context which led up to certain key events in American history, such as 9/11. Perhaps he has read a few books on the issue, such as <i>The Looming Tower</i> by Lawrence Wright. When he looks up "9/11" on Google, then, his first results will most likely be the Wikipedia page and a few books and articles on the situation, or maybe recent news articles regarding the issue.<br />
<br />
HPB (who I have modeled over an old administrator of mine) is a libertarian, possibly a conspiracy nut, and despises the American government. He likes to look for all the disgusting things America has done - some of them being true, such as the atrocities at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. He's also interested in the evidence that the planes which crashed into the Twin Towers could not have caused the destruction they did, or at least in the same manner. There had to be bombs, and someone had to plant those bombs. Thus when he searches "9/11" on Google, his first result may be from Loose Change.<br />
<br />
Let me give the other example: very recently, I wanted to look up my internet download/upload rate and see if it's comparable, or at least adequate, to modern standards. I typed into Google "is X mbps a good download rate," expecting a solid response from someone on a torrent website I've visited before. To my incredible surprise, the very first result was a thread in Stormfront. Why? Because I've also been involved in the debates over race that Lex has gotten herself into, and so despite absolutely clearing all of my search history and browser cookies/preferences, that was the result I got. When I used a web proxy, however, and searched the same thing, the Stormfront thread did not appear.<br />
<br />
This is how filter bubbles can affect the results of your research, where you may <i>think</i> you're looking into something objectively, but in reality your search engine is pandering to your interests and giving you things it thinks you will like. While there is little research in this arena as far as I'm aware of, I think this is a very real cause of concern for scientific research and public engagement in the scientific discourse. The internet may be playing a dangerous role in inhibiting discussion and polarizing political and social players - or at least, a more dangerous role than we already know to be the case. While not covered heavily, I believe this can also explain part of the reason individuals persist in climate change denial, and many other types of pseudoscience, such as <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/10/fluoridation-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html">water fluoridation</a>.<br />
<br />
I gave a lot of attention to this section, but it's important to mention and make people aware of what they're potentially subjecting themselves to when they research things online. It's not very often you can extend topics of such specification beyond their initial scope like this.<br />
<br />
<b>Education</b><br />
<br />
This is perhaps the biggest issue regarding climate change denial. One cornerstone paper in <i>Nature</i> displayed that conservatives who are more scientifically or mathematically literate are even less likely than their liberal counterparts to accept global warming [<a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html">Kahan et al., 2011</a>]. This suggests that education cannot, by itself, mitigate climate change denial when political polarization is an overwhelming variable in the mixture. That being said, new research does have some interesting statements to make, both about ideology and about education.<br />
<br />
Since it seems to be the case that science literacy can intensify polarization, as shown by the Kahan study, a better case may be to examine adolescents, perceived as a more receptive audience. Testing the level of climate literacy in teenagers, it was found that individuals with more individualistic worldviews were 16.1% less likely than communitarians to accept global warming at initial stages [<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7">Stevenson et al., 2014</a>]. At low levels of literacy, individualists were even less likely to accept global warming - 24.1% less likely than communitarians; however, at high levels of literacy, the gap essentially closes, and the effect of climate literacy and education has a much more positive effect on individualists than communitarians. These results seem to suggest that while polarization may be an overwhelming factor in adults, early intervention and science education for adolescents and younger, equally receptive audiences can mitigate climate change denial.<br />
<br />
Of course, it seems intuitive that educating people would help, right? Then there are those who would call it "indoctrination," but...<br />
<br />
<b>Gender/Race</b><br />
<br />
The "while male" effect describes how men tend to judge risks lower than women, and whites judge risks lower than blacks [<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713670162#.VHqCfMmmve4">Finucane et al., 2010</a>]. I'm not too well read on this particular aspect and its contributions to climate change denial, but the evidence seems to suggest there is some association. The aforementioned study by Stevenson et al. did find a significant difference in global warming acceptance between males and females, whites and non-whites; non-whites and females were more likely to accept global warming than whites and males, thus invoking the "white male" effect. There is no solid explanation for these things - Finucane et al. suggests a complex interaction between the two factors. At an initial glance, I could say that one confounding variable would be (of course) political ideology, since non-whites and females are more likely to be liberal than whites and males. The answer, however, is not clear.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
There are a multitude of reasons behind climate change denial and why it persists against the scientific consensus. Political party and the internet, in my opinion, play the biggest roles in the issue. As far as "what does it take," I think the most prospective mitigation effort would have to be science education at an early age. I recall very limited environmental science education from my early years in public primary school, and even more limited in parochial secondary school, and so am fortunate that I was not convinced at my younger ages that ACC was a hoax. I know others, however, who were not so fortunate.<br />
<br />
There was a book I used to read a lot when I was very little, <i>If You Give a Pig a Pancake</i>. I think the action-consequences relationship between pigs and pancakes, and all of the related stories I read of the same syntax, describes the associations I reviewed in this article fairly well. I would have entitled this post <i>If You Give a Denialist an Evidence</i>, but the flow wouldn't have been good (not just because of the horrible grammar), and it also wouldn't have fit into the "Global Warming Denial" series, nor would it have revealed what I would be covering in the post itself. All my readers who got through this post in its entirety, however, may call it whatever they please.<br />
<br />
Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you all next time! <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a>Sources:<br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+Politics&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1017%2FS0022381612000448&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Turning+Personal+Experience+into+Political+Attitudes%3A+The+Effect+of+Local+Weather+on+Americans%E2%80%99+Perceptions+about+Global+Warming.&rft.issn=0022-3816&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=03&rft.spage=796&rft.epage=809&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journals.cambridge.org%2Fabstract_S0022381612000448&rft.au=Egan%2C+P.&rft.au=Mullin%2C+M.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Geosciences%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Egan, P., & Mullin, M. (2012). Turning Personal Experience into Political Attitudes: The Effect of Local Weather on Americans’ Perceptions about Global Warming. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Journal of Politics, 74</span> (03), 796-809 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000448" rev="review">10.1017/S0022381612000448</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Health%2C+Risk+%26+Society&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F713670162&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Gender%2C+race%2C+and+perceived+risk%3A+The+%27white+male%27+effect.&rft.issn=1369-8575&rft.date=2000&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=172&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F713670162&rft.au=Finucane%2C+M.&rft.au=Slovic%2C+P.&rft.au=Mertz%2C+C.&rft.au=Flynn%2C+J.&rft.au=Satterfield%2C+T.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience">Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect. <span style="font-style: italic;">Health, Risk & Society, 2</span> (2), 159-172 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713670162" rev="review">10.1080/713670162</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Climatology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1002%2Fjoc.1930&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Regional+variation+in+perceptions+about+climate+change.&rft.issn=08998418&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=2348&rft.epage=2352&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.wiley.com%2F10.1002%2Fjoc.1930&rft.au=Hamilton%2C+L.&rft.au=Keim%2C+B.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CGeosciences%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Hamilton, L., & Keim, B. (2009). Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. <span style="font-style: italic;">International Journal of Climatology, 29</span> (15), 2348-2352 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1930" rev="review">10.1002/joc.1930</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Nature+Climate+Change&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1038%2Fnclimate1547&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+polarizing+impact+of+science+literacy+and+numeracy+on+perceived+climate+change+risks.&rft.issn=1758-678X&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=732&rft.epage=735&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fdoifinder%2F10.1038%2Fnclimate1547&rft.au=Kahan%2C+D.&rft.au=Peters%2C+E.&rft.au=Wittlin%2C+M.&rft.au=Slovic%2C+P.&rft.au=Ouellette%2C+L.&rft.au=Braman%2C+D.&rft.au=Mandel%2C+G.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CGeosciences%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. <span style="font-style: italic;">Nature Climate Change, 2</span> (10), 732-735 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547" rev="review">10.1038/nclimate1547</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=PLoS+ONE&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+Role+of+Conspiracist+Ideation+and+Worldviews+in+Predicting+Rejection+of+Science.&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=0&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.plos.org%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637&rft.au=Lewandowsky%2C+S.&rft.au=Gignac%2C+G.&rft.au=Oberauer%2C+K.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CGeosciences%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science. <span style="font-style: italic;">PLoS ONE, 8</span> (10) DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637" rev="review">10.1371/journal.pone.0075637</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Theory%2C+Culture+%26+Society&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1177%2F0263276409356001&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Anti-reflexivity%3A+The+American+Conservative+Movement%27s+Success+in+Undermining+Climate+Science+and+Policy.&rft.issn=0263-2764&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=100&rft.epage=133&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Ftcs.sagepub.com%2Fcgi%2Fdoi%2F10.1177%2F0263276409356001&rft.au=McCright%2C+A.&rft.au=Dunlap%2C+R.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CGeosciences%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement's Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy. <span style="font-style: italic;">Theory, Culture & Society, 27</span> (2-3), 100-133 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001" rev="review">10.1177/0263276409356001</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Sociological+Quarterly&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1111%2Fj.1533-8525.2011.01198.x&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=THE+POLITICIZATION+OF+CLIMATE+CHANGE+AND+POLARIZATION+IN+THE+AMERICAN+PUBLIC%27S+VIEWS+OF+GLOBAL+WARMING%2C+2001-2010&rft.issn=00380253&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=155&rft.epage=194&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.wiley.com%2F10.1111%2Fj.1533-8525.2011.01198.x&rft.au=McCright%2C+A.&rft.au=Dunlap%2C+R.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CGeosciences%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CNeuroscience%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2011). The Politicization of Climate Change And Polarization in The American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010. <span style="font-style: italic;">Sociological Quarterly, 52</span> (2), 155-194 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x" rev="review">10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Nature+Climate+Change&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1038%2Fnclimate2443&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=The+impacts+of+temperature+anomalies+and+political+orientation+on+perceived+winter+warming.&rft.issn=1758-678X&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1077&rft.epage=1081&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fdoifinder%2F10.1038%2Fnclimate2443&rft.au=McCright%2C+A.&rft.au=Dunlap%2C+R.&rft.au=Xiao%2C+C.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Geosciences%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">McCright, A., Dunlap, R., & Xiao, C. (2014). The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming. <span style="font-style: italic;">Nature Climate Change, 4</span> (12), 1077-1081 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2443" rev="review">10.1038/nclimate2443</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Science&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1126%2Fscience.1103618&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Beyond+The+Ivory+Tower%3A+The+Scientific+Consensus+on+Climate+Change.&rft.issn=0036-8075&rft.date=2004&rft.volume=306&rft.issue=5702&rft.spage=1686&rft.epage=1686&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcgi%2Fdoi%2F10.1126%2Fscience.1103618&rft.au=Oreskes%2C+N.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CGeosciences%2CMathematics%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. <span style="font-style: italic;">Science, 306</span> (5702), 1686-1686 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618" rev="review">10.1126/science.1103618</a></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Climatic+Change&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1228-7&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Overcoming+skepticism+with+education%3A+interacting+influences+of+worldview+and+climate+change+knowledge+on+perceived+climate+change+risk+among+adolescents.&rft.issn=0165-0009&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=293&rft.epage=304&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2F10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1228-7&rft.au=Stevenson%2C+K.&rft.au=Peterson%2C+M.&rft.au=Bondell%2C+H.&rft.au=Moore%2C+S.&rft.au=Carrier%2C+S.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CGeosciences%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth%2CEcology+%2F+Conservation">Stevenson, K., Peterson, M., Bondell, H., Moore, S., & Carrier, S. (2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. <span style="font-style: italic;">Climatic Change, 126</span> (3-4), 293-304 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7" rev="review">10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7</a></span>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-58243144544571781442014-11-19T22:19:00.004-05:002014-11-24T12:09:18.011-05:00Masculinity/Femininity And The "Return Of Kings" (ROK) Complex: An Anthropological PerspectiveI know, I'm sorry, I'll get to some topics that people are asking for eventually. I have several in my queue that I want to get published some time soon, but the large majority of them are going to be covered by Nick who, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, is MIA. I promise to keep things interesting, though, until that time comes; that is, I'm going to try (at least in this post) to give the attitude he may have, had he done this himself.<br />
<br />
This is actually on behalf of a new friend of mine who will go unnamed for personal reasons. He's unfamiliar with typical Western culture and is confused easily by the way we approach issues, topics and ideas in general. Not so recently, he dug through my search history (I know, right?) and found a website that I'm pretty sure is going to inadvertently mentally scar him. This website is none other than <i>Return Of Kings</i>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6xHRHdwyB6hCCAm83oYvoLCO96EDBIAj2_RetpeBXfZkJ1oqYnNiAwnE2fMstk_T2rdhQCS5J_TH0aljQGWXFLFFosoRACt4eoZXZjVSUXK-GXBB6vPZ8e43pDCO-No33zgMCGf5JjBg/s1600/c866626d0990512aab50477c4ece807724770a447b1df82eea1f756c6ca6d78c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6xHRHdwyB6hCCAm83oYvoLCO96EDBIAj2_RetpeBXfZkJ1oqYnNiAwnE2fMstk_T2rdhQCS5J_TH0aljQGWXFLFFosoRACt4eoZXZjVSUXK-GXBB6vPZ8e43pDCO-No33zgMCGf5JjBg/s1600/c866626d0990512aab50477c4ece807724770a447b1df82eea1f756c6ca6d78c.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I have more game than Roosh V.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Return Of Kings (ROK), in my own words, is a misogynistic website filled with misogynistic people who have fringe, uninformed ideas of the way society (and people) operate. I'm fairly certain most of the stories told on that website are made up, or at least exaggerated, but that's beside the point. Its central focus rests on the concepts of masculinity and femininity, which they use as universal terms which only have one meaning. It's run by a guy who goes by the moniker "Roosh V," who has been dubbed <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/roosh-v-mens-rights-sexism-misogyny/">the internet's most infamous misogynist</a>.
When I say misogynist, I mean the traditional
definition of the word (not the meaningless semantics that
surround its modern use): woman-hater.<br />
<br />
Nothing particularly new or interesting here, so let's get to the point: what did my friend see that confused him so much? Well, it was this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant
for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men
should be masculine and women should be feminine."</i></blockquote>
He didn't understand what it meant for men to be masculine or women to be feminine; that is, he didn't realize that men could be anything <i>but</i> masculine, or women to be anything but feminine. I knew instantly what he was confused about: the difference between "sex" and "gender" in our culture (and all others), and how those roles can sometimes not be coincident with one another. For those of you unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, it's easily summed up in this way: sex refers to the biological differences between males and females, while gender refers to the interpretations and expectations of them prescribed by society. What ROK means by "men should be masculine" or "women should be feminine" is that the sexes of humans should maintain their "traditional" gender roles, which have been prescribed to them by their biological predispositions (or so ROK says). This is an issue that has been addressed exhaustively by people from many disciplines, but most recognizably by feminists.<br />
<br />
I should be honest here: I'm not a feminist. I think that the goals of feminism, as it was originally intended, have long been achieved. I believe that the prejudices and discriminatory institutions/practices which may disenfranchise underprivileged groups are contingent upon complex social structures which hardly anyone actually understands (if you even understood that sentence, you're on the right track), and thus the remaining facets of the social movement are just about politics and shouting (or "<a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-legend-of-zelda-and-feminism-insult.html">critical analysis</a>," cue laugh track). These kinds of topics normally aren't a huge focus of mine, because I'm not interested in them; quite frankly, I agree with the rest of the world that ROK should continue to be ignored, and that their idiocy is recognized by the majority of sensible people. It should really end at that.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyODuVolsjMSFFSQ04wll33TaMZwGwdRNyb3pzH5t7W73Edukssi9MkieIUyuhArdqACWrKeK3dk_73SAq2ngE30dI0ZMYqEeUaK9e-HGgj43OJ7UDytblJ55byv6ppje5DdzxbvVruOg/s1600/Men_and_love_19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyODuVolsjMSFFSQ04wll33TaMZwGwdRNyb3pzH5t7W73Edukssi9MkieIUyuhArdqACWrKeK3dk_73SAq2ngE30dI0ZMYqEeUaK9e-HGgj43OJ7UDytblJ55byv6ppje5DdzxbvVruOg/s1600/Men_and_love_19.jpg" height="299" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paraphrase: "Men should be masculine." - Cher</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Someone accused me on my <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/evolutionary-sins-gender-gap-in-spatial.html">last post</a> of writing specifically to apply social constructionism and "cultural determinism" to these topics; so I've figured out a way to tie this into my anthropological/psychological interests, namely by just examining their <a href="http://www.returnofkings.com/about">About page</a>. Not only do I get the satisfaction of knowing that they're idiots, but I also get the joy of being able to incorporate an otherwise uninteresting topic (for me, personally) into something unique and cool. I don't think anyone else has taken the approach I'm about to take, and so this should be pretty exciting for some of you. For the rest of you, well... try anyway.<br />
<br />
So here's what I actually figured out: the About page is, no duh, a representation of the premises the website is founded on. Rebut their premises, and you have dismissed their conclusions and insulted their ideas of masculinity and being douchebags. I don't feel like just saying that they're dumb -- I feel like explaining <i>why</i> they're dumb, rationally, so that other people can recognize their idiocy as well without sharing the kind of innate reactions I have to individuals/groups with behaviour similar to that of ROK. I'm going to do a point-by-point refutation of the seven premises that ROK is founded upon, and hopefully make a few people angry. Most importantly for me, however, I'm going to explain to my friend (who will, hopefully, read this post in its entirety) why none of what ROK says makes any sense given the knowledge we have, and why he may have been confused in the first place.<br />
<br />
With that, let's begin.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and
mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.</b><br />
<br />
This is not wrong at its face: the sexes naturally have their own physical/mental differences due to the fact that, as the nature of being male or female demands, they differ genetically. The error is in omission, or at the very least implication. Presumably, what they mean is that the sex roles found in humans (I will warn now that this is dependent on cultural context) are a result of genetic differences, and the physical/mental differences in males and females are genetic in origin. This is not the case. We hardly understand the nature of sex differences in many areas (as my <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/11/evolutionary-sins-gender-gap-in-spatial.html">last post</a> shows), and so don't understand the origin of those differences, whether they be environmental, genetic, or a complex combination of the two. What's even more interesting is their admission that sex roles evolve in mammals. In fact they do, but these roles <a href="http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2013/10/UNO-Professor-Releases-Findings-On-Gender-Roles.php">are not consistent with each other</a>, and we often find "role reversal" among many species of mammals that is counter intuitive to what most people think, as many people believe that sex roles are the result of just having a sex chromosome.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDD3kPnG1kt4vGf3GgGkxHGXoVhr4pbGu-aQQ9w0-EyPE2ndcuraYy_yOwkI7zApJjVq5ceeEXQKdYMExZUZABCm5vtj7BmGmbWMpzsQCyvl6eF0BL-u3_KozJQ2Sj0jGVJRelJK4kDIM/s1600/pioneer_11_humans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDD3kPnG1kt4vGf3GgGkxHGXoVhr4pbGu-aQQ9w0-EyPE2ndcuraYy_yOwkI7zApJjVq5ceeEXQKdYMExZUZABCm5vtj7BmGmbWMpzsQCyvl6eF0BL-u3_KozJQ2Sj0jGVJRelJK4kDIM/s1600/pioneer_11_humans.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nobody denies sexual dimorphism.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Usually, one replies to these arguments by arguing Bateman's principle, which has generally been accepted as being true. It's important to note that Bateman's original experiment <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11740.abstract">was flawed methodologically</a>, although his conclusion appears to be true for most mammals, and the traditional argument that when sex roles are reversed in a species, so are other factors like reproductive success (RS) variance is not always the case. But is it true for humans? Not entirely sure, as reliable information is limited and human populations are quite diverse; however, analysis of what data <i>is </i>available <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/">brings some questions</a> to Bateman's principles as applied to humans. This study has been batted around as both supporting and opposing Bateman's conclusions, but such debates should be suspect to scrutiny due to the fact that there were only 18 populations examined in the study. At present, as stated, we're not sure what the nature is of many complexities in the human species in terms of sex/gender differences. It is <i>vital</i> to remember, though, that the extent that culture plays a role in our species is unprecedented in any other species of mammal, and so the consequences are very possibly not what we'd expect.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.</b><br />
<br />
This is a peculiar claim. I'd venture to guess that the reason they included "if there are no incentives to engage in them" is that the people at ROK see monogamous marriage (i.e. to them, dedication to a woman) as a sign of weakness or inferiority in men, and so if they find themselves in this position, they can say "I had a logical reason to do this for my own benefit."<br />
<br />
The reason it's peculiar, however, is that it's at odds with reality. While the majority of societies in the world do practice polygamy (about 83% of sampled societies), most <i>people</i> practice monogamy due to increasing industrialization and the fact that industrialized cultures have greater populations than pre-industrialized cultures. What I find funny about the argument, however, is that if we're speaking in terms of RS variance or just evolution, what incentive could be greater than having more children? Then I get confused, because it says they'll opt out of reproduction as well, which is antithetical to Bateman's principles and, well, evolution, which is (according to them) the cause of the differences between men and women that they so desperately want to preserve and declare. Maybe this is bad writing on the owner's part, but I think it's more likely that this is a result of stupidity.<br />
<br />
Getting back to the argument, it could be countered that the "incentive" (or rather, the pressure) for more people to practice monogamy <i>is</i> industrialization; that is, to keep up with the status quo, men are practicing monogamy at "unnatural" levels. But societies change -- if we go back far enough, all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers (H/G). These changes don't just occur as preemptive self-pressures from the future status quo, but as responses to many different pressures as a result of cultural adaptation, a unique phenomenon mostly exclusive to humans. It could be argued that this is "bad," but to what standard do we hold this to be true? Because it's assumed to be biological? This is an appeal to nature, as what's "natural" isn't always the best, and what's biological isn't necessarily the prevailing pressure on how we behave and think.<br />
<br />
What's even more interesting about this is that our origins aren't even polygamous. Many H/G cultures did and <i>do</i> exhibit monogamy. This is because marriage systems only make sense in the context of culture, not as part of some evolutionary preference in our species.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.</b><br />
<br />
Of course, but this is a universal statement for a multifaceted phenomenon. The structure of a family unit changes from culture to culture, from consanguineous to nuclear to polygamous to extended families dominating whatever given society, and so "traditions and rituals" (as vague as that is, but I'll go with it) "evolved" alongside human cultures in a way that these complex social systems <i>make sense</i> when combined together. Here, it's assumed that "traditions and rituals" holds no ambiguity and makes sense even when not given a particular time or space in which those traditions and rituals were found, but this is consistent with the assumed universality of all of the claims made on ROK as the basis for their beliefs. This one isn't too interesting, so let's move on.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental
changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them
to be weaker and more feminine.</b><br />
<br />
Here we get into the definition of masculinity. I can't make any assumptions based just on what I see here, but what I can say for sure is that "masculinity" changes, again, from culture to culture and has no set definition. Presumably what they mean is that their definition of "masculine" is the right one, and so that is the basis for their claims. Circulating testosterone levels are higher in males than in females and do result in the enhancement of sex traits, and to this extent I might agree with this premise. The difficulty to be found here, however, is the burning question: what is masculinity?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuucwrxgKRQtn4M2jKyJc2-2TRC6_zNBZoKPXMkHmgpcOZC5lJ0Kx5v5ktQI_n4ZtS3wXokxCYtBli4iMLHuDyhGscqwTrT3N7X76sJ2uScKvCxMabIM5mB5PS2wZtAZESTclWVjr8mm0/s1600/testosterone.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuucwrxgKRQtn4M2jKyJc2-2TRC6_zNBZoKPXMkHmgpcOZC5lJ0Kx5v5ktQI_n4ZtS3wXokxCYtBli4iMLHuDyhGscqwTrT3N7X76sJ2uScKvCxMabIM5mB5PS2wZtAZESTclWVjr8mm0/s1600/testosterone.jpeg" height="244" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice how most of these effects are non-behavioural.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Testosterone can be linked to a suite of traits, including muscle growth and efficiency, alcoholism and aggression (although the evidence for the latter is up for scrutiny); yet I wouldn't start calling a man less "masculine" for not being an alcoholic or being able to control his temper. This is because masculinity is up for interpretation, and testosterone is not the only thing which influences this trait. For example, one might consider it gay for men to be hugging and kissing in a bar, yet this is quite common in Spain and Italy after a celebration or a winning football game. It might be considered feminine for men to be shy and timid, avoiding direct eye contact in America, but this is the norm in Japan. Gender roles are culturally constructed, and so to say that hormones cause men to be "masculine" is only one perspective. It would be more accurate to say "testosterone is important in the expression of sex traits in males and females, and some attributes of those traits, such as increased muscle or more hair, are considered 'masculine' in American society." There are no universal claims to be made here, however.<br />
<br />
<b>5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A
man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and
character.</b><br />
<br />
This seems contradictory to the "men will opt out of reproduction" claim, unless of course "beauty" is the incentive to marry and reproduce... but then what is beauty? There are different standards of beauty around the world, again: probably the most well known example of this is the 'peculiar' tradition of women of the Kayan tribe in Thailand to add gold rings to their neck when they're young and keep adding to stretch out their necks. Another example might be self-scarring in the Karo tribe of Ethiopia, which is seen as a beautiful trait for women. This same habit of self-scarring is seen among the Nuer of southern Sudan, only it is <i>also</i> seen as a sign of maturity and masculinity among the men (the boys receive <i>gaar</i> on their foreheads to enter manhood, while the women have their skin plucked to create bumps on their skin).<br />
<br />
So we see that beauty has different definitions; but whatever the case may be, is it true that fertility and beauty are what women are valued for universally? This is not so. Women in many horticultural societies with bride-wealth systems of marriage exchange are seen as valuable purely for the fact that once they are married off, they receive wealth from the groom, and this wealth is shared with their brothers so that they are able to marry. A woman's value in these cultures, then, is dependent on their ability to get their brothers married as well. A woman's wealth is her value in systems where the marriage exchange is through a dowry, as (although this is unintended) her wealth is then transferred to the husband's possession (unless the woman is smart enough to bury it, or something).<br />
<br />
So, a woman's beauty is subjective, her fertility <i>should</i> be irrelevant according to ROK, and neither of these are necessary/sufficient conditions for her to be seen as valuable. What of men? Is their value dependent on their resources, intellect and character?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfHsfM0lazMYRbDV6Q7INiWARWOuU3H3W32N2apHK9oC-wtwy-MwIPZq8RkCXcV3mU5gO-FhjWnN_KGlkhyphenhyphend5aP8O4yrSpA4cINVVio107tR9qhoDq-8Xsbux_wALFGfREP_ThlWQEZdI/s1600/nuer-woman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfHsfM0lazMYRbDV6Q7INiWARWOuU3H3W32N2apHK9oC-wtwy-MwIPZq8RkCXcV3mU5gO-FhjWnN_KGlkhyphenhyphend5aP8O4yrSpA4cINVVio107tR9qhoDq-8Xsbux_wALFGfREP_ThlWQEZdI/s1600/nuer-woman.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Beauty" to the Nuer.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Notice how these three traits enable the man much more leniency than the woman. ROK sets strict standards for beauty and denounces many things which may be seen as beautiful to other people from other cultures or backgrounds, such as piercings or tattoos. Their fertility is not up for interpretation. A man's character, intellect and resources, however, are all up for interpretation, with the former probably having the strictest conditions of the three. What makes a man intelligent? I doubt they ask for a man's IQ upon meeting him, or expect women to do so. I also doubt that their only condition for intellect is "think like us" (though this wouldn't surprise me). What is "character," too? Confidence? Is that it? Who knows? I certainly don't, but I can say quite easily that a man's value can be dependent on other things as well.<br />
<br />
Consider the Nuer again. A man's value in their culture is the beauty, strength and health of his cattle, which he worships as being his connection to God. Could this be considered a resource? Perhaps, but you could say then that <i>everything</i> is a resource: beauty is a resource if used correctly, as are power tools. Resource is a vague term, and so if this is the standard of value for men, men have a lot of leeway; and coming from ROK, it's not hard to see why this may be the case.<br />
<br />
<b>6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited
mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative
behaviors that block family formation.</b><br />
<br />
We've already discussed how the family unit is also a cultural construct, but what of this claim that if "traditional sex roles" are eliminated, and unlimited mating choice is promoted, that women will become promiscuous? This is also not so, but this is by their own admission. As we've seen, a woman's value is dependent on her beauty and her fertility. If, then, a woman is "ugly" and infertile, she can <i>try</i> to be as promiscuous as she wants and violate all the traditional sex roles that they want her to have; her desires will not come to fruition, and "true men" will shun her as being low in worth and not appropriate for marriage. Also, what family formation do they see as being desirable? Presumably not one contingent on monogamy, but then what is their standard for the family unit? Polygamous marriage and subsequent creation of an "odd" family unit in America, for example, would be antithetical to personal liberties and individualization which marks industrialized societies.<br />
<br />
Let's get past that, though. Do women become promiscuous if sex roles are destroyed and unlimited mating choices are granted to them? Apparently not, as the fertility rate (according to them) <i>drops</i> when these things occur, as we will see in their final premise. In addition, as <a href="http://www.returnofkings.com/45241/how-to-get-more-sex-with-alpha-douchebag-club-game">one of the articles</a> reveal, they find this <i>perfectly acceptable</i> and go out of their way to benefit from such behaviour.<br />
<br />
So their arguments are contradictory, we get that, but I know that someone is going to say "contraception!" So, assuming contraception is available to all women, and they meet the qualifications again, does their promiscuity increase? Again, it is not so. If this were the case, we should expect that women who are more promiscuous would use more contraceptives to counter their behaviour, but this <a href="http://www.choiceproject.wustl.edu/">isn't the case</a>. Women who use contraceptives are no more likely to engage in promiscuous behaviour than their counterparts. At every facet of this argument, it falls apart. Now, for the final point.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism
aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and
impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.</b><br />
<br />
I wanted to make a post about this in the past, but since it has come up here, I'll just state the facts. First off, the concept of "cultural Marxism" <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/10/cultural-marxism-cultural-conservatism.html">is a joke</a>. Secondly, there's no connection between socialism and fertility (otherwise the United States TFR would be skyrocketing, and Sweden's TFR would be plummeting, but they're comparable). There's also no connection between feminism and fertility (otherwise Japan's TFR would be skyrocketing, and America's TFR would be plummeting, but America's TFR is higher than Japan's). We've already gone over the family unit, and socialist nations are by far not the most impoverished states in the world. Fertility rates are dropping because of economic downfall, higher rates of education, government policy actions (i.e. China, India), etc. This is not too interesting to talk about since the data is out there and readily available. It's just wrong.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHBHqvsG99xdVNY51w5zc0btGz6Hx_oAb46BoFVo1wCofxT7RKhzOBROIPR3NdBWap1aY3H62Wh8jdlSUWu4uBZifvMRr8l4HFLIjmeiVAfF1mtTEwkbbgiXAXyAfgfmZxdQtZW6erKfs/s1600/Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHBHqvsG99xdVNY51w5zc0btGz6Hx_oAb46BoFVo1wCofxT7RKhzOBROIPR3NdBWap1aY3H62Wh8jdlSUWu4uBZifvMRr8l4HFLIjmeiVAfF1mtTEwkbbgiXAXyAfgfmZxdQtZW6erKfs/s1600/Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png" height="205" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fertility rate by country. No signs of socialist interference here.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We're finally done. For those of you who kept up with all of this, good job. Now it's time to talk about the Return Of Kings Complex. As we've observed ROK seems to set standards that are much more lenient on men than on women, and do so without any backing. They are also contradictory in their stances, and so will say that one thing (feminism) causes fertility rates to fall, but will also cause promiscuity to rise. We know this to not be the case. Another example was that they claim promiscuous behaviour is bad and destroys the family unit, and yet they indulge in it.<br />
<br />
So what are their motivations? Why is it that they make so many contradictory claims, and are so strong about how they think men and women should behave, when they have little-to-no support for their views? Let's consider a combination of things they believe:<br />
<br />
1: Women will be promiscuous if given certain pressures, and this is bad; however, they're okay with it.<br />
2: Men will not engage in monogamy unless given incentive to, yet the family unit (presumably the nuclear one) needs to be preserved.<br />
3: Feminism is causing the destruction of the family unit and the fertility rate.<br />
4: Women are only valuable because of their fertility and beauty, nothing else.<br />
<br />
What can be inferred from each of these beliefs?<br />
<br />
1: Women shouldn't be promiscuous, but men should be promiscuous and thus it's okay to be promiscuous with women who are promiscuous, so long as they're beautiful.<br />
2: Men will naturally want more than one wife, but the family unit is being destroyed by women.<br />
3: Empowering women and bringing them up in society causes the destruction of fertility rates and the family unit.<br />
4: Women are not valued for anything besides how useful and appealing they are to men.<br />
<br />
The motivation? No shit, they just really don't like women (but love them) and really love men (but they're not gay) and want men to be in charge (they like it like that). The conclusion?<br />
<br />
The folks over at ROK are bisexual misanthropes who like to take it doggy style. This is the <i>ROK Complex</i>.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-71260435667872480772014-11-14T19:21:00.001-05:002014-11-22T19:18:45.519-05:00Evolutionary Sins: The Gender Gap In Spatial Cognition And Navigation<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrCWzzfAWcPRujCNSF6Ov_maIAUxXi0o74hoHpa1Eui57xXvaPzEvA24I5kCGDlXKrD6ah8G9kOizucP_sAF9vDbvjQQ9iuU3WaexkwF_wQ_C1mZB2-u-Q4VU_1c-l1Q2bEV9lolFr4nA/s1600/fieldwork.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrCWzzfAWcPRujCNSF6Ov_maIAUxXi0o74hoHpa1Eui57xXvaPzEvA24I5kCGDlXKrD6ah8G9kOizucP_sAF9vDbvjQQ9iuU3WaexkwF_wQ_C1mZB2-u-Q4VU_1c-l1Q2bEV9lolFr4nA/s1600/fieldwork.JPG" height="212" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Layne Vashro and wife Chelsea with Chief Koyo and family.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yesterday, Science Daily <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113074833.htm">reported on a study</a> conducted by anthropologists from University of Utah entitled <a href="http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2814%2900130-5/abstract"><i>Spatial cognition, mobility, and reproductive success in northwestern Namibia</i></a>. The test subjects were dozens of members from indigenous tribes, the Twe (Twa) and Tjimba (Cimba) people of northwestern Namibia, whom lead study author Layne Vashro has <a href="http://laynevashro.com/anthropology/home.html">researched extensively</a> and produced a nice amount of literature therefrom. This is likely related to the Spatial Cognition and Navigation (SCAN) Project -- a project which I had the pleasure and benefit of analyzing for an essay in one of my anthropology courses. It's very prospective research, but this particular study is still in press corrected proof, and having read the study, I think there are a few hasty conclusions drawn from their findings, namely that spatial ability and navigation are a result of evolutionary selection, and that this difference explains the somewhat more ubiquitous phenomenon of greater spacial ability in men than women. In this post I'll be examining the data from this study, and then using the products of other ethnographic research to explain why Vashro & Cashdan's findings do not necessarily show that navigational ability is a product of evolution.<br />
<br />
This study conducted several tests of spatial ability on the subjects, including pointing to different directions in the Kunene region and stating whether a rotated hand on a screen was a left or a right hand after 7.5 seconds. It was found on the tests, after excluding individuals who didn't understand them, that men did significantly better than women. These findings, the research authors suggest, support the hypothesis that spatial ability has evolved in men for reproductive success. The reason for this, they continue, is because men who were better able to navigate long distances were also better able to find several mates with whom they could have children with; and since marriage does not restrict a man's sexual behaviours in these tribes, they were best to be studied, as they were less likely to be constrained by their marriages.<br />
<br />
"Some people think it is culturally constructed, but that doesn't explain
why the pattern is shared so broadly across human societies and even in
some other species," explained Elizabeth Cashdan. At an initial glance, this seems like a pretty rational conviction with a cultural hypothesis: if this is contingent upon culture, then why is it that multiple cultures, and even multiple species, have these same abilities?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkAATSbnoyDWuT0GzqWIIEMagmSmUI1S7qXDoGEde55-IbsfmRdGfVn_eXALClYk-xFODksapPTVzFSp4FV1DqjwpLAdftzYHGztgjZljkVArGwM52W_DPSv_QiNMTdrraOqrtIgnEpQc/s1600/nature_versus_nurture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkAATSbnoyDWuT0GzqWIIEMagmSmUI1S7qXDoGEde55-IbsfmRdGfVn_eXALClYk-xFODksapPTVzFSp4FV1DqjwpLAdftzYHGztgjZljkVArGwM52W_DPSv_QiNMTdrraOqrtIgnEpQc/s1600/nature_versus_nurture.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The novel debate.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The problem with this conclusion, first of all is that it's an evolutionary misconception. This is something that I touched up on in <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/09/evolution-common-misconceptions-or-what.html">my post of a similar title</a>: the idea that because something <i>is</i>, it therefore evolved to be this way. This is fallacious -- traits which have evolved are not always used in ways they developed for, and just because something is the way it is now does not mean it was supposed to be this way. In that post, I used the example of bird feathers, where it was not developed for flight, but for temperature regulation. Similarly, we can say that spatial abilities evolved, but just because this trait is exhibited in certain ways and has certain benefits <i>now</i> does not mean it evolved for that reason.<br />
<br />
Second of all, the hypothesis in question has little support from research which directly tests its viability. If spatial ability is a dimorphic trait which evolved in men over women to travel over wide ranges and navigate to find more mates and produce more offspring, then we should expect the differential to be constant across species with such wide ranges, and for the gap to decrease when ranges decrease. In fact, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397795">this is not the case</a>. The comparative analysis by Clint et al. (2012) shows that across 35 studies of 11 species, while 8 out of 11 of the species do display this gap in spatial navigation, this tendency occurred regardless of the size of territories or the extent to which male ranges spanned further than female ranges. The authors suggest an alternative hypothesis, that perhaps the differential is a side effect of sex differences in testosterone, but there is little evidence to support this; certainly, however, there seems to not be much evidence, if any at all, for the evolutionary hypothesis.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Of course, I should be fair and state ahead of time that the authors do not suggest definitively that the gender gap in spatial ability has evolved for this reason, but merely that it's a hypothesis which is supported by the evidence. No, the idea that this is definitively the answer is more the fault of science reporting and the articles that have appeared in response to this article. Ignoring the reporting and prior studies, if we go by the authors' interpretations, they're not wrong: this <i>could</i> suggest that the spatial gap is a result of evolutionary differences, but it could also suggest cultural differences as well. But what reason do we have to believe one over the other?<br />
<br />
Well, one reason which might suggest that spatial ability is the product of culture is that we know this to be the case based on already existing evidence; and in fact, the discrepancy between cultures (i.e. the lack of total universality) is what supports this.<br />
<br />
To begin, consider the way direction is analyzed in the west; that is, in America, Canada, Europe, and so on -- English speaking countries. In common usage, direction is usually told respective to ourselves: left, right, front (or forward) and back (or behind). This is how we tell stories, how we give directions, and how we map the world around us, and in fact this has been fairly unproblematic in our daily lives. It's natural -- second nature to us, and because we can all understand it, we can all interact via these methods.<br />
<br />
However, this method of navigation is <i>not</i> consistent between cultures. The most famous example of this is the Australian Aboriginal tribe, the Guugu Yimithirr. Their navigational abilities, unlike ours, are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25/abstract">based on cardinal directions</a>: North, South, East and West. Like us, this is also their practical use of direction, i.e. the one they use when speaking to other people, giving directions, telling stories, etc. When telling stories, for example, about when a fishing/hunting boat capsized, they would say the people jumped off the <i>East side of the boat</i>. When comparing the same story told by multiple individuals, this direction is remarkably consistent. This use of direction isn't biological, however, but is taught from a young age, as early as two.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp1IReM4ZvMxpM_PDXLj4A5KeEpeg_RUHhCVDAPLyyz2-W1YXsVI6Kqj-zcYRUu1FWv8-aZnBw87eJFGziyHIFZJaTIpYEZE3Ql9bfx5UEUoWY0ukXSeoC44n2nD8-bCQAqIpIt0vkOi8/s1600/Guugu-Yimithirr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp1IReM4ZvMxpM_PDXLj4A5KeEpeg_RUHhCVDAPLyyz2-W1YXsVI6Kqj-zcYRUu1FWv8-aZnBw87eJFGziyHIFZJaTIpYEZE3Ql9bfx5UEUoWY0ukXSeoC44n2nD8-bCQAqIpIt0vkOi8/s1600/Guugu-Yimithirr.jpg" height="217" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Guugu Yimithirr warriors.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yet, the Guugu Yimithirr have problems with their method. When introduced to a region they aren't familiar with, where they can't orient themselves to familiar landmarks, they can no longer tell directions. This is very different from the system used by English speakers, because we can use our methodology in almost all situations, so long as we can see. Thus we can see that while the Guugu Yimithirr have developed remarkable spatial ability compared to that of English speakers, it would only confer success in their specific region. This shows not only cultural boundaries, but evolutionary boundaries as well.<br />
<br />
These are only two examples of how culture constructs our navigational abilities, and thus potentially explain the differences between cultures and even between sexes/genders in a particular culture. This analysis examines the differences between how cultures utilize direction without regarding gender. There is evidence, however, which examines the gender gap as well, and provides strong support for the cultural explanation, namely by displaying how difference in kinship and marriage systems might explain the discrepancy.<br />
<br />
Consider the Khasi and Karbi tribes of northern India. The Karbi tribe practices a patrilineal kinship system, which (very briefly) means that inheritance and descent are passed down through men to their offspring. Characteristic of this type of kinship system is very strong, hard-to-break marriages as well as strict gender roles and restriction of women's sexuality. The Khasi tribe, on the other hand, is matrilineal, which means descent is passed down by women, by inheritance is passed by men -- but the assets which men own are often reliant on marrying women. Cultures which have this type of kinship system more often exhibit egalitarian characteristics, with women not being restricted in their sexuality, with relationships between siblings being strong, weaker marriages, etc.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNpLnJgzABVzGziXbY8ADwdFLxvYhUd6ZCldS9zuWE6t9APGouRcB6ongDCJulsEnl2WRMLCok3RGJK5hOBJCqfT5Qjfij3ydAGJw4_GPxKVVB_7dGt_vfKlflwPX47Uehod-1l_g0GIk/s1600/6a00d8341c037253ef00e54f4c4def8834-640wi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNpLnJgzABVzGziXbY8ADwdFLxvYhUd6ZCldS9zuWE6t9APGouRcB6ongDCJulsEnl2WRMLCok3RGJK5hOBJCqfT5Qjfij3ydAGJw4_GPxKVVB_7dGt_vfKlflwPX47Uehod-1l_g0GIk/s1600/6a00d8341c037253ef00e54f4c4def8834-640wi.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Khasi people at a dancing festival in 2005.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It should be no surprise, then, that despite these two tribes being very genetically and geographically similar to each other, they show <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14786.full">differences in gendered spatial abilities</a>. In the Karbi tribe, men completed spatial ability tasks 36% faster than women; but in the Khasi tribe, they showed no significant differences. Similarly, they controlled for socioeconomic status as well: since there are some women in the Karbi tribe who <i>do</i> own land and wealth when there are no sons, they tested individual households within the tribe. Then, they found that in households with higher status women, the gap in spatial ability closes by about a third. In addition, controlling for education shrank the gap by a third as well.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, this doesn't explain why or how culture influences these factors, but lends <i>very</i> strong credence to the cultural hypothesis, and reconciles for factors which may not be accounted for by Vashro & Cashdan (2014). There are problems with the Hoffman study, however: their test of spatial abilities (an Object Assembly task) may or may not accurately represent the cognitive faculties in question. It should be noted however that their sample was a rare one, and was intended to promote future prospective research, but to my knowledge no such research has been conducted, likely due to the difficulties Hoffman et al. (2011) faced when attempting to teach their sample subjects how to conduct higher-level tasks of spatial abilities.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, this study remains significant for the subject at hand: whether or not Vashro & Cashdan's evolutionary hypothesis of sexually dimorphic expression for spatial cognition holds water. Likewise, the very fact that there exists such discrepancies in spatial abilities between cultures, and even within cultures, further supports the cultural hypothesis. Finally, while I won't discuss it in full detail here, we also have the <a href="http://works.bepress.com/dianna_shandy/22/">pioneering work</a> of anthropologist Dianna Shandy and economist Karine Moe to explain the cultural pressures which cause gender gaps in and different responses to certain tasks, including navigation.<br />
<br />
It's honestly hard to believe that this recent research is being used to support the idea that spatial memory has evolved higher in men than women <i>everywhere</i>, even though there are clear cultural differences in this cognitive gap. To accept the evolutionary hypothesis, the trait should be much more universal than is the gap between genders in spatial abilities; nonetheless, this is a good example of western reductionism and how we find it very easy to find simple explanations for complex traits. This is much less a criticism of Vashro & Cashdan, but of the reports of their study. It's important to suggest alternatives in the scientific literature, as the two authors have done, but there are no definitive answers to be found here. We need to be careful that when we suggest an evolutionary explanation for observed traits, that the evidence is robust enough. While it's clear that there is cultural influence on spatial ability, there may be biological influences as well; however, the evidence at present, in my opinion, is not clear to support that suggestion.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Ethos&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1525%2Feth.1998.26.1.25&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Guugu+Yimithirr+Cardinal+Directions&rft.issn=0091-2131&rft.date=1998&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=47&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.wiley.com%2F10.1525%2Feth.1998.26.1.25&rft.au=Haviland%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Haviland, J. (1998). Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions. <span style="font-style: italic;">Ethos, 26</span> (1), 25-47 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25" rev="review">10.1525/eth.1998.26.1.25</a></span><br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Ethos&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1525%2Feth.1998.26.1.25&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Guugu+Yimithirr+Cardinal+Directions&rft.issn=0091-2131&rft.date=1998&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=47&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.wiley.com%2F10.1525%2Feth.1998.26.1.25&rft.au=Haviland%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience"> </span>
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+National+Academy+of+Sciences&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1073%2Fpnas.1015182108&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Nurture+affects+gender+differences+in+spatial+abilities&rft.issn=0027-8424&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=36&rft.spage=14786&rft.epage=14788&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcgi%2Fdoi%2F10.1073%2Fpnas.1015182108&rft.au=Hoffman%2C+M.&rft.au=Gneezy%2C+U.&rft.au=List%2C+J.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CMathematics%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Hoffman, M., Gneezy, U., & List, J. (2011). Nurture affects gender differences in spatial abilities. <span style="font-style: italic;">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108</span> (36), 14786-14788 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015182108" rev="review">10.1073/pnas.1015182108</a></span> <br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=Evolution+and+Human+Behavior&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1016%2Fj.evolhumbehav.2014.09.009&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Spatial+cognition%2C+mobility%2C+and+reproductive+success+in+northwestern+Namibia&rft.issn=10905138&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1090513814001305&rft.au=Vashro%2C+L.&rft.au=Cashdan%2C+E.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CBiology%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CNeuroscience">Vashro, L., & Cashdan, E. (2014). Spatial cognition, mobility, and reproductive success in northwestern Namibia. <span style="font-style: italic;">Evolution and Human Behavior,</span> DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.009" rev="review">10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.009</a></span><span style="float: left; padding: 5px;"></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-64504222806057515062014-10-30T13:23:00.002-04:002014-11-18T21:23:19.038-05:00Duggar Do Dumb: Evolution, Abortion And The HolocaustBefore I continue with this post, I apologize to my readers for my unannounced hiatus. We started a new project at work a few weeks back and I've been trying to maintain a balance between that, friends and household, and my online work.<br />
<br />
Anyone who watches a lot of reality TV in America or just haphazardly turns the channel to TLC for a few seconds has heard of or seen the show <i>19 Kids and Counting</i>. I can summarize the show in two ways: (1) a mother and father of Christian background raise 19 children, and look forward to even more, in similar backgrounds, raising them with unconventional parenting methods that are intended to keep them pure and faithful; or, (2) two Young Earth Creationists (YECs), one of them a breeding hub, raise 19 children under strict Christian morals, albeit somewhat hypocritically, and force them to live and act <i>exactly</i> the way they want them to.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/03/19-kids-and-counting-600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/03/19-kids-and-counting-600.jpg" height="189" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Smiles? Yes. Smarts? No.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It should be expected that I'm going to talk about their faith, but let's talk about the children's upbringing first. They're all assigned various duties in the household, usually adhering to stereotypical gender roles. The daughters sleep in the same room, as do the brothers. They're home schooled and are restricted in internet use, only being allowed to view a few select websites that have been approved by the parents, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, and only while being monitored by one of their siblings. They must dress modestly, be happy, and do as they are told. They're also not allowed to date: they have a system called "courting" where a man asks for the father's permission to "court" his daughter. They aren't allowed to make physical contact except for "side hugs" (one arm, both facing the same direction), and they're also not allowed to be alone (one of the siblings chaperones them). If all goes well, the man asks the father's permission (again, note patriarchy) to propose to his daughter. If he agrees, and then if she agrees, they can get married. After marriage, baby making almost immediately begins. <br />
<br />
I could go on about most of this and how their methods are not only ineffective for what they're trying to accomplish, but also harmful to their children's psyche and upbringing (in fact, I may make a post about that in the future, as it pertains to psychology). I could also go on about the number of other families who do this, such as the Bates family from <i>United Bates of America</i> (blech!). But let's get into the good stuff.<br />
<br />
So of course, as I mentioned, they're YECs. That means they believe Earth was created 6,000 years ago by the Christian God, and all life came from that time. They believe in the flood, in Jesus, etc. etc. They don't believe in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. etc. If I'm not mistaken, they've actually gone to the Creation Museum and met the <i>lovely</i> Ken Ham, who is the <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/05/self-validating-logic-how-do-you-know.html">foremost scholar in Biblical Creationism</a>. Stemming from their faith is also their stance on many political/social issues, including gay marriage and abortion.<br />
<br />
It's no surprise, then, that a month ago, one of the Duggar daughters <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/09/30/duggar_daughter_blames_the_holocaust_on_evolution_then_compares_it_to_abortion/">stirred up a hive on Instagram</a> when she compared abortion to the Holocaust, and blamed evolutionary theory for the Holocaust.<br />
<br />
Wait... Really?<br />
<br />
Now, let me be entirely clear before I continue on with this: I don't hold any malice towards the Duggar children. They've been raised in a toxic household that has kept them from thinking for themselves or straying away from their upbringing and towards anywhere near valid reasoning, or at least <i>some</i> scientific insight. Their fate can only be summed up as inevitable ignorance as a result of their sheltered lifestyle; thus, I don't personally find the children at fault for any of what they say, but rather I blame the parents, and possibly their parents' parents. In my opinion, what they've done to these children is sickening, and the fact that the media glorifies this family as though it's something to behold is even worse.<br />
<br />
Moving on, it was widely criticized when Jessa Duggar made a post on Instragram after visiting the Holocaust Museum. This is what she said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I walked through the Holocaust Museum again today… very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and
fundamental of all rights — their right to life. One human destroying
the life of another deemed ‘less than human.’ Racism, stemming from the
evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that
some people groups are ‘more evolved’ and others 'less evolved.'</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with
Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The
sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or
wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you
darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor. … May we never sit
idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again. Not this generation.
We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves.
Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #ProLife"</i></blockquote>
Of course, I have to appreciate her opposition to racism and her support for the sick and the poor, on top of a few other things, but there are too many things inherently wrong with her statements that it casts shadow over the positive. That's the purpose of this post: to review the things she said and explain why they're nonsensical. Let's examine the first paragraph to begin.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa287/mechanical_chicken/1041_10.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa287/mechanical_chicken/1041_10.gif" height="164" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Anti-evolution propaganda doesn't understand evolution.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There's nothing wrong with what she said about the Holocaust, it's what she said about evolution. The idea that evolutionary theory is what sparked racism is beyond ridiculous; it's just blatantly untrue to anyone familiar with history. The Holocaust was not the first genocide that was racial (it can be argued that it was never racial, but economic, but I won't get into that now) -- there exist dozens of them prior to World War II. One that Americans should be familiar with, but apparently has not contacted Jessa Duggar, was the colonization of the Americans and the genocide of the Native Americans (which continues to this day, by the way). "1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue;" not exactly Darwin's era.<br />
<br />
That's just genocide, though: racism has existed far longer than evolutionary theory has. The most ironic example I could probably think of right now would be the Curse of Ham. Simply put, the Curse of Ham in the Bible has been interpreted since as early as the 9th century as justification for sub-Saharan African inferiority -- that they are the cursed descendants of Ham in the Bible; those with black skin. Of course, this isn't an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it serves the point. I suspect that Jessa's parents, who would never want their children exposed to the horrors that Christianity has exacerbated or influenced, didn't tell them about this.<br />
<br />
So it's obvious that racism does not come from evolutionary theory, but then there comes the second implication of Jessa's statement: that evolutionary theory is racist at all. It's actually not. The interpretation that some humans are "less evolved" than others is not a part of original evolutionary theory, but was extrapolated from it to form the social theory of unilineal evolution. Some creatures are not "more" or "less" evolved than others because evolution <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/09/evolution-common-misconceptions-or-what.html">doesn't work in stages</a>, and does not have an ultimate stance on best, worst, least or most. Organisms evolve to fit their environment so they can survive and reproduce; thus, it is incorrect to say anything is "more evolved" than something else, simply because evolution is not a necessarily quantitative process. The idea that some races are "less evolved" than others, then, is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory that was used to justify racism and genocide during that era. It also led to some pretty interesting economic theories, but that's beyond the scope of this post.<br />
<br />
On a side note, I'd like to comment on her notion that racism was perpetuated by the idea that humans evolved from something "less than human." I don't even see how this favours one race over another; it just says that humans were not human before they became human. Nothing to do with black, white, or teal.<br />
<br />
In the second paragraph, Jessa basically draws upon emotional appeal to make the comparison between the atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust to abortion, and then hashtags "prolife." This is beyond insulting; it's a shameful, derogatory attack against mothers who have had abortions or may consider getting abortions, and is disgraceful and demeaning to the victims of the Holocaust. Beyond it's emotional implications, the claim is just wrong.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/67103/large/ba5a9e8b391aec0ec2e03dfa4878bc8e.jpg?1391096197" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/67103/large/ba5a9e8b391aec0ec2e03dfa4878bc8e.jpg?1391096197" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">No I'm not Wendy Davis. Nor do I support her.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
First of all, etymologically, abortion <i>can't</i> be a genocide like the Holocaust. A genocide is the intended destruction of an entire group by the various means outlined in the 1948 United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Nobody intends to destroy all babies -- that would mean the end of humanity as we know it. Instead, people get abortions for various other reasons. It may be irresponsible to have a child at the time. It may be detrimental to the mother's health. It may have been the result of rape. There are various reasons to get an abortion, and none of them have to do with the exclusive desire to kill a baby for the sole fact that it's a baby.<br />
<br />
But I get it: the comparison isn't to say that abortion is a <i>real</i> genocide, just that it's the heartless murder of millions of unborn children. The problem is that this is just an appeal to emotion, and is outside the realm of practical or realistic debate. Whether you see the murder of an unborn fetus as morally wrong or not isn't substantive. Beyond this, I <i>could</i> get into a ceaseless debate about abortion, but let me just keep it frank:<br />
<br />
<i>Get out of my vagina.</i><br />
<br />
For the purposes of this post, however, I think we've covered enough ground. Some people may prompt me to blame the child for her beliefs since she could've ingeniously come up with them on her own, and was simply told "abortion is murder" by her parents. <i>Some </i>people might say that, but not many, and it's not surprising why: this <a href="http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/michelle_blog/page-6/33400/an_american_holocaust">isn't the first time a Duggar has compared abortion to genocide</a>, and in fact it was the mother who started this trend.<br />
<br />
There's a lot to take from this event. First and foremost is that the Duggars (the parents) are vile idiots who should be condemned, not celebrated, for what they're doing to their children. The second is that everything controversial Jessa said was just factually incorrect. The third is that I may now have two posts coming for you in the future: the psychological consequences of the Duggars' way of raising children, and the argument in favour of abortion (which probably won't be new to most of you, but I promise to keep things interesting).<br />
<br />
For now, thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-84195182764376744832014-10-09T21:50:00.000-04:002016-02-18T23:00:41.797-05:00Fluoridation, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Water<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1373015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1373015.jpg" height="218" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">General Jack D. Ripper with Captain Lionel Mandrake.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Most of us have heard the famous line by General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, "have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?" The conversation thereafter satirically illustrated a fear that grew most prominent starting in the 1940s with the Second Red Scare -- public water fluoridation. Many conspiracy theories about water fluoridation arose during this time, but they all aimed to make the same case: that fluoride in drinking water is bad (sometimes just meaning unethical), and unhealthy, for various reasons that are being neglected by the government.<br />
<br />
In a study published in JAMA by Oliver & Wood (2014) entitled "<a href="http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1835348">Medical Conspiracy Theories and Health Behaviors in the United States</a>," it was found 49% of Americans believe in at least one of 6 medical conspiracy theories, including but not limited to concerns about "Agenda 21," the <a href="http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/08/brian-hookers-hooked-hoax-measles-mumps.html">vaccine-autism link</a>, and water fluoridation. For the latter, it was found that 12% of Americans believe that "public water fluoridation is really just a secret way for chemical companies to dump the dangerous byproducts of phosphate mines into the environment." This is just one of the many explanations for water fluoridation that conspiracy theorists provide, so the variation in the "theory" aspect of it is similar to that of "chemtrails;" but unlike the chemtrail conspiracy theories which are fairly recent (starting around the 1990s), water fluoridation has invoked fear from the public for quite some time, and remains a pervasive element of the disconnect between the scientific community relating to public health and the public itself. Nick has informed me already of two scenarios this semester where his classmates have promoted the concept. So with all the concern it raises, is the fear of public water fluoridation a legitimate concern?<br />
<br />
Of course, it's unfair to group the concerns mentioned above with the Red Scare sentiments expressed in Dr. Strangelove, but the resentment against water fluoridation still fails to be substantive. The arguments of ethics not withstanding, water fluoridation is (if at all) not anywhere near as medically harmful as 12% of the American population believes it is. Here, we're going to examine some common arguments made by proponents of this conspiracy theory and refute them. Let's get started.<br />
<br />
<b>Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment</b>.<br />
<br />
It depends on how you define "medical treatment." One could argue that many processes conducted during water purification, such as disinfection to kill parasites and bacteria, can be considered medical treatment (specifically preventative treatment), but either way, this is actually a red herring. Whether or not it's the only chemical added to water is immaterial, because it doesn't lend any credibility to one side or the other; however, we can examine <i>why</i> it was added as "medical treatment," and start to make an informed decision.<br />
<br />
Water fluoridation in the United States began in 1945 because a wave of
dental hygienists began promoting the widespread distribution of
fluoride to promote dental hygiene in the United States for individuals
of all ages and income levels. It was meant to be a cost-effective,
efficient way to distribute this treatment throughout the United States,
and so it was. Approximately <a href="https://www.deltadental.com/AmericasOralHealth.pdf">$40 billion</a> have been saved in
reduced oral health care expenditures in the United States over the
past 40 years due to public water fluoridation.<br />
<br />
To celebrate the coming of a new century, in 1999, the CDC <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm">released a statement</a> about the top ten greatest public health achievements in
America from 1900 - 1999. In this list, water fluoridation was listed.
The report estimates that in 1999, fluoridated drinking water reached
approximately 144 million people in the United States, effectively
serving its purpose. The report also refers to the 1999 edition of a
book by Burt and Eklund entitled <i>Dentistry, Dental Practice, And the Community</i>. In Chapter 25 of the book, the causes, effects and cost of
water fluoridation in the United States are discussed. It estimates that
there has been approximately a 40-70% decrease in child tooth decay
and approximately a 40-60% decrease in adult tooth loss.<br />
<br />
So not only were the intentions clear, but the results were evidential, and the effort was a success. The addition of fluoride to drinking water (in the United States anyway) <i>was</i> a medical treatment, but it was a justified one.<br />
<br />
<b>Dental health products, such as toothpaste and mouth wash, which contain fluoride, tell you not to swallow them.</b><br />
<br />
This
is due to the very high concentration of fluoride in them, which they
acknowledge can make you sick. The fluoride in toothpaste and mouth
wash, also, is meant for prolonged exposure to the teeth, for optimal
usage.<br />
<br />
<b>The dose cannot be controlled.</b><br />
<br />
This argument relies on two premises: (1) that without control, there is a risk for people to harm themselves from fluoridated water; and, (2) that a lack of individual dosage control is an argument against water fluoridation. For premise one, the toxic level of fluoride is around 5-10 grams for a typical 150
pound or 70 kilogram adult, using estimates provided in <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Clinical_toxicology_of_commercial_produc.html?id=J_EtAAAAMAAJ"><i>Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products</i></a>, a book produced by Gosselin, Smith
and Hodge in 1984. The recommended number of glasses of water to drink
is 8, so if there is 1 part fluoride for every million parts water, in 8
glasses of water, there is about 0.002 grams of fluoride -- this is
about 1 tenth of a grain of sand. So, the toxic amount of
fluoride (5-10 grams for a 70 kilogram adult) is 2500-5000 times
greater than what is found in 8 glasses of water (0.002 grams of
fluoride). That means that, with the strictest estimates, if <i>all</i> fluoride content received in water were to be retained in the body (it's not), it would take almost 7 years to reach the toxic level.<br />
<br />
It should be noted, then, that 1 ppm <i>was</i> the optimal fluoridation amount at the beginning of the project, but is now <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water">around 0.7 ppm</a>, and thus the amount of fluoride an individual receives is about 30% less than what we estimated above. The point being, however, is that the current levels of fluoride in drinking water are not enough to be of concern to people who drink a lot of it.<br />
<br />
But going beyond premise one and onto premise two, the argument is again irrelevant. There are many chemicals introduced to public drinking water that, if ingested in excessive quantities, could pose health risks. This doesn't mean, however, that these chemicals should automatically be taken out, because this is the case for <i>many</i> different things we ingest, like tuna, apples or coffee. The issue is not in whether or not they <i>could</i> threaten their health by drinking too much, it's a question of if they <i>will</i>. This requires individual responsibility to an extent; however, given what we know from the content above, we can say that there isn't too much reason to start tallying your water intake and calculating the amount of fluoride you consumed therein.<br />
<br />
<b>The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability.</b><br />
<br />
This part of the article talks about the progression in pharmacotherapy from stereotyped medication to individualized therapy. What the quote cited failed to note is that individualized therapy is applied when there is reason to believe that patients can be divided into medically relevant subgroups that respond differently to specific treatment, and thus they need to examine an individual's characteristics (gender, age, ancestry, etc.) to make a determination of what treatment to use. What he also failed to mention is that, aside from individualized treatment, there is also evidence-based medicine (EBM), which essentially means the treatment of individuals based on the current best evidence available. Considering that water fluoridation only began after it was found in Grand Falls, Michigan that fluoride levels of 1.0 ppm in the water were optimal for preventing tooth decay, water fluoridation would be considered a public health initiative based in EBM.<br />
<br />
<b>Fluoride is used as a chemical in rat poison.</b><br />
<br />
This
is like arguing that because chlorine is used to chemically
decontaminate pool water (but is toxic), and chlorine is also used in
common table salt (a.k.a. sodium chloride), then chlorination of table
salt should end. Chemicals used in one way do not have the same effects
as chemicals used in another way.<br />
<br />
<b>No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects</b>.<br />
<br />
Water fluoridation, in the United States, is <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm">monitored at the state level</a>, and not by federal agencies. This should be considered a good thing, because different states have different cities and different states have different levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water -- if this amount is too much, some is actually <i>removed</i> from the water supply. Aside from this, the claim that no health agency in any fluoridated countries monitors this is just unfounded. For example, <a href="http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/england.pdf">here's England's 2014 report on fluoridation</a>.<br />
<br />
At this point, we should be able to acknowledge that water fluoridation is not a particularly harmful practice. I'm not denying here that there are <i>some</i> arguments to be made against water fluoridation as a governmental practice, but we can see that as a medical effort, it's not bad. For further information, I recommend reading the World Health Organization (WHO) <a href="http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf">report on water fluoridation</a> across the world.<br />
<br />
Thank you all very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.researchblogging.org/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ResearchBlogging.org" src="http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_large_gray.png" style="border: 0px none;" /></a>References:
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=JAMA+Internal+Medicine&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1001%2Fjamainternmed.2014.190&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Medical+Conspiracy+Theories+and+Health+Behaviors+in+the+United+States.&rft.issn=2168-6106&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=174&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=817&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Farchinte.jamanetwork.com%2Farticle.aspx%3Fdoi%3D10.1001%2Fjamainternmed.2014.190&rft.au=Oliver%2C+J.&rft.au=Wood%2C+T.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth"> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=JAMA+Internal+Medicine&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1001%2Fjamainternmed.2014.190&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Medical+Conspiracy+Theories+and+Health+Behaviors+in+the+United+States.&rft.issn=2168-6106&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=174&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=817&rft.epage=&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Farchinte.jamanetwork.com%2Farticle.aspx%3Fdoi%3D10.1001%2Fjamainternmed.2014.190&rft.au=Oliver%2C+J.&rft.au=Wood%2C+T.&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Anthropology%2CMedicine%2CPsychology%2CSocial+Science%2CResearch+%2F+Scholarship%2CHealth">Oliver, J., & Wood, T. (2014). Medical Conspiracy Theories and Health Behaviors in the United States. <span style="font-style: italic;">JAMA Internal Medicine, 174</span> (5) DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.190" rev="review">10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.190</a></span><span style="float: left; padding: 5px;"></span>Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-91001278912502050932014-10-03T11:50:00.003-04:002014-11-23T01:34:46.672-05:00Cultural Marxism, Cultural Conservatism and the Frankfurt School: Making Sense of NonsenseThis post is going to be a lot different from my other ones. It's going to be analytical, experimental, and probably very boring. If you're not interested in politics, philosophy or history, then I highly recommend you go back to whatever you were doing before you came across this post. Fair warning.<br />
<br />
<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
I'm no stranger to the depths of the internet. It's a place where many perspectives can meet together and either have thoughtful discussion, or (more frequently) duke it out verbally over things they know they'll never come to agreement on. The internet is frequently described as the "free market place of ideas," and with good reason - on the internet, you're not very much restricted on what you can say or do. It's a place where even the smallest of voices can be heard, and be much louder than they ever would have been in "the real world." This can be good, because it can offer dissent and debate over things that would never have seen the light of day otherwise; it can serve as a floor that is conducive to open discussion over any topic, and in many ways, provide equal weight to all of them.<br />
<br />
Yet this can also be very bad. Particularly, it makes sense out of nonsense, or at least gives nonsense the appearance of sense. Uninformed parties can also shout from the rooftops of the internet and convince the ignorant masses that what they say is true, or at the very least backed up by substantial evidence or reason. I use "ignorant" mildly here. There's nothing particularly wrong about being ignorant on any given subject, because different pieces of knowledge are useful for different things. Being ignorant has nothing to do with personal value, but merely with what a person has been exposed to and what they're familiar with, and it's very context specific.<br />
<br />
I'll give the subject of this post as an example, which we'll further examine. The term "cultural Marxism" has recently gained a lot of popularity in usage among cultural conservatives. While I'll be discussing the "true" meaning of the term throughout this post, a very basic summary is that it is an easy-to-use description of leftism and its influence on culture, adherent to the principles of Marxism. Proponents of the term often claim that these things, starting as early as World War I, have slowly crept their way into Western culture in order to uproot its traditions and values, and is thus a real threat to our way of life.<br />
<br />
Now, at an initial glance, this seems like it makes sense, but I'll spoil the surprise for you: it's nothing more than propaganda, utilizing a seldom understood "foreign" concept as a target through which cultural conservatives can mobilize their supporters against a narrative scapegoat. The use of this term, at least within academia, will ultimately never find favor due to its sheer ridiculousness (although proponents will argue that it's being avoided because of "political correctness"); however, this means that its most common occurrences are found within the works of published authors or the internet, and will gain much favor amongst the adhering public. Very few people are truly aware of what Marxism actually is, and so when they see the term, they don't immediately recognize its flaws. This is why it only shows itself at night: because only the ignorant masses, or the uninformed but generally educated public, will buy it.<br />
<br />
It's actually kind of funny. Last year, I read a work by one published proponent of the term, Patrick Buchanan, specifically his book <i>State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America</i> for a project on how to recognize propaganda in rhetoric. This year, it seems Lex (the coauthor of this blog) has been getting hammered by fans of Kevin MacDonald, another author who has frequently used this term to describe a hypothetical Jewish group evolutionary strategy. Quickly we can see that its favor amongst cultural conservatives has led to its application to immigration, Jews (and most likely anti-Semitism), and in general the political left. Now I get to examine its implications and explain why it's of no value. <br />
<br />
In this post, we'll first take a look at the meaning of the term "cultural Marxism," its history and usage, and its rising popularity in America. I'll then explain its association with the Frankfurt School and the related conspiracy theory. Next, in order to be able to make any sense of what I'll be talking about, I'll review a few fundamental tenets of Marxist theory. I'll then use the available information and critical analysis to pick apart the term and explain why it doesn't make sense. Likewise, I'll explain why it has nothing to do with the Frankfurt School. Finally, after dispelling all misinformation and propaganda surrounding the issue, I'll try to explain why this term has found common usage, and argue why it's preferable to keep it around instead of eradicating it from the public thesaurus with an atomic bomb.<br />
<br />
By the end of this post, I plan on having accomplished the following:<br />
<br />
1: Thoroughly examining and refuting the term "cultural Marxism."<br />
2: Pissing off every ideologue that supports the use of this term.<br />
3: Giving people a better understanding of Marxist theory and methodology.<br />
<br />
However, I do <i>not</i> plan on accomplishing the following:<br />
<br />
1: Convincing anyone who finds favor with this term that it's of no value.<br />
2: Educating those who just want to argue with me.<br />
3: Stopping the use of this term.<br />
<br />
I
am not here to debate those who are already convinced of their
righteousness. I'm here to provide information for those individuals who
are seeking it, and want to know more about Marxist theory/methodology
without it being confounded by conspiracy theories and political dogma.
This is a pedagogic discussion, not a platform for people to promote
their ideologies.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I don't expect that this
will be the end of "cultural Marxism," nor do I want it to be. Although
it's admittedly stupid, the use of the term serves as a very powerful
and important political tool, and even if it were to be eradicated from
the political lexicon, a new term paired with a new conspiracy theory
(or the same one for that matter) would quickly replace it. It seems apparent to me that if any term were to find favor with radical conservatives, it's fortunate it was this.<br />
<br />
<b>History and Background</b><br />
<br />
When I first looked at the term "cultural Marxism," I nearly spat out my water. First of all, what the heck does it mean? Secondly and lastly, where did it come from?<br />
<br />
Perhaps the first popular use of the term "cultural Marxism" in its modern conception is found in an article entitled <i>What is Political Correctness? </i>by cultural conservative pundit William S. Lind. In an Accuracy in Academia (a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting against perceived liberal bias in education) conference, Lind explained:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Political Correctness
is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into
cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the
hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare
the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the
parallels are very obvious."</i></blockquote>
These are from around the turn of the century. Now, the term has found increasing favor with conservative movements such as the Tea Party movement in 2009. In his manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik placed a copy of Lind's 2004 pamphlet on the subject, further popularizing the term. Less dangerously, the term has been picked up in its extreme by white nationalist movements. If we look at Metapedia, which is basically an encyclopedia for racists, the definition of cultural Marxism begins as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Cultural Marxism or Cultural Bolshevism (degenerate
culture) seeks to destroy everything good about a society, what holds it
together, what helps it to advance, what promotes intelligence and
beauty. It seeks to degenerate society and take it to a lower form
where people are less intelligent and more animal. It's based on the
Marxist lie that everything good about society is all a form of
oppression."</i></blockquote>
In this definition, we can see the practice as being instrumental in some type of conspiracy, and even in promoting "degenerate culture-" a term which finds its roots in the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, and refers to a lower quality of culture, specifically modern art. Of course, we now know that culture can't be seen as being part of a hierarchy or set of stages, but is instead plural and adaptive.<br />
<br />
It's not fair, admittedly, to associate all found usage of the term "cultural Marxism" with these more radical (and admittedly uninformative) interpretations and applications. Given what we know, and what we can see on Wikipedia, cultural Marxism is essentially the application of Marxist theory to culture, and "conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized."<br />
<br />
This was once, perhaps, a legitimate intellectual practice, but in its modern usage it not only doesn't make sense, but it probably doesn't exist. However, when something doesn't make sense, it's usually attributed to a contentious source, or a conspiracy theory. This incites not only a sense of legitimacy, but fear as well, and serves to mobilize people who are afraid of its lasting effects.<br />
<br />
<b>The Frankfurt School</b><br />
<br />
The Frankfurt School is a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory. It's actually not a physical school, but refers to any thinkers associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. The term was rarely used by the thinkers themselves. The Frankfurt School arose from dissident Marxists who thought that some of Marx's followers were narrowly interpreting his teachings. In addition, they thought these Marxists were spending too much time discussing the "base" of human society, and not enough time discussing how the "superstructure" functions to support it. We'll discuss what these two things mean in our overview of Marxist theory.<br />
<br />
The foundations and teachings of the Frankfurt School, however, are seldom examined by those who use the term in question. A conspiracy theory has arisen around the Frankfurt School, suggesting that they "deliberately subverted traditional Western values through interventions into culture, leading to what is called political correctness." The critical theory of the Frankfurt School, then, is an intentional destruction (or deconstruction) of Western culture, values and traditions to those who buy into this conspiracy theory. Such groups include the Free Congress Foundation and, as mentioned, white nationalist organizations and movements.<br />
<br />
While it has found popularity amongst those who, politically, can utilize its societal ramifications, this isn't the common scholarly understanding of the Frankfurt School. This understanding argues that while some individual thinkers from the Frankfurt School did engage in social critique in America, they had no unified theory, nor collective political agenda. This actually makes a lot of sense, given the tenets of Marxist theory and the scholarly foundations of the Frankfurt School.<br />
<br />
The alternative interpretation served and continues to serve as an explanation for the idea of "political correctness," originally suggested by the Schiller Institute (a branch of the LaRouche Movement) in 1992, and further promoted in 1994. They charged that the Frankfurt School promoted modernism as a form of cultural pessimism, which contributed the counterculture of the 1960s. The counterculture was a counter mobilization effort primarily amongst proponents of the black civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the anti-Vietnam student movement in America. Opposition to the counterculture, seeing it as trying to subvert and destroy the traditional values and foundations of America, is what eventually led to the election of the conservative president Richard Nixon. Already, we can see why the term "cultural Marxism" could be of political significance.<br />
<br />
But before we look at any of that, we have to be able to make sense of all of these associations - by that I mean we have to look at fundamental tenets of Marxist theory to see why none of these associations make any sense at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Marxist Theory</b><br />
<br />
In this section, we'll be discussing two important facets of Marxist theory in order to explain the relationship between culture and society that it envisions, and later apply it to the subject at hand. The first is the dichotomy of human society according to Marxist theory, base and superstructure. The second is the analytical framework and theoretical foundation of Marxism, called dialectical materialism (or, as we will refer to it, dimat).<br />
<br />
According to Marxist theory, human society is divided into two parts: the base and the superstructure. The base of society consists of the means and relations of production. The means of production include the tools, factories, land, raw materials, etc. which are all instrumental in the substance of the society. The relations of production are the capital, commodities, private property, etc. which are the social relations and interactions within a mode of production.<br />
<br />
The superstructure, or the phenomenon, on the other hand, consists of everything not directly to do with the production. This includes (but is not limited to) the law, media, education, religion, philosophy, and namely the culture. At the center of all of this is ideology, which provides the justification for it all - that is, after the superstructure interacts with the phenomenon. Marxist theory sees culture as being part of the phenomenon, and states that it comes into existence from the base, or the substance of society. It is then, after interacting with the base, justified by the ideology of the society in the superstructure, which also rises from the base. It is a spiral dialectic where the base is most often the domineering force in society.<br />
<br />
Outside of this dialectic is the overarching analytical framework of Marxist theory - dialectical materialism. As the term implies, it is a combination of dialectics and materialism. Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity. It approaches things with static definition, and is informal in its mode of thought of ordinary understanding. It goes beyond the formal appearance of something and examines its essence.<br />
<br />
Materialism emphasizes the material world as the foundation and determinant of thinking, especially concerning questions of the origin of knowledge. Simply put, it is the belief that at the end of the day, the material conditions' existence shape consciousness, not vice versa.<br />
<br />
Dimat, then, is the combination of the two. It's a way of understanding reality by applying the informal mode of thought of ordinary understanding that is dialectics, along with the determinist approach of materialism, to make sense of everything, whether it be the material world, or thoughts and emotions. It is an overarching analytical framework, not a specific analytical framework.<br />
<br />
These are fundamental to Marxist theory, and are key in understanding why "cultural Marxism" makes no sense. Learning these dialectics is important because it allows us to know when something can be "applied" or, when it does, if it makes sense. If we look at the fundamentals of Marxism, we see that "cultural Marxism" is a poorly framed interpretation of Marxist theory and is flawed in its conception.<br />
<br />
<b>Cultural Marxism</b><br />
<br />
To reiterate, cultural Marxism can be considered the application of Marxist theory to culture. Immediately, knowing what we do, we can make sense of this nonsense and explain why the concept is flawed. It may not be obvious right now, but in a moment it'll make nonsensical sense.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the Frankfurt School. As was stated, the Frankfurt School thought that the Marxists of the time were paying too much attention to the base, and not enough to how the ideology functions to support it. They, like the other Marxists, saw the ideology as rising from the base of society, and then justifying it in the superstructure, but sought to emphasize this. Dimat is materialism - the belief that material is the determinant of consciousness - and dialectics - an informal method of understanding things concretely - as an analytical framework for making sense of reality. Why, then, would the Frankfurt School apply the dialectics of Marxism to culture? They sought to emphasize how ideology functions to support the base, not the other way around. "Cultural Marxism" would be a contradiction to this purpose, because it places the same emphasis on culture as traditional Marxists (or the narrow-minded followers of Marx, from which the Frankfurt School dissented).<br />
<br />
Moving on, however, the whole idea of "applying" Marxist theory/dimat to a specific facet of superstructure <i>or</i> base, such as culture, is fundamentally flawed. Dimat is an overarching analytical framework that serves as the base for Marxism. It's not a specific framework. Culture always has a place in the framework, as it's a part of superstructure in the relationship we've established above. You can't apply Marxist theory specifically to culture (as is proposed by cultural Marxism) because culture is already an element of Marxist dialectics, and is already examined via the theoretical framework.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, even if we were to examine culture specifically using dimat, this is contradictory in nature. Marxist theory is deterministic, where Marx emphasized that ideas have no significant consequences. To examine culture deterministically would be a fundamental contradiction to Marxist theory - it would be a dialectic idealism, not a materialism.<br />
<br />
The term "cultural Marxism," then, is either redundant, or self-contradictory in nature. Certainly the Frankfurt School would have nothing to do with such an application of dialectic materialism, but even if they were, they would quickly run into problems. Beyond the Frankfurt School, framing of the term "cultural Marxism" is inherently flawed because it fails to grasp a basic understanding of Marxist dialectics, and this is why it serves no position in scholarly debate, but in propagandizing.<br />
<br />
<b>Why is This Important?</b><br />
<br />
Phew, that was a bit of a headache. Now we have to expand upon what was just said and ask the question: why did this flawed term gain so much popularity, and why is it important?<br />
<br />
Simply put, I believe it's because it's a foreign concept. Not many people are familiar with Marxism, and the idea of it is seen as the antithesis of Western values, especially democracy. Using Marxism is an easy scapegoat because it incites anger and fear out of people; and then, when you tack "culture" onto "Marxism," it makes it seem like a very specific attack on the culture and traditions of Western society. It's an illustrated conspiracy theory intended to make people afraid of anything that seems to resemble critical theory. In reality, dialectic materialism is merely an analytical framework - it doesn't seek to "do" anything, merely analyze it.<br />
<br />
But as flawed as the term is, I think it's important to keep it around. For one, it's very stupid, and thus it won't become <i>too</i> dangerous in its popular usage. More importantly, though, it serves as a method by which radical conservatives can mobilize and consolidate their interests, playing an important part in the political process. As we mentioned, such a rapid mobilization is what resulted in the election of Nixon and the ensuing election of several Republican presidents in the United States. This was a pretty important period for American history where a lot was done, and a lot of modern government operations are founded in that era. While it qualifies as propaganda, "cultural Marxist" fear may actually play enough significance in society that it warrants the very analysis it opposes.<br />
<br />
Thank you everyone for reading, and I'll see you all next time!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com44tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-89131782277706766972014-09-24T12:02:00.000-04:002014-09-27T14:17:08.477-04:00Evolution: Common Misconceptions, or "What Evolution Is Not"I've recently been reading a book by Agustín Fuentes, <i>Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You: Busting Myths about Human Nature</i> with my girlfriend. We're only through part 1 (and the prelude of part 2), but it's an incredible read thus far, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is serious about their research in anthropology, evolution or human variation. Dr. Fuentes lays out a "toolkit," in his own words, on how to bust myths about human nature by applying the principles of genetics and culture to three common pervasive myths found in our society: (1) human race; (2) inherent human aggression; and, (3) sex.<br />
<br />
Chapters 2 and 3 struck me well, but chapter 3 "Evolution Is Important -- but May Not Be What We Think," was especially informative and helpful. Dr. Fuentes starts off with a quote by popular science writer Nicholas Wade, who has <a href="http://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists/">recently come under fire</a> for his book <i>A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History</i>. The quote is from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">an article in the New York Times</a>, and it says the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Many have assumed that humans ceased to evolve in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine and other harsh agents of natural selection. But in the last few years, biologists peering into the human genome sequences now available from around the world have found increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, leading many to assume that human evolution is still in progress."</i></blockquote>
The quote reflects on two popular misconceptions held by the public about evolution, which we will get to in a moment. It's important to note first, though, that this illustrates more than just misconceptions about evolution, but a lack of understanding in even the educated public, and the necessity of a false dichotomy. As Dr. Fuentes points out, "To sell the story, the false representation of a 'debate' as to whether evolution happens in humans has to be a central theme."<br />
<br />
Of course, <i>many</i> people in the public hold the beliefs that Wade is referring to; however it simply isn't true that the primary debate amongst informed scholars is over whether or not evolution is happening in humans or, as some people often misinterpret, that evolution "stopped at the neck" in humans.<br />
<br />
This objection refers to the debate over the Black/White IQ differential, specifically the position that most, if not all of the variation in IQ results between these two groups is a result of the environment. The problem with the characterization "evolution stopped at the neck," however, is that just because someone doesn't believe the differential is a result of evolutionary or genetic differences, that doesn't mean they don't believe human cognition has evolved. Evolution is complex, and even someone who suggests that the differential is a result of evolution doesn't necessarily mean it was a product of adaptation or natural selection. This is a gross oversimplification of how evolution works, and what the real debate entails, and thus we should now move into the five common misconceptions about evolution that are popularly held by the public.<br />
<br />
<b>1: Evolution is "survival of the fittest."</b><br />
<br />
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this implication. To begin, Charles Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest" -- this concept otherwise known as "social Darwinism" is attributable to Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith. The concept is an interpretation of <i>one</i> aspect of evolution: natural selection. Natural selection is Darwin's process of "descent with modification," and states that some gene variants will help an organism reproduce more successfully, and that if these variants are heritable, they will become more common within a population over time. These variants are then seen as adaptations to a <i>specific </i>environmental context.<br />
<br />
What this means is that "the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean the biggest, baddest or strongest. It's specific to an environment, where "the fittest" may be the exact opposite. Consider an easy example: the field mouse. It is not the fastest creature in the world, it is not the strongest, it does not have a serious bite, and it poses pretty much no risk to any creature of any size bigger than itself. So why does it continue to succeed and reproduce? Because "bigger" does not mean "better." Speaking of better, this brings us to the second misconception about evolution.<br />
<br />
<b>2: Evolution results in perfection.</b><br />
<br />
As Fuentes notes, evolution is not oriented towards progress, nor does it result in organisms fitting perfectly with their environment. To quote, "The corollary to this is that if something works well we perceive it as having 'evolved' for this particular purpose."<br />
<br />
Evolution is not perfect -- it's sloppy, and isn't geared towards making something ultimately "better." When an organism has traits which allow it to successfully reproduce in its environment, and these traits are a result of evolution, it does <i>not</i> mean that it evolved that way for a purpose.<br />
<br />
<b>3: Evolution happens by chance.</b><br />
<br />
There is only one aspect of evolution that represents "chance," and that would be genetic drift. Genetic drift suggests that random events can sometimes alter the allelic frequencies of a population. Fuentes offers an example of this: take hair color. There is a small population living on an island with hair color gene A, and there are three alleles of the gene: A1, A2 and A3. Say the population is made up of 80% A1, 10% A2 and 10% A3. Now, imagine that most of the population lives on the north coast of the island, and that part of the island is hit by a major tsunami. Now, the only people remaining are the smaller numbers of people on the south end of the island, changing the allelic frequency to maybe 33% for all alleles of the hair color gene A. This results in evolutionary change, but not because of anything having to do with the genes or the alleles themselves, but with a random event which drastically changed the makeup of the organisms in the population. Genetic drift, then, is most potent in smaller populations, because random events are less likely to have significant effects on larger populations.<br />
<br />
But as said, this is the only aspect of evolution that relies on randomness or chance. There are three other major components of evolution: gene flow, natural selection and mutation. We've already explained natural selection. Mutation is the means by which organisms gain new genetic material, where it creates a new sequence in a gene that produces a protein or regulation that functions better than previously. Gene flow is the movement of alleles within and between populations as a result of migration. The allelic frequencies within and between two populations can change if the populations are close enough together that allows for migrations between them. The allelic frequencies between the two populations can either become more similar if there's enough gene flow or, if gene flow is restricted, they can remain the same. Gene flow, natural selection, and mutation, then, do not occur by chance, but have multiple reasons for occurring.<br />
<br />
<b>4: If something has evolved in a certain way, that is how it should be.</b><br />
<br />
This one is a bit complicated, but it's similar to misconception #2. Basically the idea is that if an organism exhibits a certain trait, and that trait is a result of evolutionary change, then the exhibition of that trait is the way things are supposed to be. This is not necessarily true, because there are many things that have occurred via evolutionary means, but were intended for a different purpose than what they're used for today. This is called exaptation.<br />
<br />
One beautiful example of this is bird feathers. Originally, bird feathers evolved as a structure of temperature regulation. The feathers on a bird's wings allowed it to trap air underneath, allowing it to either cool off by lifting its wings up, or warm up by bringing its wings in. At some point, the wings on some birds became substantial enough that they were able to glide, and this unintended function resulted in reproductive success. Now, wings are used for flying. This is a perfect example of something that occurred through evolutionary processes, but did not serve the function it does now, thus showing that even if something has evolved does not mean it was intended to be what it is today.<br />
<br />
<b>5: Evolution can stop, has an end, or has a goal.</b><br />
<br />
This is our last misconception. Evolution does not stop; it is always ongoing. Evolution is also not goal-oriented -- it doesn't have a goal, and it doesn't seek perfection. Something that has occurred by evolutionary means is not the finish line, and it is not more "natural" than other things. Traits that have evolved are the result of any number of processes that can and will continue to act on us and every other organism over the course of time.<br />
<br />
These misconceptions overlap in many ways, but are very applicable to modern times. It's commonly held that if something has evolved, or if something is engrained in our biology, then that is "correct" or "natural." This is the basic premise of human nature which Dr. Fuentes argues against. Just because something is biological or evolutionary does not mean it is any more natural than any other aspect of our lives. The premise of this idea is that, for example, between our biology and our society, biology takes precedence as we cannot avoid its grasp, and our society or social situation can change. This simply isn't the case, though: our biology is constantly changing, and the strength of our genes is not more powerful than the strength of our environment.<br />
<br />
Creationists, determinists, indeterminists, racialists, and many other groups of people will commonly fall into the belief in one of these misconceptions as part of their arguments. Be equipped and well-informed of what evolution is and is not so that these misconceptions can be further dispensed, and the core of the arguments can be reached instead of the nuances of what evolution does or does not imply.<br />
<br />
And above all, thank you very much for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Follow me on social media!<br />
<br />
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir<br />
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/<br />
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoirAlexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-54177667857020031302014-09-17T21:19:00.004-04:002014-09-24T15:21:22.300-04:00Chiggers: Why They Suck & How to Get Rid of Them... KindaWhere I go to college, I'm pretty much surrounded by wilderness. I'm right out in the Pine Barrens where there's, besides the campus, nothing but trees, foliage and dirt. Hell, even some of the campus is pretty much just trees, foliage and dirt. In addition to that, we've got a giant lake which lends a marshland to the otherwise already wild woods. That makes it mosquito country, and that makes it bad for me.<br />
<br />
Back at home, all I got were mosquito bites. If I so much as lifted my arm and my sleeve fell too far past the cuff, my wrist turned into a biscuit tray (i.e. really bumpy and perfect for baking). I'm the only one in my family who really has this problem, and none of us are entirely sure why. I've read that mosquitoes like warmer things, and the color black, both of which I tend to fit perfectly with (I wear a lot of black and my body is always warm). I dunno about blood types, but maybe that has something to do with it too. Anyway, that's pretty much the extent of what I'd have to deal with though. Nothing too bad elsewhere, besides occasionally finding a tick searching my body.<br />
<br />
Last year, however, I couldn't help but see the vast wildlife around me and think "well shit, this would be great for an adventure!" I'd stock my pockets with my tool knives and head out into the woods just to see what cool crap I could find. These efforts didn't go unrewarded: I've found my fair share of cool fruits from trees I never knew about (mostly ornamentals), and I came across some moss-covered bridges, marshes, and even some weird picnic-like area where someone had carved out turtle shells. Sorry, but I think that's pretty cool, and totally worth contending with mosquitoes and ticks.<br />
<br />
Well, little did I know that was the worst of my problems.<br />
<br />
I was plagued with the most rotten devils in the world: chiggers. They're these tiny little parasites that you can barely see, and will only find if you actually check for them, usually around your ankles. They like to go into tight spots, so your ankles are definitely at risk, as are your privates. No I'm not kidding.<br />
<br />
Usually you get them by walking through brush, and a clump of them smacks onto you, and they start searching your body for a good place to start biting you. They can wander for as long as 3 hours without biting, but when they bite, it's horrible. My record number of bites at any given time is 27. Yes, 27 bites, exclusively on my ankles (and 5 or less on my legs). The first time I got bitten, though, it was only 21 (yeah, only). These bites never typically got to anything bad like an infection, but they itch. They itch bad. You've never really experienced an itch until you've had multiple chigger bites, and are as vulnerable to their little secreted fluids as I am.<br />
<br />
But when I first got them, I thought it shouldn't be a problem. Whenever I got a bad mosquito bite, I just got some After Bite and soaked it up. I tried the same thing on my chigger bites, but it didn't work. I'll tell you, the first time I dealt with these fuckers, I tried everything. Ice, heat, Cortizone, After Bite, nail polish, and a few other things including but not limited to scraping the blistered heads off my bites and burning them with alcohol. Yeah, it got that serious for me. I was desperate, and for a while I had convinced myself that worked, but the itching never ceased. The first time this happened, it lasted for two weeks, and I had no idea whether anything I was doing had caused the itching, burning and pain to go away. I was just glad they were gone and I was done with sleepless nights of torturous itching on my feet.<br />
<br />
Then I got them again this year.<br />
<br />
I was more prepared this year, though. I knew that once I noticed chiggers on my skin, I should take my clothes off and wash them in soap and hot water. That's fine and dandy, but what about the ones on my skin? My girlfriend and I have gotten used to just plucking them off our skin, and whenever I go into the woods I spray myself with bug repellent for good measure, but this time it didn't work. My preventative measures didn't work, and I got my record number of bites only a week and a half ago, or so. The semester <i>just</i> started and I've already been eaten alive. So, what did I do? I refined some of my choices and tried something new, since none of my medications were working (I tried After Bite again, along with Chiggerid). I went into the shower, broke <i>all</i> of the bites open thoroughly, and then scrubbed them down with hot water and soap.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not going to lie to you, this hurts like a bitch, but after 5 minutes of intense burning, it can actually provide you with a few hours of relief if you leave the afflicted areas alone. This is where I started to discover bad things you can do to your bites that make them itch/burn worse:<br />
<br />
1: Walking. Sorry, but if you can, you should stay off your feet for a few days.<br />
2: Wearing socks. The fabric of your socks will irritate the bites.<br />
3: Scratching. <b>Do not scratch</b>. The autonomous itching has stopped right now, but if I ever get tempted to scratch the area around the scabs of my ex-bites, the itching sensation comes back instantly, and as bad as before.<br />
<br />
After a few days, I was at a loss. I have to walk to classes, and one of my classes this semester warrants me to continuously go to locations where chiggers are likely to screw me over. I continued to ask around for advice on how to handle this horror. I had no luck, but I did find out a few things about chiggers that you should know.<br />
<br />
First, the nail polish trick, while it <i>can</i> relieve itching, is
stupid. The premise is that chiggers dig into your skin and then leave a
hole to breathe, but that they stay there until they decide to leave;
so if you cover the bite with nail polish, they suffocate and die. It's
not true. They don't burrow, they just bite. If they <i>did</i> burrow,
however, why the hell would you want to keep them in your skin? Do you
want your skin to look like the inside of a dragon fruit, laden with
black dots? Do you want the source of the irritation, something you
could be highly allergic to, to just stay in your skin? The whole idea
is just ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Second, chiggers (and similar mites) have this unique characteristic that they like to bite the same person even if another person is available. In this case, I sleep in the same bed as my girlfriend; yet despite being infested by chiggers myself, my girlfriend never got any from me. The chiggers, after biting someone, just like to stick to them. Why? Because they love you, that's why! Ain't it great?<br />
<br />
Anyway, speaking of my girlfriend, <i>that's</i> how I eventually ended up overcoming my bites. My girlfriend brought me Benadryl anti-itch cream, and it worked miracles for me. Really, this is the only thing that's actually confidently worked. After Bite doesn't do anything. Chiggerid just leaves a flaky, sometimes painful (because it sticks to your hair) coating on your skin. The other methods are just generally ineffective. For anyone else who has had chiggers, you're welcome to disagree and explain why, but here's what I recommend for people who suffer from these bites:<br />
<br />
1: Immediately take off all your clothes and wash them in hot water and soap.<br />
2: Try to find as many of the chiggers on your body as you can and pluck them off, putting them in a pot of boiling water to make sure they die (or just scrape them to death).<br />
3: Try to endure the pain of breaking your bites open in the shower, then scrub them maybe two or three times with soap and hot water, thoroughly.<br />
4: Dry the areas, then apply Benadryl anti-itch cream.<br />
5: Avoid irritating the afflicted areas further.<br />
<br />
If you can medicate the bites before they get bad, you can usually prevent this disaster; however if you're not fast enough like me, this seems to work. Again, it takes a while for you to fully recover, but hopefully this'll speed up the process. If it doesn't, or even makes things worse, I'm sorry. (But I'm not accountable).<br />
<br />
As far as preventative measures go, I'd advise the following:<br />
<br />
1: Find a good bug repellent and spray yourself before you go around any areas with tall grass/bushes, or is humid, damp or swampy. I use Off!.<br />
2: Wear long pants and sleeves, with preferably tall socks to further protect your ankles.<br />
3: Try to only spend around an hour (maybe two) in the areas where chiggers are more likely to get you, just to make sure they don't bite you before you can check yourself safely.<br />
4: When you get home, make sure you change clothes and check yourself, and wash whatever clothes you were wearing. <br />
<br />
But most importantly:<br />
<br />
Don't let this deter you from exploring out in the wilderness. Wildlife is incredible, and a few mites shouldn't hinder your ability to enjoy that. Just be aware of some of the risks you're taking, take the proper precautions, and be sure that if you encounter a situation such as this, you're prepared to deal with it.<br />
<br />
Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you all next time! Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3