I highly recommend David Wilson's two books, THE DARWINIAN CATHEDRAL
and
EVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE.
The writing is strong and clear (if a little smug) and he has the
issues
nailed down absolutely tight.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: 11/1/2008 10:00:15 AM
Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1
Send Friam mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Election: Why So Close (Tom Carter)
2. Re: Election: Why So Close ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
3. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts)
4. Re: Election: Why So Close (Marcus G. Daniels)
5. Re: Election: Why So Close (Roger Critchlow)
6. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts)
7. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith)
8. Re: Election: Why So Close (Jochen Fromm)
9. Re: Election: Why So Close (Russ Abbott)
10. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts)
11. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella)
12. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts)
13. Re: Election: Why So Close (Douglas Roberts)
14. Re: Election: Why So Close (glen e. p. ropella)
15. Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player]
(Tom Johnson)
16. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore)
17. Re: Election: Why So Close (Owen Densmore)
18. Re: Election: Why So Close (Steve Smith)
19. Re: Election: Why So Close (John Sadd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:28 -0700
From: Tom Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <D945A810-7ED1-41F4-AB33-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
Found in the responses to this article, a wonderful neologism:
"It is always a pleasure to read George Monbiot's inciteful
analyses, even from beyond the Pond."
inciteful !!!! Just perfect :-)
tom
On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Richard Harris wrote:
Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other
day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-ob
ama-bush-mccain
Don't really know what to add.
Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/ced90ca
b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:20:16 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Greetings, all --
The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser
extent, I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for
"The New
Yorker", famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special
world. I
only know one person who voted for
Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But
sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I am a bit of a
cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social
progressive,
I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters, I'd say. At
the end
of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of society a
Democrat
can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that third-
parties
have never been successful in part because we in the US like clear
winners
- no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are McCain '08 voters,
for
the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama '08.
Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim Nicholas
Taleb describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your
ability
to recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying
attention only to information that strengthens your argument).
Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a
feature,
not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that politics
doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many
economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single
vote
is unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the
sparsely poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater
civic
duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen. That's
the
message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe
it will
work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South
Africa and
Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating in
elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right to
vote
that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as
ourselves to make our voices heard.
Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll
settle for their being less ignorant.
- Claiborne -
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]
>
Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
I can't resist:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out
lying . .
.?
Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is,
wouldn't it?
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered.? Its echos are
still reverberating.
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/13aa6f3
8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:25 -0600
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Nicely said, Claiborne.
At some level a certain degree of naivete is charming, perhaps even
forgivable. On the other hand, stubborn attachment to an ivory tower
whitewashed notion about the noble human nature, combined with
sympathies
for the "poor, downtrodden, uneducated, unwashed masses" is pretty
hypocritical.
If you have trouble believing that stupidity, racism, and just plain
ugliness are not a very large part of the human equation, and in
fact are
the major drivers behind much of the flavor of our social network
interactions (I just threw that last bit in to appeal to the more
academic
amongst us), take a quick glance at politics in the Democratic
Republic of
The Congo:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27472662#27472662
What are the similarities between their two-party system and ours?
Tutsi
vs. Hutu, Republican vs. Democrat. A primary strategy employed in
either
case is for each party to demonize the other. The primary difference
between their style of politics and ours is that they use real
bullets and
machetes to "prove" who's right.
Myself, I'd be happy with less ignorance, but I'd settle for more
intelligence.
--Doug
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings, all --
The Pauline Kael Syndrome affects all of us to a greater or lesser
extent,
I suppose (you may recall that Ms. Kael, film critic for "The New
Yorker",
famously commented in 1972, "I live in a rather special world. I
only
know
one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're
outside
my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."). I
am a
bit
of a cross-kenner, perhaps, in that as a finance guy who's a social
progressive, I have sympathies on both sides -- as do most voters,
I'd
say.
At the end of the day, however, I'm more confident in the kind of
society a
Democrat can offer than any other party. It's also worth noting that
third-parties have never been successful in part because we in the
US
like
clear winners - no "grand coalitions". The Perot '92 voters are
McCain
'08
voters, for the most part, and the Nader '00 voters are mostly Obama
'08.
Maybe the distribution really is along the lines that Nassim
Nicholas
Taleb
describes -- there's the narrative fallacy (believing in your
ability to
recognize patterns where none exists) and confirmation bias (paying
attention only to information that strengthens your argument).
Our deplorable lack of awareness of the world around us may be a
feature,
not a bug. We live in such relative peace and prosperity that
politics
doesn't really affect us day in and day out. Indeed, there are many
economists who argue that there's no need to vote, since your single
vote is
unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. Of course, we in the
sparsely
poplulated West know better, and besides, there's a greater civic
duty/social contract idea behind being a responsible citizen.
That's the
message of all the ads on MTV to get out the youth vote, and maybe
it
will
work this time, but it's hard to force people. Citizens in South
Africa
and
Iraq and Gaza have much more to gain, it seems, from participating
in
elections than we do. That neglects, however, the hard-won right
to vote
that our ancestors vouchsafed for us. We owe it to them as much as
ourselves
to make our voices heard.
Like Owen and Doug, I'd like voters to be more intelligent, but I'll
settle
for their being less ignorant.
- Claiborne -
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
I can't resist:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
[...] Democrats tend to have at least a little trouble flat out
lying
. .
.
*Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is" is,
wouldn't it?*
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are
still
reverberating.
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------
McCain or Obama? Stay up to date on the latest from the campaign
trail
with
AOL
News<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212075880x1200752631/aol?redir
=http://news.aol.com/elections?ncid=emlcntusnews00000001>.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/510399b
2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:47:29 -0600
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there
more
recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that says
otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:04:39 -0600
From: "Roger Critchlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Responding to the original question, I'd say it's close because there
really
isn't that much difference.
Yes, the differences are striking when you highlight them and state
them
as
the opposing parties want them stated. But the similarities far
outweigh
the differences.
Which is why Palin can pursue socialist policies in Alaska and accuse
Obama
of more socialist leanings without blushing. Or maybe she does
blush, but
her makeup technician has it under control.
And while the Republicans did invade Iraq causing untold suffering,
the
Democrats were pursuing a regime change policy in the Clinton years
through
blockade and no-fly enforcement which also caused untold suffering,
if I
remember what Amy Goodman's guests were saying way back then.
As for spying on American citizens, well, J Edgar Hoover served as
FBI
director under 6 presidents, 4 democrats and 2 republicans. But that
makes
it sound too close, it was 11 years under republicans and 26 years
under
democrats. That wasn't all so long ago. Adding in the 11 years that
Hoover
served as the BI director before the FBI was established (under
FDR), the
presidents go to 4 and 4, while the democrats still have the edge
in years
28 to 19.
The funny thing I discovered was that Hoover was the technocrat
president:
"Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency
Movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement>(a major
component of the Progressive
Era <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era>), arguing that a
technical solution existed for every social and economic problem."
But
that
didn't save him when the bottom fell out of the economy.
Which leads to why the Republicrats and the Democans are so similar
--
there
haven't been many "new" ideas in the last century, and they've
converged
on
the consensus view of the "old" issues: slavery = bad, universal
suffrage =
good, socialism = in moderation, military imperialism = bad, racial
segregation = bad, politcal corruption = bad, and so on.
So while Glen may worry about being branded, tarred and feathered
for his
skepticism of universal healthcare, he will not argue that someone
should
thrown out of the hospital to die on the sidewalk for lack of health
insurance. He just wants the bill to get paid without making a
political
issue or institution or scandal out of it. We don't believe in
letting
people die for lack of health care, but we're unclear how to make
it so.
And I don' t think that either party has any advantage on stupidity
or
ignorance, but it wouldn't change anything if one did: stupid,
ignorant
people can make brilliant decisions; smart, educated people can make
horrible decisions.
(The google ads on this thread are impressive, looks like Ron Paul
wants
to
go bimetallic.)
-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/fb66fb8
8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:05:41 -0600
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It it were a linear effect over time, then back around the year 0
BC the
human populace would have all been flaunting IQs of approximately
-500.
No wonder Christianity was such an easy sell.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Isn't the so-called Flynn Effect still considered true? Is there
more
recent data for the U.S. (besides Bush being elected twice) that
says
otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/708964c
8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:38 -0600
From: Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Doug
*/Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is"
is,
wouldn't it?/*
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos are
still reverberating.
Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie,
caught
like a deer in the headlights.
I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II
even
more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid
answer)
was totally inappropriate (but hugely effective).
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:17:06 +0100
From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Maybe it has to be close, because the media wants
it to be close. It has to be an exciting event
and a big show. The media wants to make lots of
money with it. It is like the Formula 1: if the
races are not exciting enough, simply the rules
are changed or the drivers are exchanged.
Why is always a hype in the media about elections,
although nobody questions the election system iself
(the long-winded two-party presidential election
system in the USA, for example)? Why does nobody
ask if the candidates need to spend an ridiculous
amount of money on campaigning and marketing?
One reason is perhaps that the media itself is
intricately involved in the process. The media
needs to hold up the feedback illusion in the
election ritual for the common voter: the
satisfying feeling for each single voter that
he/she has any real influence. The price for
the voter is high: the feeling is only an illusion
driven by commercial interests. Think of all the
money the media can make with advertising and
the high viewer levels during elections.
To question the election process would mean to
question the role of the media. The media does
not only present the result, it also takes part
in creating it. The decisions of the people is
determined by the collective consciousness: the
content of the major newspapers, journals and
TV stations. The candidates and the media
need each other. The more the candidates appear
in the media, the more famous they become, and
the more famous they are, the more they appear in
the media if they are unusual: a self-reinforcing
process.
-J.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:02:47 -0700
From: "Russ Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
This thread (and the reference to the column by George
Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec
tion-obama-bush-mccain>t,
prompted me to post the following on my
blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
.
*Is religion good or bad?*
Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked,
people
usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do in
the
name
of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades
(bad).
But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in The
Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el
ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded
me why, in general, I think religion is bad: at
its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason.
One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage
people
not
to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to
incorrect
conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance
with
them
if they are open to the idea that one should think things through.
Religion
closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a
perspective in
which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it
is God's
will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some
particular
position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is
with
the
idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is
"God's will"
or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let
themselves off
the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and
decisions.
It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do whatever
one's
religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or not.
But
the
problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that
sort of
behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings
of a
faith-based religion is mindless faith.
I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about
this. A
country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so
meek)
followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a
backwater of
ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this
country,
and
I hate it for that.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Doug
*/Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word "is"
is,
wouldn't it?/*
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos
are
still
reverberating.
Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie,
caught
like a deer in the headlights.
I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George
II even
more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid
answer)
was
totally inappropriate (but hugely effective).
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/3aa9106
9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:48:26 -0600
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Unfortunately, part of the process of subscribing to a fundamentalist
religion entails checking your brain in at the door. In spite of
this
requirement, I've encountered more than one brainwashed
fundamentalist who
was damned clever at avoiding logic in favor of dogma.
The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion
hide
from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for
themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions and all of the
bigotry,
closed-mindedness, and anti-intellectualism that goes with that
particular
lifestyle preference.*
--Doug
**Note that not once did I use the word "stupid" in expressing my
opinions
regarding fundamentalism. Nor, did I attempt to characterize
fundamentalists as weak, cowardly, or bigoted. Oops, I did use
"bigotry".
Oh, what the fuck. Fundamentalists *are* stupid. AND weak. AND
cowardly.
And, before the list moderator comes down on me: It's not my
fault. THEY
started this thread!!*
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This thread (and the reference to the column by George
Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec
tion-obama-bush-mccain>t,
prompted me to post the following on my
blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
.
*Is religion good or bad?*
Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked,
people
usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do
in the
name
of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades
(bad).
But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in
The
Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el
ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think
religion is
bad: at
its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason.
One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage
people
not
to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to
incorrect
conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance
with
them
if they are open to the idea that one should think things through.
Religion
closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a
perspective
in
which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is
God's
will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some
particular
position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is
with
the
idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's
will"
or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let
themselves
off
the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and
decisions.
It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do
whatever
one's
religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or
not. But
the
problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that
sort of
behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings
of a
faith-based religion is mindless faith.
I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about
this.
A
country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so
meek)
followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a
backwater
of
ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this
country,
and
I hate it for that.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Doug
*/Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word
"is" is,
wouldn't it?/*
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos
are
still reverberating.
Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie,
caught
like a deer in the headlights.
I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II
even
more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid
answer) was
totally inappropriate (but hugely effective).
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/6841edc
5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:08:44 -0700
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM:
The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use
religion hide
from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for
themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions
Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their
psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_
fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will
obviously
be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant
context
that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so
often
that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes)
Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship
straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans, i.e.
the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom.
What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the need
for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious
stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove
beneficial versus detrimental?
It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a
baseball,
ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's
better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed
circumstances,
e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will
obviously
present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit and
part
thought.
Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where
habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly best?
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:15:30 -0600
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Glen,
It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience
amongst all
the
rubes.
See my post immediately following...
--Doug
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, glen e. p. ropella
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 04:48 PM:
The reality is that as long as people feel the need to use religion
hide
from reality, to use ritual and dogma to avoid having to think for
themselves, there will be fundamentalist religions
Excellent! Now we may get closer to the truth. Humans (and their
psychological, biological, sociological, etc. constitution) _causes_
fundamentalist religions, not vice versa. (though there will
obviously
be reinforcing global forces when fundamentalism is the dominant
context
that feed back onto the causes, but fundamentalism re-emerges so
often
that I'd claim the feedback is weaker than the first order causes)
Now that we have the directionality of that causal relationship
straight, we can begin talking about the constitution of humans,
i.e.
the causes, rather than religion, which is merely the symptom.
What is it about humans and their context that gives rise to the
need
for habit, ritual, dogma, "instinct", and un/subconscious
stimulus-reaction processes? And when do things like habit prove
beneficial versus detrimental?
It's quite clear that when, say, riding a bicycle or hitting a
baseball,
ritual and habit reign. But when, say, voting or playing Go, it's
better to spend a large amount of time thinking. Mixed
circumstances,
e.g. wielding an automatic rifle in the middle of Iraq, will
obviously
present a complex problem that has to be solved with part habit
and part
thought.
Are there any generic (abstracted) properties of circumstances where
habit is clearly best ... or where in-depth analysis is clearly
best?
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/8a1485a
c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:16:44 -0600
From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Like a dog returning his own vomit, I can't seem to distance myself
from
this thread. One last contribution (hopefully). In one my circles
of
friends -- using the term somewhat loosely -- there is a cluster of
Democrats and one lonely, besieged Republican. Naturally, the
conversations
between us have frequently devolved, using words like "stupid", and
"DemoCRAP", and "ReFUCKINGPublican". After one particularly heated
conversation where the lone Republican admitted, after incessant
badgering
from the rest of us (ok, from me), that he still *liked* Bush. I
contemplated his admission for a day or two, and then responded
with the
following:
*I had a small epiphany Friday evening. There was a Los Alamos Hill
Topper's home football game this last Friday, and the LA high
school band
was out of town at some kind of competition. Because of this, the
high
school had asked one of the bands that I'm in, the "HillStompers"
to play
at
the game instead. We said, "Sure."
So, at 6:30pm we ambled in, and took our seats in the Sullivan Field
stadium
where the HS band usually sits. Immediately, a Down's Syndrome boy
came
over and told us we had to leave, because that is where the high
school
band
sat. Our band leader tried to explain that we were the substitute
band
for
the evening.
He remained unconvinced for the entire evening.
The epiphany: Stupid people don't recognize that they are stupid.
Seemingly, this applies to any level of stupidity. Bush's level,
Palin's
level, XXXXX's* level, Down's Syndrome, your level, my level -- it
doesn't
matter. Stupid people are convinced that no matter who says
differently,
they are right. You can waste your breath trying to convince them
otherwise
if you so choose, but you will have succeeded in exactly that:
wasting
your
breath.
Which in itself is a pretty stupid thing to do.*
* XXXXX is, of course, the beseiged Republican
--Doug
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Russ Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This thread (and the reference to the column by George
Monbio<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-elec
tion-obama-bush-mccain>t,
prompted me to post the following on my
blog<http://russabbott.blogspot.com/>
.
*Is religion good or bad?*
Obviously that's much too broad a question. And when it is asked,
people
usually respond by pointing to the good and bad things people do
in the
name
of religion?e.g., like helping those in need (good) and the crusades
(bad).
But I think there is a real answer. A column by George Monbiot in
The
Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-el
ection-obama-bush-mccain>reminded me why, in general, I think
religion is
bad: at
its core religion teaches people to favor faith over reason.
One can probably stop there. Is it ever a good idea to encourage
people
not
to think for themselves? I doubt it. Even when people come to
incorrect
conclusions by thinking for themselves, one at least has a chance
with
them
if they are open to the idea that one should think things through.
Religion
closes that door by closing people's mind. It encourages a
perspective
in
which a given opinion is to be accepted no matter what?because it is
God's
will or God's word, for example. The point is not whether some
particular
position is or is not "God's will" or "God's word." The problem is
with
the
idea that one should decide something by asking whether it is "God's
will"
or "God's word." That sort of thinking allows people to let
themselves
off
the hook of taking responsibility for their own actions and
decisions.
It's a lot easier simply to go along with the crowd or to do
whatever
one's
religious leader says. That's true whether one is religious or
not. But
the
problem with religion (and any cult) is that it encourages that
sort of
behavior. By its very definition, one of the fundamental teachings
of a
faith-based religion is mindless faith.
I'm finding it difficult to express how deeply angry I feel about
this.
A
country whose citizens are trained to be meek (and sometimes not so
meek)
followers of their religious leaders will inevitably become a
backwater
of
ignorance and stupidity. That's what religion is doing to this
country,
and
I hate it for that.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Doug
*/Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word
"is" is,
wouldn't it?/*
;-}
One of the more blatant Democratic lies ever uttered. Its echos
are
still reverberating.
Nahhh... that wasn't a /Democratic lie, /that was a horn-dog lie,
caught
like a deer in the headlights.
I didn't care much for Bill (but compared to George I and George II
even
more, he was a saint), but this question (never mind the stupid
answer) was
totally inappropriate (but hugely effective).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/281b5cc
3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:59:27 -0700
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/31/2008 05:15 PM:
It is if you are my shill, sitting out there in the audience amongst
all the
rubes.
I live to serve!
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:10:10 -0600
From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia
Flash
Player]
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From the Internet Scout....
*Ruth Charney on Modeling with Cubes [Macromedia Flash Player]*
http://www.maa.org/news/102308charney.html
The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) continues to build on
their
already solid online presence with the addition of this lecture by
noted
mathematician and scholar Professor Ruth Charney. This particular
lecture
was given at the MAA's Carriage House Conference Center in the fall
of
2008
and it deals with how cubes can be used to represent a variety of
systems.
As Charney notes, "The geometry of these spaces is strange,
complicated,
and
a lot of fun to study." Visitors to the site can watch several
particularly
lucid examples from Charney's talk, read her biography, and also
read a
detailed interview with her conducted by Michael Pearson.
[KMG]<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=page&name=gp&ver=sh3fib53pgpk
#
11d532fd493691f2_team>
tj
==========================================
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
www.analyticjournalism.com
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete."
-- Buckminster Fuller
==========================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081031/0570cae
0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:30:43 -0600
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
People: I'm thinking Freakonomics here. Statistics. Human behavior
patterns. You know, Science!
Thus far I've heard only rants on religion, stupidity, and probably
bad spelling.
Is there *any* reason for the close vote (especially in the 2000 2004
2008 elections).
Here are a few possibilities:
- Parties form attractors.
- Classism.
- Single Issue voters.
- Marketing to a tie.
- The Central Limit Theorem.
This is especially interesting seeing how the rest of the world is so
*hugely* for Obama. What's different about us? And don't tell me
Europeans are smarter than us, they aren't. Different, yes. But
they
elect assholes as often as we do.
I heard an interesting talk about how historians look at this:
http://radioopensource.org/a-longer-view-of-2008-historian-gordon-wood/
One of his points is that: "I think that all of these candidates will
find that they have been carried along by forces that they can
scarcely understand."
-- Owen
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:50:18 -0600
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Hmm..this may be spot-on.
-- Owen
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Richard Harris wrote:
Saw an interesting article on this topic in the Guardian the other
day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-ob
ama-bush-mccain
Don't really know what to add.
Rich
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:12:42 -0600
From: Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081101/95932d4
a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:51:33 -0600
From: John Sadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Election: Why So Close
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Tom, of course the question "Why isn't Obama white?" is perfectly
valid. Most of us supposedly enlightened types would like to think
that we all agree that, especially in a world where intermingling
of a
genetic nature among traditional genetic groups has made the notion
of
"race" fairly undefinable, it is of course not yet irrelevant. There
are presumably genetic reasons why the children of mixed-race
marriages between "Caucasians" and descendents of sub-Saharan
Africans tend on average to preserve more of the physical traits of
their African heritage, which contributes to our ease of
identifying a
Barack Obama as "black", without qualification. But our own sordid
history as a nation of course also contributes to how we tend to
identify people. (And how interesting it is that all the false
reports
of Obama being a closet Muslim -- and the assumptions that that would
make him a terrorist by association -- seem to have trumped at least
public debates about his being black. I suppose it's just that the
rumor-mongers know that they have to be more careful about racial
epithets than non-American-standard religious ones.)
Another couple of interesting data points (recognizing that I'm
getting wildly off-topic here): My wife, who somewhat to her chagrin
is descended from a number of prominent slave-owning southerners, is
reading the book The Hemingses of Monticello, which sounds
fascinating. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was of
course no aberration. I think one of the basic tenets of the book
(which I haven't read yet) is that basically everybody on the
plantation was related, and they all knew it. If I remember
correctly, Sally Hemings was a blood relative of Jefferson's wife. So
we have a long tradition of carefully identifying the children of
(typically) the rape of a black (slave) woman by a white man as
black,
so that they could clearly be identified as slaves.
(Interesting point of comparison -- continuing wildly off-topic):
White Australians discovered that the distinctive physical traits of
aborigines tend to disappear much more quickly on average when they
intermarry or otherwise mix genes with whites, maybe because the
original gene pool of those aboriginal settlers must have been pretty
small. So the Australian government took exactly the opposite tack of
our own nation, and went through a period --shockingly recent -- of
kidnapping young aboriginal children from their families, raising
them
in their equivalent of Indian schools, and encouraging poor whites to
marry them, in effect to wash away the aboriginal blood. If you
haven't seen it, rent the wonderful Australian film Rabbit-Proof
Fence
on this subject.
While I'm in book review mode, I am reading Paul Krugman's excellent
book The Conscience of a Liberal, which I highly recommend to anyone
trying to figure out how to save "liberal" from being a dirty word.
Enough.
john
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Tom Carter wrote:
All -
I'm not singling out John for this comment, but just using it as a
trigger . . .
On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:45 AM, John Sadd wrote:
it is totally effing amazing that a black man
which raises the question, "Why isn't Obama white?"
If that question sounds silly to you, think a little about how
deeply you and I and everyone seem to have internalized the "Jim
Crow one drop rule" (i.e., one drop of "black" blood makes you
black . . .).
Part of the trouble is that we're all "willfully ignorant" in our
own ways, it's just hard to notice our own . . .
But back to Owen's question . . . I'd say that the Republicans
have really gotten on board with the idea that it's OK to say and do
*anything* to get elected. In my experience, Democrats tend to have
at least a little trouble flat out lying . . .
I often play the "projection" game when I listen to political
rhetoric -- i.e., if they accuse their opponents of something, it's
probably because they know that's what they'd do (or are doing). A
few examples: McCain says "Obama will say anything to get
elected" (charge doesn't really apply to Obama, but certainly does
to McCain). McCain/Palin say "Obama is a socialist" (Palin is
popular in Alaska because she increased taxes on the rich
(corporations) and gave the money directly to ordinary people, no
strings attached). McCain says "Obama wants to `spread the wealth
around'" -- meaning, he wants you to believe, take money from some
people and give it to others (he, and rich Republicans, are all for
it, as long as what you mean is, take $700 billion from ordinary
people and give it to financial institutions . . .)
Oh, well . . .
tom
p.s. On the "Why isn't Obama white?" question:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/EDQI13NPIT.DTL&h
w=why+isn%27t+obama+white&sn=003&sc=242
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[email protected]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 1
************************************
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
