Last week, a story appeared in several papers about a woman who was described as a sex addict. Crystal Warren (42) claimed to have slept with over a thousand men.
Earlier this week, the woman was interviewed on breakfast TV. The interviewer, veteran presenter Eamonn Homes (52) caused some outrage by asking her whether she had ever considered charging for sex.
In a further twist, the woman is now revealed to have been born a man, and to have had a sex-change operation in 2005.
Not only do many of the details of the earlier stories now turn out to be inaccurate or misleading, but we may now question whether Ms Warren can serve as a legitimate exception to a presumed general pattern of female sexual desire and behaviour, which had presumably been the point of publishing the story in the first place. Nevertheless, Ms Warren is now a celebrity and This is Somerset proudly announces that Ms Warren grew up in Somerset. Obviously the only way isn't Essex then.
See also Alexander Boot Sex Drugs and Eamonn Holmes, Daily Mail 3 February 2012
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Are Markets Tools?
@umairh tweets "Dear all. Markets are tools. Like any tool, they can break. Like any tool, we can fetishize them as idols. But shouldn't."
The problem with regarding a market as a tool or instrument is that it implies some external purpose - the invisible hand. Many people imagine that the invisible purpose of the market is to benefit people - either people in general or a particular class. Clearly some people do benefit from markets, at least in the short term (for example some speculators).
But maybe the market serves no purpose than its own. In which case, attributing any beneficial or instrumental purpose to the market is a kind of idolatry. See my post on Worshipping the Golden Calf.
The problem with regarding a market as a tool or instrument is that it implies some external purpose - the invisible hand. Many people imagine that the invisible purpose of the market is to benefit people - either people in general or a particular class. Clearly some people do benefit from markets, at least in the short term (for example some speculators).
But maybe the market serves no purpose than its own. In which case, attributing any beneficial or instrumental purpose to the market is a kind of idolatry. See my post on Worshipping the Golden Calf.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
God's Purpose In All Things
Following the breakup of their daughter's marriage, an evangelical couple in America is reported as having praised God for the impending divorce. This seems to contradict their previous opposition to divorce.
It is perhaps a natural human reaction to say "Thank God" when your daughter splits up with a bloke you never really liked. Once upon a time, however, this would have been regarded as tantamount to taking the Lord's name in vain - in other words, blasphemy.
But if one reads the actual quote rather than the headlines, it is more of a silver lining than outright blasphemy.
"I'm sure Katy is trending on the internet just to get you to church tonight," said Mrs Hudson, 63. "I mean all over the world, who knows how God is bringing them in? The most important thing is you are here and God wants to put the fire in you in 2012," [Daily Telegraph 6 January 2012]
Twitter Populi, Twitter Dei.
But @katyperry warns us not to regard the voice of the parents as the voice of God.
Vox parentis non putrem a matre distinguit. (Whatever that means.)
It is perhaps a natural human reaction to say "Thank God" when your daughter splits up with a bloke you never really liked. Once upon a time, however, this would have been regarded as tantamount to taking the Lord's name in vain - in other words, blasphemy.
But if one reads the actual quote rather than the headlines, it is more of a silver lining than outright blasphemy.
"I'm sure Katy is trending on the internet just to get you to church tonight," said Mrs Hudson, 63. "I mean all over the world, who knows how God is bringing them in? The most important thing is you are here and God wants to put the fire in you in 2012," [Daily Telegraph 6 January 2012]
Twitter Populi, Twitter Dei.
But @katyperry warns us not to regard the voice of the parents as the voice of God.
"Concerning the gossip, I want to be clear that NO ONE speaks for me. Not a blog, magazine, "close sources" or my family."
Vox parentis non putrem a matre distinguit. (Whatever that means.)
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Cycle of Pain Relief
From a documentary entitled "The Last 48 Hours of Kurt Cobain"
One of the consequences of severe pain is that the sufferer starts to focus on the pain itself, rather than the cause of the pain. The pain becomes objectified as the enemy, to be attacked by various forms of pain relief.
Pain relief may provide temporary respite from unremitting pain; but if the root cause of the pain is not dealt with, the sufferer becomes dependent upon the pain relief. Furthermore, the (objectified) pain relief becomes increasingly ineffective as the (objectified) pain fights back. Eventually the (objectified) pain relief itself becomes the problem. There are several feedback loops here, that serve to maintain or even amplify the suffering, as Kurt Cobain himself was painfully aware.
By the way, techniques such as hypnosis encourage the sufferer to objectify the pain, as a step towards pain management. See for example G. Edward Riley, "Hypnosis, Hypnotherapy, and Hypnotherapists", Find Counseling.com (formerly TherapistFinder.net) Mental Health Journal, April, 2001. See also Jean Jackson, "Chronic pain and the tension between the body as subject and object" in Thomas J. Csordas (ed), Embodiment and experience: the existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
"It does become debilitating being addicted man (you know) and you can blame it on other things - My Stomach Hurts, I Had Chronic Back Pain For Three Years, ... The more stuff you do for pain, the more pain you have, and the more you need for the pain, and the more acute your pain becomes (you know)"
One of the consequences of severe pain is that the sufferer starts to focus on the pain itself, rather than the cause of the pain. The pain becomes objectified as the enemy, to be attacked by various forms of pain relief.
Pain relief may provide temporary respite from unremitting pain; but if the root cause of the pain is not dealt with, the sufferer becomes dependent upon the pain relief. Furthermore, the (objectified) pain relief becomes increasingly ineffective as the (objectified) pain fights back. Eventually the (objectified) pain relief itself becomes the problem. There are several feedback loops here, that serve to maintain or even amplify the suffering, as Kurt Cobain himself was painfully aware.
I'm worse at what I do best
And for this gift I feel blessed.
By the way, techniques such as hypnosis encourage the sufferer to objectify the pain, as a step towards pain management. See for example G. Edward Riley, "Hypnosis, Hypnotherapy, and Hypnotherapists", Find Counseling.com (formerly TherapistFinder.net) Mental Health Journal, April, 2001. See also Jean Jackson, "Chronic pain and the tension between the body as subject and object" in Thomas J. Csordas (ed), Embodiment and experience: the existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sex and Death
Evolutionary psychologists have found another link between sex and death. Apparently death makes men more interested in sex.
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
Researchers at the University of Kansas told men to think about their own deaths, and found that men responded more vigorously to sexual pictures and had increased heart rates when viewing them, compared to when they thought about dental pain. Apparently this proves that men with low life expectancy are likely to shag anything that moves, in the hope of passing on their genes. Oh, for intercourse sake!
The researchers believe that contemplating one's death mimics conditions of 'low survivability'. It obviously hasn't occurred to them (a) that the contemplation of one's own death is a standard meditative practice, and that (b) contemplating dental pain is probably a lot more realistic and unpleasant than contemplating one's death.
(Contemplating one's own death may actually result in a longer and happier life, and we might imagine that women would prefer to get pregnant by men with better life chances. We might also imagine that the total quantity of sexual activity is influenced by female psychology as well as male psychology, but that's probably too complicated for Omri Gillath and his colleagues to work out.)
Bad Economy Means More Sex For Men (Science 2.0, October 2011)
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Death as POSIWID 4
In the flurry of articles and blogposts following the sad but inevitable death of Steve Jobs, many journalists and bloggers have found apposite quotes from his 2005 commencement speech at Stanford. I'm about to quote something from it myself, which continues a discussion we've been having here about the purpose of death.
Steve Jobs is here following the Buddhist way of thinking.
Now please go and watch Steve Jobs' whole speech. [Stanford University, June 2005]
"Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
Steve Jobs is here following the Buddhist way of thinking.
"Death, far from being a subject to be shunned and avoided, is the key that unlocks the seeming mystery of life. It is by understanding death that we understand life; for death is part of the process of life in the larger sense. In another sense, life and death are two ends of the same process and if you understand one end of the process, you also understand the other end. Hence, by understanding the purpose of death we also understand the purpose of life." V.F. Gunaratna, Buddhist Reflections on Death
"As long as there is fear of death, life itself is not being lived at its best. So one of the very fundamental reasons for contemplating death, for making this reality fully conscious, is that of overcoming fear. The contemplation of death is not for making us depressed or morbid, it is rather for the purpose of helping to free us from fear." Ajahn Jagaro, Death and Dying
"By understanding the purpose of death we also understand the purpose of life."
Now please go and watch Steve Jobs' whole speech. [Stanford University, June 2005]
Monday, August 08, 2011
Framing a riot
In Predicting a Riot, @DavidAllenGreen (aka Jack of Kent) points out that riots are used to validate and reinforce existing political opinions. Our political opinions influence how we read any given civil disturbance.
He also points out that a riot is a complex event, with many different things going on, and that to understand causes and effects, we need to be clear about which effects we are trying to explain. He attributes this point to the historian Conrad Russell (son of Bertrand).
Listening to the media reports of the riots in Tottenham over the weekend, I was struck by the amount of time devoted to looting. Although there were some police injuries, the media story was that most people seemed more interested in stealing televisions than attacking the police. Media coverage of other recent protests have been dominated by the unruly behaviour of Cambridge undergraduates and the children of pop stars.
It is difficult to find objective evidence about the causal relationship between the riot and the looting. Thus people will tend to form opinions that are determined by their general political stance. Some will regard the looting as an almost inevitable consequence of the riot, while others will regard it as accidental and opportunistic.
But maybe the looting serves some political purpose. If crowds can be easily diverted from legitimate political protest into pointless vandalism, egoism and self-interested thievery, this serves to discredit the original political agenda. So who benefits from this diversion? Right-wing bloggers such as @HolySmoke are already rubbing their hands with glee The looting is a PR disaster for UK Uncut (Daily Telegraph 8 Aug 2011). And politicians of all parties are distancing themselves from plans to cut police budgets.
Jack of Kent is viewing these events as a contemporary historian, and wondering how these events are perceived by people with different prejudices. But we can go further and ask how these events could be being orchestrated and framed in order to propagate a given set of perceptions.
In a Linked-In discussion A systems perspective on the riots in England, James Llewellyn says that a systemic approach "might ask us to consider whether there is a wider problem at work".
Some systems thinkers apparently don't stop to ask WHETHER there is a wider problem at work, they seem to take it as a guiding principle that there ALWAYS MUST BE a wider problem at work.
For the purposes of this discussion, James chooses to focus on a system he calls "the capitalist system", and (perhaps not surprisingly) finds some problems with this system. (Some systems thinkers follow a second guiding principle: that you can ALWAYS find problems with any reasonably important and complex system, if you look hard enough.)
Having chosen to focus on "the capitalist system", James asks ethical questions (values) as well as cause-effect questions (linear type solutions). He also asks a basic ontological question - does the category of "looter" include Bernie Madoff as well as the kids who stole televisions and trainers?
This ontological question may have some relevance for the aetiology of the riots. Some of the rioters have sought to justify their own behaviour by reference to the "looting" behaviour of the bankers, as well as a socioeconomic classification in which shop-keepers counted as "the rich". If the media are to be believed, some of those caught up in the riots do not appear to have been "have nots" or "underclass", but were middle class aspiring young people, who already had televisions and trainers and were apparently caught up with the fervour of "liberation" and "opportunity". Thus their way of understanding and framing the systems in which they were operating affected their ethical and instrumental choices; those who are convicted of various crimes will experience lasting change to their social identity. As has Bernie Madoff.
What I think this implies for systems thinking is that we are not just called upon to take a systems perspective for our own understanding of some series of events, but also to appreciate the range of systems perspectives taken by the actors in these events, as well as the various commentators upon them.
See also
The competing arguments used to explain the riots (BBC News Magazine, 11 August 2011) with commentary by two criminologists, Professor David Wilson of Birmingham City University and Marian FitzGerald, visiting professor of criminology at the University of Kent.
England riots: 'The whites have become black' says David Starkey (BBC Newsnight, 12 August 2011), provocatively blaming the riots on the adoption of what he calls "black culture" by young people of all races, a point eloquently rebutted by Dreda Say Mitchell. "Very dangerous game to invoke the rivers of blood speech and Empire", comments @markhillary.
He also points out that a riot is a complex event, with many different things going on, and that to understand causes and effects, we need to be clear about which effects we are trying to explain. He attributes this point to the historian Conrad Russell (son of Bertrand).
Listening to the media reports of the riots in Tottenham over the weekend, I was struck by the amount of time devoted to looting. Although there were some police injuries, the media story was that most people seemed more interested in stealing televisions than attacking the police. Media coverage of other recent protests have been dominated by the unruly behaviour of Cambridge undergraduates and the children of pop stars.
It is difficult to find objective evidence about the causal relationship between the riot and the looting. Thus people will tend to form opinions that are determined by their general political stance. Some will regard the looting as an almost inevitable consequence of the riot, while others will regard it as accidental and opportunistic.
But maybe the looting serves some political purpose. If crowds can be easily diverted from legitimate political protest into pointless vandalism, egoism and self-interested thievery, this serves to discredit the original political agenda. So who benefits from this diversion? Right-wing bloggers such as @HolySmoke are already rubbing their hands with glee The looting is a PR disaster for UK Uncut (Daily Telegraph 8 Aug 2011). And politicians of all parties are distancing themselves from plans to cut police budgets.
Jack of Kent is viewing these events as a contemporary historian, and wondering how these events are perceived by people with different prejudices. But we can go further and ask how these events could be being orchestrated and framed in order to propagate a given set of perceptions.
In a Linked-In discussion A systems perspective on the riots in England, James Llewellyn says that a systemic approach "might ask us to consider whether there is a wider problem at work".
Some systems thinkers apparently don't stop to ask WHETHER there is a wider problem at work, they seem to take it as a guiding principle that there ALWAYS MUST BE a wider problem at work.
For the purposes of this discussion, James chooses to focus on a system he calls "the capitalist system", and (perhaps not surprisingly) finds some problems with this system. (Some systems thinkers follow a second guiding principle: that you can ALWAYS find problems with any reasonably important and complex system, if you look hard enough.)
Having chosen to focus on "the capitalist system", James asks ethical questions (values) as well as cause-effect questions (linear type solutions). He also asks a basic ontological question - does the category of "looter" include Bernie Madoff as well as the kids who stole televisions and trainers?
This ontological question may have some relevance for the aetiology of the riots. Some of the rioters have sought to justify their own behaviour by reference to the "looting" behaviour of the bankers, as well as a socioeconomic classification in which shop-keepers counted as "the rich". If the media are to be believed, some of those caught up in the riots do not appear to have been "have nots" or "underclass", but were middle class aspiring young people, who already had televisions and trainers and were apparently caught up with the fervour of "liberation" and "opportunity". Thus their way of understanding and framing the systems in which they were operating affected their ethical and instrumental choices; those who are convicted of various crimes will experience lasting change to their social identity. As has Bernie Madoff.
What I think this implies for systems thinking is that we are not just called upon to take a systems perspective for our own understanding of some series of events, but also to appreciate the range of systems perspectives taken by the actors in these events, as well as the various commentators upon them.
See also
The competing arguments used to explain the riots (BBC News Magazine, 11 August 2011) with commentary by two criminologists, Professor David Wilson of Birmingham City University and Marian FitzGerald, visiting professor of criminology at the University of Kent.
England riots: 'The whites have become black' says David Starkey (BBC Newsnight, 12 August 2011), provocatively blaming the riots on the adoption of what he calls "black culture" by young people of all races, a point eloquently rebutted by Dreda Say Mitchell. "Very dangerous game to invoke the rivers of blood speech and Empire", comments @markhillary.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Scissors Paper Stone 3
Discussing #Murdoch, @paulmasonnews argues that the network defeats the hierarchy. Mason tries to argue that the fall of News International represents a triumph for "the network", with particular reference to Facebook and Twitter. He references a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon, 1988) (link), and also name-drops Slavoj Žižek.
But of course that's only one possible interpretation of recent events, and only one meaning of the word "network". Reading Adam Curtis's piece from a few months ago, ironically entitled Rupert Murdoch - A Portrait of Satan, we might instead get a picture of News International as (at least until recently) a supremely powerful network, which has now been (perhaps temporally) outmanoeuvred by the establishment hierarchy it for so long tried to subvert.
The establishment probably cares as little about poor Millie Dowler as it does about any foolish and over-sexed footballer. But when her mobile phone turns out to have been hacked, it gives everyone the perfect pretext to express indignation about the scurrilous tactics of a newspaper that has for decades been entertaining the working classes with the foibles of the rich and famous, as well as detailed accounts of crime. (Just read George Orwell on the Decline of the English Murder.)
While we may all deplore the tactics of the News of the World, investigative journalism is one of those activities we all benefit from while turning a blind eye to exactly how it is done. And how are we to hold the establishment to account, if the establishment sets up the rules of the game to make real investigative journalism as difficult and unprofitable as possible? Some moral as well as political dilemmas here.
But of course that's only one possible interpretation of recent events, and only one meaning of the word "network". Reading Adam Curtis's piece from a few months ago, ironically entitled Rupert Murdoch - A Portrait of Satan, we might instead get a picture of News International as (at least until recently) a supremely powerful network, which has now been (perhaps temporally) outmanoeuvred by the establishment hierarchy it for so long tried to subvert.
The establishment probably cares as little about poor Millie Dowler as it does about any foolish and over-sexed footballer. But when her mobile phone turns out to have been hacked, it gives everyone the perfect pretext to express indignation about the scurrilous tactics of a newspaper that has for decades been entertaining the working classes with the foibles of the rich and famous, as well as detailed accounts of crime. (Just read George Orwell on the Decline of the English Murder.)
While we may all deplore the tactics of the News of the World, investigative journalism is one of those activities we all benefit from while turning a blind eye to exactly how it is done. And how are we to hold the establishment to account, if the establishment sets up the rules of the game to make real investigative journalism as difficult and unprofitable as possible? Some moral as well as political dilemmas here.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
You're So Pretty
@the_beheld via @marginalutility asks Should We Praise Little Girls For Being Pretty? @nourishthesoul replies "It's wonderful to remind each other that we are all beautiful, but maybe we have it wrong?" Why I get tired of “You are beautiful!”
What's the purpose of commenting on a person's looks? There are three possible positive motivations - to make the person feel good, to make oneself feel good, or as an attempted building block in a relationship with the person (or her parents). There are also three possible negative motivations - to trivialize or attack the person, to put oneself down in comparison, or to trivialize or block an attempted relationship.
If you want a little girl to feel proud and important, then there are probably better ways of doing it than commenting on her looks. As the_beheld comments, "being praised for something you can’t help can feel hollow or even confusing". (The same applies to telling people how clever they are.)
Telling grown women that they are pretty, or that their daughters are pretty, may be an effective chat-up line on some occasions, but the line often carries a slightly bitter aftertaste, as if there is some buried hostility towards self or other. Some women and girls may become accustomed to hearing how pretty they are, possibly starting with their fathers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe it.
Perhaps the Sex Pistols had the right idea when their lyrics progressed from "pretty" to "pretty vacant".
What's the purpose of commenting on a person's looks? There are three possible positive motivations - to make the person feel good, to make oneself feel good, or as an attempted building block in a relationship with the person (or her parents). There are also three possible negative motivations - to trivialize or attack the person, to put oneself down in comparison, or to trivialize or block an attempted relationship.
If you want a little girl to feel proud and important, then there are probably better ways of doing it than commenting on her looks. As the_beheld comments, "being praised for something you can’t help can feel hollow or even confusing". (The same applies to telling people how clever they are.)
Telling grown women that they are pretty, or that their daughters are pretty, may be an effective chat-up line on some occasions, but the line often carries a slightly bitter aftertaste, as if there is some buried hostility towards self or other. Some women and girls may become accustomed to hearing how pretty they are, possibly starting with their fathers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe it.
Perhaps the Sex Pistols had the right idea when their lyrics progressed from "pretty" to "pretty vacant".
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Contradiction and Ambivalence
As @MarkJBallard reports
When the observed behaviour of a large complex entity seems to contradict its stated goals and policies, we may perhaps infer the existence of some contrary (possibly unstated) goals and policies that override or interfere with the stated ones. This is a classic application of the POSIWID principle.
In this case, however, the Cabinet Office defends the observed behaviour by appealing to a different set of stated goals and policies, relating to cost-cutting. Nevertheless, a representative of one of the affected SMEs suggests that short-term cost-cutting is likely to cost more in the longer-term, as a result of reduced competition.
There are also counter-claims that Capita is merely acting as a gatekeeper, passing on 80% of the business to SMEs, thus possibly contradicting the contradiction.
Thus the interpretation of purpose depends on interpretation of evidence as well as variation in timescale. Applying the POSIWID principle to a politically charged situation like this can often be subject to strong disagreement between stakeholders.
Government departments have been cancelling freelance IT contractors supplied through SMEs and giving their interim staff business to Capita under orders from the Cabinet Office's Efficiency and Reform Group (ERG), in apparent contradiction of government SME policy. (Computer Weekly, 24 June 2011)
When the observed behaviour of a large complex entity seems to contradict its stated goals and policies, we may perhaps infer the existence of some contrary (possibly unstated) goals and policies that override or interfere with the stated ones. This is a classic application of the POSIWID principle.
In this case, however, the Cabinet Office defends the observed behaviour by appealing to a different set of stated goals and policies, relating to cost-cutting. Nevertheless, a representative of one of the affected SMEs suggests that short-term cost-cutting is likely to cost more in the longer-term, as a result of reduced competition.
There are also counter-claims that Capita is merely acting as a gatekeeper, passing on 80% of the business to SMEs, thus possibly contradicting the contradiction.
Thus the interpretation of purpose depends on interpretation of evidence as well as variation in timescale. Applying the POSIWID principle to a politically charged situation like this can often be subject to strong disagreement between stakeholders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)