@snowded @rotkapchen @euan #history #texas .
Dave Snowden saw Euan Semple's tweet Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards (original story NYTimes.com) and commented "Depressing HandMaid's Tale here we come".
When Paula Thornton said "Yes we did", Dave replied "deepest sympathies, do you need to emigrate?". Paula corrected him "Perhaps you missed my intent -- I'm proud of the action and was backing in. We believe in the pursuit of truth."
This vignette is interesting at many levels. Dave appears to have formed a negative judgement about the Texan vote, possibly based on little more than a somewhat unsympathetic report in the New York Times, and seems to have expected Paula to share his view. It can be extremely tempting to project our own opinions onto other people, especially those we consider intelligent and well-informed on other matters, and it is often a surprise to discover someone we like and respect turns out to have opinions that strongly clash with our own. Perhaps that's why we often avoid discussing politics and religion with work colleagues in the first place.
As for the pursuit of truth, political battles between liberals and conservatives over American history will probably reveal more about historical truth than any amount of imagined objectivity on either side, for those who understand how to interpret it, but I just wonder how many Texan schoolchildren will get this.
Following further debate on Twitter, Dave identified two positions: direct political/populist control and going with the academics. His appears to side with the latter option.
If we look at this in terms of Lacan's Four Discourses, "going with the academics" is what Lacan called Discourse of the University. I guess populism counts as Discourse of the Hysteric, because the Texan vote appears to be a response to a Master Discourse perceived as being controlled by the "liberal establishment". But where is the Discourse of the Analyst?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Why does a salad cost more than a Big Mac?
Because the US Federal Government doesn't subsidize healthy foods ...
source: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Autumn 2007
... thanks to a political phenomenon known as Pork. Because a small number of farmers care greatly about farming subsidies while the rest of the American population care very little, and because a small number of politicians care greatly about being reelected, it turns out that the distribution of subsidies to farmers cannot be permitted to be influenced by vulgar considerations of healthy diet. You don't win votes with salad (see Lisa the Vegetarian).
via Consumerist, Farnam Street and the New York Times.
See also Pork Scratchings
source: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Autumn 2007
... thanks to a political phenomenon known as Pork. Because a small number of farmers care greatly about farming subsidies while the rest of the American population care very little, and because a small number of politicians care greatly about being reelected, it turns out that the distribution of subsidies to farmers cannot be permitted to be influenced by vulgar considerations of healthy diet. You don't win votes with salad (see Lisa the Vegetarian).
via Consumerist, Farnam Street and the New York Times.
See also Pork Scratchings
Monday, March 01, 2010
Footballers Wives and Evolutionary Psychology
#badscience @brooklynjosh After Bjørn Østman tried to convince me of the scientific credibility of evolutionary biology in his Pleiotropy blog, I made a real effort to take it more seriously, I really did, but the latest effort from Satoshi Kanazawa PhD has put me firmly back into the sceptical camp.
Dr Kanazawa's latest "finding" associates certain behaviours and beliefs with male IQ. The UK press concentrates on the claimed linkage between IQ and male fidelity.
In America, on the other hand, the aspect of Dr Kanazawa's research that has attracted more attention is his association between male IQ and belief - both religious and political.
But the strongest demolition of Dr Kanazawa's evolutionary explanation why intelligent men don't cheat on their wives comes from Dr Kanazawa's own blog, where he writes
Dr Kanazawa argues that Bill Clinton became president so he could get laid, and predicts that at least one (male) politician will be exposed in a sex scandal during 2010. I don't think you need evolutionary psychology to make that kind of prediction, you just need a basic grasp of statistical probability. If there is a 0.01% chance of any given politician getting caught with his pants down, and there are tens of thousands of politicians across the country, then the probability of nobody getting caught is extremely small. But that doesn't mean that the behaviour is a common one. Dr Kanazawa's rhetoric relies on his readers not understanding basic probability theory.
Some male academics may believe that there is a disconnect between intelligence and worldly success. So although academics may be incredibly intelligent, they don't get laid as much as politicians and sportsmen. However, this is not because they are unattractive to women, oh no, but because intelligent men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity. And all of this is completely consistent and fully explicable thanks to evolutionary psychology.
Bah, humbug.
Dr Kanazawa's latest "finding" associates certain behaviours and beliefs with male IQ. The UK press concentrates on the claimed linkage between IQ and male fidelity.
- Intelligent men 'less likely to cheat' (Daily Telegraph, 28 Feb 2010)
- Men who cheat on their wives are 'less intelligent than faithful husbands' (Daily Mail, 28 Feb 2010) - illustrated with a photograph of Mr and Mrs Ashley Cole in happier days.
In America, on the other hand, the aspect of Dr Kanazawa's research that has attracted more attention is his association between male IQ and belief - both religious and political.
- Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? (Time, 26 February 2010)
- Liberalism, atheism linked to IQ (Baltimore Sun, 28 February 2010)
But the strongest demolition of Dr Kanazawa's evolutionary explanation why intelligent men don't cheat on their wives comes from Dr Kanazawa's own blog, where he writes
"Highly successful men have sexual affairs, not because they want to (if what men want mattered, all men would have a maximum number of affairs), but because women choose them." [Why are we surprised, December 2009]
Dr Kanazawa argues that Bill Clinton became president so he could get laid, and predicts that at least one (male) politician will be exposed in a sex scandal during 2010. I don't think you need evolutionary psychology to make that kind of prediction, you just need a basic grasp of statistical probability. If there is a 0.01% chance of any given politician getting caught with his pants down, and there are tens of thousands of politicians across the country, then the probability of nobody getting caught is extremely small. But that doesn't mean that the behaviour is a common one. Dr Kanazawa's rhetoric relies on his readers not understanding basic probability theory.
Some male academics may believe that there is a disconnect between intelligence and worldly success. So although academics may be incredibly intelligent, they don't get laid as much as politicians and sportsmen. However, this is not because they are unattractive to women, oh no, but because intelligent men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity. And all of this is completely consistent and fully explicable thanks to evolutionary psychology.
Bah, humbug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)