I have long been fascinated by the way in which certain words become loaded with positive or negative meanings and, as a result, become used in some truly bizarre ways. This has been the fate of the word rational which has grown beyond being simply descriptive of an analytical process and taken on a rather strange life of its own.
Rationality is essentially the process of careful, logical, and honest assesement based on available information. Rationality is wonderful for determining the validity of empirical claims. However, not even the most die-hard self-proclaimed rationalist would claim that rationality and logic are all that there is to life. We are human, after all, and emotion - the very opposite of rationality - is vital to our well-being, and sometimes we have to chuck rationality out the window to find happiness. Listening to beautiful music, finding a poem moving, becoming involved in a well-made film, becoming invested in characters from a novel, and falling in love are all emotional, non-rational things, and our lives would be poorer without them.
However, that is not to say that rationality should play no rule in even emotional decision making. After all, we can look at our own histories and our desires and use logic to reach some conclusions as to which courses of action are likely to be beneficial to our long-term emotional state, helping us to see what makes us happy and what makes us miserable. And no matter what your heart may tell you right now, your long-term happiness is likely to be compromised if you marry that meth-addicted convict whose favorite hobby is spreading herpes to Chihuahuas - that's a rational assessment, and you can trust me on this one.
Rationality is one of many types of mental processes, a vital and important one to be certain, but not the only one. It is absolutely necessary in assessing the truth of empirical claims (and as such is vital in evaluating things ranging from a salesman's pitch to public policy proposals), and can of great help in our decision making, but it is simply a descriptive term for one type of mental process.
However, the term has come to take a broader meaning. Rationality has become a term generally associated with positive mental health and clear thinking. When we say that someone is irrational, it usually doesn't mean that they are being emotional or asking non-empirical questions - it usually is used as a pejorative meaning that the target is not quite sane, or not to be trusted.
Let's be clear, I don't necessarilly see this elevation of rationalism as a problem. While it is only one mental process and others are necessary, it is one in which we as a species tend to be rather unfortunately deficient. If we were encouraged to actually be more rational then that would be wonderful.
Unfortunately, that isn't usually what happens. Instead, most of us find ways to justify our irrational positions and try to claim them as rational. So, we find people coming up with rather tortured explanations of why racial group X is "clearly" biologically inferior, why assuming without evidence that something is true (AKA faith) is "actually quite rational", or why some bizarre and unreasonable conclusion is really the truth. This isn't rationality, but rather it is the spinning of rationalizations - rationality's bastard mutant cousin who lives in the attic and enjoys humping spiders.
Often such rationalizations are inconsequential - rationalizing why Humphrey Bogart was the greatest actor ever to have lived, or coming up with an excuse for believing that unicorns kick ass isn't going to hurt anybody. However, when one becomes accustomed to rationaliztion their pre-existing assumptions about race, politics, sexual orientation, religion, etc., then this provides a place for people to dig in and advance positions that are in fact harmful.
In a way, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if rationality weren't as highly prized, then we could point out assumptions without those holding the assumptions trying to rationalize them. Of course, then, there would also be no reason for the person to change their position when proven wrong, so perhaps we'd simply be in the same boat.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Who's My Client Anyway? Or, More Weird Tensions in My Job.
One of the weird things about my industry that often strikes me as weird, if not possibly hazardous, is the role that our clients play in any given project.
Sometimes we are contracted by a regulatory agency, but the majority of the time we are contracted by the proponents of a project. So, for example, say that Amalgamated Paverific wants to build a new parking lot. They will apply to the appropriate agencies for the permits to build the lot. The agencies will apply their regulations as appropriate, and determine the permit conditions, which may include that the project proponent perform environmental studies to determine the impact of construction. For this illustration, let's assume that Amalgamated Paverific has to apply to a federal agency, let's say the Federal Office of Grooviness (FOG), and the FOG determines that the proposed parking lot is to be built in an area that is known for alot of archaeological sites, perhaps the homeland of the Whatchagonnadotonites. So, FOG determines that an archaeological study will be necessary to evaluate the possibility that archaeological sites will be disturbed by construction.
So, does the FOG, being groovy and all, contract with my archaeology company, Armstrong Archaeological Resources iDentification Verification Assessment Recovery and Knowledge generation (AARDVARK)? No, they don't. They direct Amalgamated Paverific to find a consultant, and they, in turn, find us. So, I am now contracted to the entity that actually stands to gain something if there is nothing found during the archaeological study.
This creates an obvious tension.
Now, to be fair and honest, all of AARDVARK's archaeologists are Registered Professional Archaeologists, meaning that they meet certain minimum qualifications and have signed on to a statement of ethics that precludes taking bribes or denying results to favor a client. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of archaeologists take these codes of ethics very seriously, and most of us became archaeologists because of a love for archaeology and not to make money (if we wanted to make money, we would have stayed FAR away from archaeology). So, violations of the code of ethics are rare.
But, nonetheless, there is a definite reason why people would see a conflict of interests even if it doesn't play out.
Also, FOG doesn't bow out completely. They have agency archaeologists who review our work, approve our research designs, review our reports, and maintain the right to visit us int he field to check up on us. So, we are not entirely unsupervised. Nonetheless, they can't be there all of the time, and it is therefore difficult for them to ensure honesty at all times, and they rely on their relationships with us (as well as the threat of future refusals of work) to keep us in line.
So, again, there is reason to be concerned about this arrangement.
I want to emphasize, again, that violations of ethics in order to curry favor with or benefit a client are extremely rare. I am not claiming that the sky is falling, it certainly is not. However, I know of a handful of archaeologists who are on the take, and I know that the current arrangement benefits them.
This is an uncomfortable tension. I have had more than one client take the attitude that I am their consultant and therefore should only be producing things that benefit them, truth and professional ethics be damned. I have always worked through these situations with my code of ethics and my conscience intact, as do the majority of my colleagues.
The alternative would seem to be either for the agencies to have enough archaeologists on staff to do all of this work themselves, or else to contract directly with us. This presents its own problems, however, both economic and political (really, can you see a bill requiring this passing through Congress? Neither can I).
I don't know the solution, but it is a potential source of problems, even if it has caused relatively few so far. I think that, perhaps, part of the solution is simply letting people in on these facts, as I am doing here.
Sometimes we are contracted by a regulatory agency, but the majority of the time we are contracted by the proponents of a project. So, for example, say that Amalgamated Paverific wants to build a new parking lot. They will apply to the appropriate agencies for the permits to build the lot. The agencies will apply their regulations as appropriate, and determine the permit conditions, which may include that the project proponent perform environmental studies to determine the impact of construction. For this illustration, let's assume that Amalgamated Paverific has to apply to a federal agency, let's say the Federal Office of Grooviness (FOG), and the FOG determines that the proposed parking lot is to be built in an area that is known for alot of archaeological sites, perhaps the homeland of the Whatchagonnadotonites. So, FOG determines that an archaeological study will be necessary to evaluate the possibility that archaeological sites will be disturbed by construction.
So, does the FOG, being groovy and all, contract with my archaeology company, Armstrong Archaeological Resources iDentification Verification Assessment Recovery and Knowledge generation (AARDVARK)? No, they don't. They direct Amalgamated Paverific to find a consultant, and they, in turn, find us. So, I am now contracted to the entity that actually stands to gain something if there is nothing found during the archaeological study.
This creates an obvious tension.
Now, to be fair and honest, all of AARDVARK's archaeologists are Registered Professional Archaeologists, meaning that they meet certain minimum qualifications and have signed on to a statement of ethics that precludes taking bribes or denying results to favor a client. I can tell you from experience that the vast majority of archaeologists take these codes of ethics very seriously, and most of us became archaeologists because of a love for archaeology and not to make money (if we wanted to make money, we would have stayed FAR away from archaeology). So, violations of the code of ethics are rare.
But, nonetheless, there is a definite reason why people would see a conflict of interests even if it doesn't play out.
Also, FOG doesn't bow out completely. They have agency archaeologists who review our work, approve our research designs, review our reports, and maintain the right to visit us int he field to check up on us. So, we are not entirely unsupervised. Nonetheless, they can't be there all of the time, and it is therefore difficult for them to ensure honesty at all times, and they rely on their relationships with us (as well as the threat of future refusals of work) to keep us in line.
So, again, there is reason to be concerned about this arrangement.
I want to emphasize, again, that violations of ethics in order to curry favor with or benefit a client are extremely rare. I am not claiming that the sky is falling, it certainly is not. However, I know of a handful of archaeologists who are on the take, and I know that the current arrangement benefits them.
This is an uncomfortable tension. I have had more than one client take the attitude that I am their consultant and therefore should only be producing things that benefit them, truth and professional ethics be damned. I have always worked through these situations with my code of ethics and my conscience intact, as do the majority of my colleagues.
The alternative would seem to be either for the agencies to have enough archaeologists on staff to do all of this work themselves, or else to contract directly with us. This presents its own problems, however, both economic and political (really, can you see a bill requiring this passing through Congress? Neither can I).
I don't know the solution, but it is a potential source of problems, even if it has caused relatively few so far. I think that, perhaps, part of the solution is simply letting people in on these facts, as I am doing here.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Railriders - a Menace to the Public Good
There is a segment of the population that is ever growing, recruiting from our youth to fill their ranks to swelling. They have long had a media presence that portrays them as lovable, free-wheeling, and even admirable, hiding the unsavory truth of their filthy lifestyle. Although there is one true name by which they should be known, they have adopted many different euphemisms to make themselves sound more appealing. They often portray themselves as victims, living life as they see fit only to be "oppressed" by those of us with a strong enough sense of morality to call them for what they are and try to stop them.
I am speaking, of course and obviously, about hobos.
They may go by many other, more "P.C." terms - gentleman of the road, boxcar men, and many others - hobos are known to all of us, but most people deny their true nature in favor of the popular depictions.
In order to expose the vile hobo to the light of day, let's look at the song that might be considered the hobo "national anthem" - Big Rock Candy Mountains
We see here that the hobo is addressing a group of boys, that is youths or children, hoping to lure them into the hobo lifestyle. He, of course, doesn't tell them of the true hobo lifestyle, no. Instead, he tells them that the lifestyle is literally about sweet things like candy.
One has to wonder if hobos eat so many beans in the hopes of replacing their nonexistent moral fiber with dietary fiber.
The handouts grow on bushes. You see here that the hobo clearly desires a socialist system in which he receives handouts rather than working.
First the hobo calls down disparagement on the police, those fine and upstanding enforcers of law. And this song first gained prominence during prohibition, when the police not only enforced man's law, but also God's law.
And here we see that the hobo hates such time-honored traditions as sobriety, there is further disparagement of authority figures who might force the hobo to be a moral individual, and the hobo shows his distaste for sanitary conditions, wishing to not change socks and paddle a canoe around the food supply.
Again, what is so disturbing is that the hobo is telling this tale to children so that he might lure them into his degenerate lifestyle.
And the hobo shows his complete disregard for morality, desiring to be allowed immediately out of jail without ever being forced to pay for his filthy lifestyle, his desire to allow his hands to be idle (and hence the playground of the devil), and to violently overthrow those who support the social order of which he wants no part.
Savage.
And, of course, he anticipates that the children to whom he is speaking will follow his example and join him "this coming fall" - these words are neither accidental nor a simple allusion to a season of the year, the hobo knows that his path is one of moral decay, and he hopes to lead the children along it.
Of course, this disturbing recruitment is not limited to songs or chance meetings on the railroad tracks. It has also infiltrated our mass media, and the media elites are using every tool at their disposal to forward the hobo agenda. Whether it's Disney, that den of iniquity, and their animated "classic" Boxcar Willy to Buddy Ebsen's dark and disturbing turn on The Andy Griffith Show, the image of the hobo as a happy and carefree character has caused far too many of our youth to choose life as hobos.
The simple fact is this: hobos are immoral beings, disgusting in the eyes of man and abominations in the eyes of God. If everyone followed the hobo's path our society would be in shambles, therefore nobody should be allowed to follow it. The advancing hobo agenda must be stopped. I suggest three simple steps:
1. We must petition, pester, and if necessary, use force to make the immoral media elites stop portraying the hobo as a happy or positive character. We must change the false image of the hobo from this:
*
to a more accurate portrayal, such as this photo taken of a hobo at a train yard:
**
2. We, citizens concerned about decency, must surround train yards at every opportunity to prevent hobos from leaving their trains and attempting to recruit our children. We must be clear through our actions, however, that we do not hate the hobos, we just hate hoboism, and this means that we desire to beat the hobos as a show of our concern for them and for our children.
3. We must support legislation aimed at preventing the spread of hoboism such as Proposition 83b(c).321(k), which outlaws train yards within the state of California.
Only in this way can we hope to stem the rising tide of hoboism and save our families and communities.
I sincerely hope nobody has to read this line to realize that this is a joke and satire. I mean no ill-will towards hobos anywhere, and if any hobos are reading this I will say only STOP FOOLING AROUND ON THE INTERNET AND GET BACK ON THE FUCKING TRAIN!
*image from http://www.freewebs.com/willacetheclown/othercharacters.htm
**image from the Doctor Who episode The Deadly Assassin
I am speaking, of course and obviously, about hobos.
They may go by many other, more "P.C." terms - gentleman of the road, boxcar men, and many others - hobos are known to all of us, but most people deny their true nature in favor of the popular depictions.
In order to expose the vile hobo to the light of day, let's look at the song that might be considered the hobo "national anthem" - Big Rock Candy Mountains
One evening as the sun went down and the jungle fire was burning
Down the track came a hobo hiking and he said boys I'm not turning
I'm headin for a land that's far away beside the crystal fountains
So come with me we'll go and see the Big Rock Candy Mountains
We see here that the hobo is addressing a group of boys, that is youths or children, hoping to lure them into the hobo lifestyle. He, of course, doesn't tell them of the true hobo lifestyle, no. Instead, he tells them that the lifestyle is literally about sweet things like candy.
One has to wonder if hobos eat so many beans in the hopes of replacing their nonexistent moral fiber with dietary fiber.
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night
Where the boxcars are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees
Where the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
The handouts grow on bushes. You see here that the hobo clearly desires a socialist system in which he receives handouts rather than working.
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains all the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
The farmer's trees are full of fruit and the barns are full of hay
Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall and the wind don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
First the hobo calls down disparagement on the police, those fine and upstanding enforcers of law. And this song first gained prominence during prohibition, when the police not only enforced man's law, but also God's law.
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains you never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol come a-trickling down the rocks
The brakemen have to tip their hats and the railroad bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too
You can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
And here we see that the hobo hates such time-honored traditions as sobriety, there is further disparagement of authority figures who might force the hobo to be a moral individual, and the hobo shows his distaste for sanitary conditions, wishing to not change socks and paddle a canoe around the food supply.
Again, what is so disturbing is that the hobo is telling this tale to children so that he might lure them into his degenerate lifestyle.
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains the jails are made of tin
And you can walk right out again as soon as you are in
There ain't no short handled shovels, no axes saws or picks
I'm a goin to stay where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk that invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
I'll see you all this coming fall in the Big Rock Candy Mountains
And the hobo shows his complete disregard for morality, desiring to be allowed immediately out of jail without ever being forced to pay for his filthy lifestyle, his desire to allow his hands to be idle (and hence the playground of the devil), and to violently overthrow those who support the social order of which he wants no part.
Savage.
And, of course, he anticipates that the children to whom he is speaking will follow his example and join him "this coming fall" - these words are neither accidental nor a simple allusion to a season of the year, the hobo knows that his path is one of moral decay, and he hopes to lead the children along it.
Of course, this disturbing recruitment is not limited to songs or chance meetings on the railroad tracks. It has also infiltrated our mass media, and the media elites are using every tool at their disposal to forward the hobo agenda. Whether it's Disney, that den of iniquity, and their animated "classic" Boxcar Willy to Buddy Ebsen's dark and disturbing turn on The Andy Griffith Show, the image of the hobo as a happy and carefree character has caused far too many of our youth to choose life as hobos.
The simple fact is this: hobos are immoral beings, disgusting in the eyes of man and abominations in the eyes of God. If everyone followed the hobo's path our society would be in shambles, therefore nobody should be allowed to follow it. The advancing hobo agenda must be stopped. I suggest three simple steps:
1. We must petition, pester, and if necessary, use force to make the immoral media elites stop portraying the hobo as a happy or positive character. We must change the false image of the hobo from this:
*to a more accurate portrayal, such as this photo taken of a hobo at a train yard:
**2. We, citizens concerned about decency, must surround train yards at every opportunity to prevent hobos from leaving their trains and attempting to recruit our children. We must be clear through our actions, however, that we do not hate the hobos, we just hate hoboism, and this means that we desire to beat the hobos as a show of our concern for them and for our children.
3. We must support legislation aimed at preventing the spread of hoboism such as Proposition 83b(c).321(k), which outlaws train yards within the state of California.
Only in this way can we hope to stem the rising tide of hoboism and save our families and communities.
I sincerely hope nobody has to read this line to realize that this is a joke and satire. I mean no ill-will towards hobos anywhere, and if any hobos are reading this I will say only STOP FOOLING AROUND ON THE INTERNET AND GET BACK ON THE FUCKING TRAIN!
*image from http://www.freewebs.com/willacetheclown/othercharacters.htm
**image from the Doctor Who episode The Deadly Assassin
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Corporate Culture Porn
I used to work for one of the big Silicon Valley tech companies, specifically I worked for a company that produced hard drives and other such storage devices. One day, while walking to my desk, I caught site of a flyer that had been posted on the wall. The flyer advertised an upcoming seminar (which we would all, inceidentally, be required to attend) on the conflict-resolution skills of the people of the island nation of Mauritius. The people of Mauritius, the flyer informed the casual reader, were comprised of five different religions, multiple ethncities, and had an economy that, like others of Africa, was often tumultuous - and yet they managed to all live together in complete happiness with no of ethnic or religious division or tension, no xenophobia, and no real conflict.
I was skeptical, but realized that, as we were all required to attend the seminar*, I would see soon enough what was up.
When the appointed day came, the human resources people all rounded us up and led us to the corral...err...meeting room. We sat down, and the presentation began. Over the course of the next hour, we watched a video produced by a company that sells products intended to increase workplace morale. In the course of watching this video, we were informed that the people of Mauritius are the ever-so-nicest people ever who completely accept each other despite religious, ethnic, and language differences, and gosh don't you know that in Mauritius there isn't ever any form of prejudice or bigotry because we are all ever-so-happy being one big family, and isn't it so great and makes you feel so warm and fuzzy seeing this so why don't you apply all of these ever-so-special and sugary sweet lessons to your job and have the ever-so-bestest work place ever!
Hmmmm....perhaps I should insert more "ever-so's" into the above paragraph...nahhh...
When the video was done, the human resources overlord who was running the show turned a whiteboard around to face the captive audience, and on it were printed three questions. I don't recall questions #2 or #3, but questions #1 was:
It was at this moment that I came up with the term Culture Porn. The producers of this video had clearly taken another culture, stripped it of its complexities and vitality, denied the real hardships and hence the acomplishments of the people of the culture, and packaged it as a consumer product to sell to corporate managers who were more interested in placating their employees than solving the real problems within their own corporate culture. I was thoroughly disgusted.
We had been shown a completely false image of Mauritius. In truth, there is much to admire about the people and the culture (or rather cultures) that they had developed. There was also much to be wary of. Like any nation, Mauritius has both admirable and damnable qualities. Within a year of sitting through this indoctrination session, I had re-entered the world of anthropology, and learned that, Mauritius did indeed have high rates of literacy and education, that it did function remarkably well as a civil society despite many economic and social problems, and all of this was certainly remarkable and well worth taking note of. At the same time, the claim that the island was free of prejudices and bigotries was an outright lie - ethnic and religious prejudices play a significant role in Mauritian politics, for example. Likewise, like many other physically constrained societies, the compact population leads to a society in which one is not exactly free to puruse ones own interests when they don't mesh with the often irrational prejudices of those around you.
In other words, Mauritus is, in many respects, a remarkable place, and it has a compelling story that is of value and interest to the outside world. However, to deny its problems is to deny the realities of life there, and also to deny the adversities that the people of the island have had to overcome, and is to cheapen the truth of their lives in favor of creating a consumer product.
To make matters worse, the entire presentation was rather disturbingly reminiscent of the racist "happy savage" stereotype that had been very much a part of 19th century colonial discourse.
Which brought us back to the question that had been scrawled on the white board.
I was at this point so disgusted that I decided to speak my mind about this. I commented to the room that the image that had been portrayed was obviously false, that it was quite offensive and borderline racist, and that it was impossible from such a false image to say if I admired the people, much less what I admired about them.
The HR people looked surprised, then annoyed that I had commented as I had. A few minutes later we were dismissed without further question. A few other employees thanked me for expressing sentiments that were, apparently, also on their minds.
*Like most large companies, the one for which I worked had developed a number of strategies to try to increase the morale of the work force, and as simple things like being honest with the employees regarding whether or not they would be laid off right before Christmas was apparently off the table, they did all manner of rather weird things instead. Amongst these were requiring us to read a book about finding happiness at work even if your job is a drag and makes you long for the sweet release of death (what I referred to as the "happy drone book"), and attending seminars on how people in harder situations have good lifes and so we really shouldn't be worrying about the dangling sword of unemployment, such as this Mauritius seminar.
I was skeptical, but realized that, as we were all required to attend the seminar*, I would see soon enough what was up.
When the appointed day came, the human resources people all rounded us up and led us to the corral...err...meeting room. We sat down, and the presentation began. Over the course of the next hour, we watched a video produced by a company that sells products intended to increase workplace morale. In the course of watching this video, we were informed that the people of Mauritius are the ever-so-nicest people ever who completely accept each other despite religious, ethnic, and language differences, and gosh don't you know that in Mauritius there isn't ever any form of prejudice or bigotry because we are all ever-so-happy being one big family, and isn't it so great and makes you feel so warm and fuzzy seeing this so why don't you apply all of these ever-so-special and sugary sweet lessons to your job and have the ever-so-bestest work place ever!
Hmmmm....perhaps I should insert more "ever-so's" into the above paragraph...nahhh...
When the video was done, the human resources overlord who was running the show turned a whiteboard around to face the captive audience, and on it were printed three questions. I don't recall questions #2 or #3, but questions #1 was:
What do you most admire about the people of Mauritius?
It was at this moment that I came up with the term Culture Porn. The producers of this video had clearly taken another culture, stripped it of its complexities and vitality, denied the real hardships and hence the acomplishments of the people of the culture, and packaged it as a consumer product to sell to corporate managers who were more interested in placating their employees than solving the real problems within their own corporate culture. I was thoroughly disgusted.
We had been shown a completely false image of Mauritius. In truth, there is much to admire about the people and the culture (or rather cultures) that they had developed. There was also much to be wary of. Like any nation, Mauritius has both admirable and damnable qualities. Within a year of sitting through this indoctrination session, I had re-entered the world of anthropology, and learned that, Mauritius did indeed have high rates of literacy and education, that it did function remarkably well as a civil society despite many economic and social problems, and all of this was certainly remarkable and well worth taking note of. At the same time, the claim that the island was free of prejudices and bigotries was an outright lie - ethnic and religious prejudices play a significant role in Mauritian politics, for example. Likewise, like many other physically constrained societies, the compact population leads to a society in which one is not exactly free to puruse ones own interests when they don't mesh with the often irrational prejudices of those around you.
In other words, Mauritus is, in many respects, a remarkable place, and it has a compelling story that is of value and interest to the outside world. However, to deny its problems is to deny the realities of life there, and also to deny the adversities that the people of the island have had to overcome, and is to cheapen the truth of their lives in favor of creating a consumer product.
To make matters worse, the entire presentation was rather disturbingly reminiscent of the racist "happy savage" stereotype that had been very much a part of 19th century colonial discourse.
Which brought us back to the question that had been scrawled on the white board.
What do you most admire about the people of Mauritius?
I was at this point so disgusted that I decided to speak my mind about this. I commented to the room that the image that had been portrayed was obviously false, that it was quite offensive and borderline racist, and that it was impossible from such a false image to say if I admired the people, much less what I admired about them.
The HR people looked surprised, then annoyed that I had commented as I had. A few minutes later we were dismissed without further question. A few other employees thanked me for expressing sentiments that were, apparently, also on their minds.
*Like most large companies, the one for which I worked had developed a number of strategies to try to increase the morale of the work force, and as simple things like being honest with the employees regarding whether or not they would be laid off right before Christmas was apparently off the table, they did all manner of rather weird things instead. Amongst these were requiring us to read a book about finding happiness at work even if your job is a drag and makes you long for the sweet release of death (what I referred to as the "happy drone book"), and attending seminars on how people in harder situations have good lifes and so we really shouldn't be worrying about the dangling sword of unemployment, such as this Mauritius seminar.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Grains, Archaeology, and Scientific American
One of the podcasts that I frequently listen to is Scientific American's 60-Second Science. Most days, the podcast features a short clip of audio detailing some a discovery, novel approach to problem solving, or some similar type of science-based issue. A recent episode described the find of a granary in a hunter/gatherer site in Jordan. The find is deemed important because it provides information on the antiquity of the storage of edible seeds in the Middle East. This, in turn, is important because the storage of seeds likely was a necessary step in the eventual development of agriculture as we know it today - simply put, the storage of seeds led to the ability to have seeds on hand for planting, and therefore the development of intentional crops*.
This is, without a doubt, interesting stuff. One of my own personal research interests is the lives of Late Period (ca 1000 AD to 1750 AD) hunter/gatherers in California, and the question of the possible development of proto-agriculture is an active topic of discussion in this field.
What bothered me, however, is that, as it was presented by Scientific American, a generally reliable source for science information, it sounds as if the discovery of a granary at a hunter-gatherer site is a completely new thing, and fills in some missing link between hunter-gatherers and farmers that otherwise might never have been known.
Well, that's not the case at all. I am not an expert in Middle Eastern archaeology, but I do know that in the Americas, Australia, and Africa, granaries are not uncommon features in hunter/gatherer sites. So, the notion that this discovery was new, revolutionary, and mind-blowing is false. It is, in fact, exactly the sort of thing that one would expect to find based on the archaeological records of every other location where hunter gatherers began farming or came close to farming.
At the same time, from a public relations standpoint, perhaps this is a good approach. Many people will be excited if they hear about something like this as if it is cutting-edge research rather than more of the same thing that archaeologists have been finding. In this way, perhaps not correcting Scientific American would have a beneficial effect on public interst in archaeology.
I don't know. It's another one of those places where the public perception and the reality of archaeology are not in agreement. However, unlike some of the other such instances, here, at least, the sensationalism leads people directly into the real archaeology rather than away from it. I have to wonder whether my immediate response of "hey! That's not right, they've ignored all of these other important matters" might actually be wrong-headed. I simply don't know.
*There are other things that likely influenced the development of agriculture which were likely as important, if not more important than the storage of seeds. These include the management of natural plants, sometimes to the point that it is open to debate whether they are natural or domesticated.
This is, without a doubt, interesting stuff. One of my own personal research interests is the lives of Late Period (ca 1000 AD to 1750 AD) hunter/gatherers in California, and the question of the possible development of proto-agriculture is an active topic of discussion in this field.
What bothered me, however, is that, as it was presented by Scientific American, a generally reliable source for science information, it sounds as if the discovery of a granary at a hunter-gatherer site is a completely new thing, and fills in some missing link between hunter-gatherers and farmers that otherwise might never have been known.
Well, that's not the case at all. I am not an expert in Middle Eastern archaeology, but I do know that in the Americas, Australia, and Africa, granaries are not uncommon features in hunter/gatherer sites. So, the notion that this discovery was new, revolutionary, and mind-blowing is false. It is, in fact, exactly the sort of thing that one would expect to find based on the archaeological records of every other location where hunter gatherers began farming or came close to farming.
At the same time, from a public relations standpoint, perhaps this is a good approach. Many people will be excited if they hear about something like this as if it is cutting-edge research rather than more of the same thing that archaeologists have been finding. In this way, perhaps not correcting Scientific American would have a beneficial effect on public interst in archaeology.
I don't know. It's another one of those places where the public perception and the reality of archaeology are not in agreement. However, unlike some of the other such instances, here, at least, the sensationalism leads people directly into the real archaeology rather than away from it. I have to wonder whether my immediate response of "hey! That's not right, they've ignored all of these other important matters" might actually be wrong-headed. I simply don't know.
*There are other things that likely influenced the development of agriculture which were likely as important, if not more important than the storage of seeds. These include the management of natural plants, sometimes to the point that it is open to debate whether they are natural or domesticated.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Persecution Complex
Man 1: "I had always thought that you made more than me."
Man 2: "No, all of us camp counselors make the same amount."
Man 1: "Huh. Well, I guess that's the way it goes."
Man 2: "Yeah, we get paid very little. It's part of our persecution for our belief in Christ. I view this work as part of my ministry, though."
The above snippet of conversation was overheard in my local coffee shop. The two guys talking were both wearing shirts that indicated that they were part of the staff of Mission Springs Christian Camp, a local, well, Christian camp. These two were apparently camp counselors.
Now, leaving aside the grandiosity but otherwise inert harmlessness of statements such as "this is part of my ministry", I want to focus really quickly on how he described his low wages: persecution.
Yeah, persecution.
The vast majority of Christians are aware enough of the world to know that they are the ones in power, and therefore by definition are not being persecuted. Nothing I say here as addressed to this large majority. However, there is this weird thought floating around among certain fundamentalist groups that holds that they are being persecuted, and anything that doesn't go their way is a sign of further persecution.
Non-Christian groups are allowed to put ads on buses, and so these fundamentalist folks claim that they are being persecuted.
A fundamentalist Christian group (specifically, the misnamed Liberty Counsel) claims to be persecuted when no religious group is allowed to distribute fliers to students, and then claims persecution when more than just Christian fliers are distributed to students.
These groups also hold that not being able to force other people's children to pray in public schools is also a form of persecution.
And, apparently, getting low pay when one has a job indoctrinating children into Christianity is a form of persecution*.
There's a long-term and short-term problem here.
The short-term problem is that the use of the term "persecution" can be used to silence opposition. This creates obvious problems, especially when, as in the case of Prop 8 for example, the people screaming persecution are the persecutors. However, this is a short-term problem because even now a growing number of people, Christian and non-Christian alike, are becoming increasingly aware of the vacuous nature of this ploy, and it is seems to become less effective with each passing day.
The long-term problem is that there is real religious persecution in the world, and every religious group, including Christians, has been targeted. In a number of nations, Christians are being genuinely persecuted, as are Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Jains, Muslims, and almost every other religious group. This is a very real, very serious problem. However, by constantly crying wolf, this particular minority but VERY vocal strain of Christianity is causing many people to ignore the very real problems by making them look like more of the same nonsense.
*Was it in the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke where Jesus said "And truly I tell you that the sign of my imminent return will be low wages, and cheap furniture imported from Sweden"?
Man 2: "No, all of us camp counselors make the same amount."
Man 1: "Huh. Well, I guess that's the way it goes."
Man 2: "Yeah, we get paid very little. It's part of our persecution for our belief in Christ. I view this work as part of my ministry, though."
The above snippet of conversation was overheard in my local coffee shop. The two guys talking were both wearing shirts that indicated that they were part of the staff of Mission Springs Christian Camp, a local, well, Christian camp. These two were apparently camp counselors.
Now, leaving aside the grandiosity but otherwise inert harmlessness of statements such as "this is part of my ministry", I want to focus really quickly on how he described his low wages: persecution.
Yeah, persecution.
The vast majority of Christians are aware enough of the world to know that they are the ones in power, and therefore by definition are not being persecuted. Nothing I say here as addressed to this large majority. However, there is this weird thought floating around among certain fundamentalist groups that holds that they are being persecuted, and anything that doesn't go their way is a sign of further persecution.
Non-Christian groups are allowed to put ads on buses, and so these fundamentalist folks claim that they are being persecuted.
A fundamentalist Christian group (specifically, the misnamed Liberty Counsel) claims to be persecuted when no religious group is allowed to distribute fliers to students, and then claims persecution when more than just Christian fliers are distributed to students.
These groups also hold that not being able to force other people's children to pray in public schools is also a form of persecution.
And, apparently, getting low pay when one has a job indoctrinating children into Christianity is a form of persecution*.
There's a long-term and short-term problem here.
The short-term problem is that the use of the term "persecution" can be used to silence opposition. This creates obvious problems, especially when, as in the case of Prop 8 for example, the people screaming persecution are the persecutors. However, this is a short-term problem because even now a growing number of people, Christian and non-Christian alike, are becoming increasingly aware of the vacuous nature of this ploy, and it is seems to become less effective with each passing day.
The long-term problem is that there is real religious persecution in the world, and every religious group, including Christians, has been targeted. In a number of nations, Christians are being genuinely persecuted, as are Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Jains, Muslims, and almost every other religious group. This is a very real, very serious problem. However, by constantly crying wolf, this particular minority but VERY vocal strain of Christianity is causing many people to ignore the very real problems by making them look like more of the same nonsense.
*Was it in the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke where Jesus said "And truly I tell you that the sign of my imminent return will be low wages, and cheap furniture imported from Sweden"?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Just because you disagree doesn't mean that they're stupid...
One of the things that you're likely to come across whenever you delve into a controversial topic is alot of accusations of stupidity, craziness, etc. etc. back-and-forth between the proponents of the different sides. For example, when I express doubt regarding a supernatural claim, I typically find that I am labelled as "closed-minded" with the person applying the label rarely, if ever, stopping to consider that I would change my mind if they could simply give me a persuasive argument. Likewise, I am often dismissive of people who believe various supernatural claims, when I really should consider the fact that they likely come from a background and a subculture in which these claims do not seem all that strange, and therefore their belief is not a sign of insanity or low intelligence, but rather a sign that they are part of a particular group, and that I probably hold a number of irrational beliefs myself that I don't think of as irrational because my own group tends to support them. It's a subtle version of the the echo chamber effect.
I think that this is a point that everyone, whether you consider yourself a skeptic, believer, Christian, Deist, atheist, or any other label needs to keep in mind. We believe things not only when they are aligned with reality, but often when they aren't, provided that we come from a background in which such beliefs align with what we have been taught, our interests, and out prejudices. I think that Brian Dunning of the Skeptoid Podcast sums it up extremely well.
I have friends who believe things about the past that, often due to their religions but also for other reasons, that I know to be false based on my exposure to the evidence of archaeology. However, none of that changes the fact that these people aren't insane or stupid, but rather that they come from a background in which such beliefs are common and espoused by trusted community leaders.
By the same token, for a very long time even after I ceased being a believer, I myself long believed that religion was the only reliable source of morality, a concept that I now know to be deeply flawed and incorrect. However, I also no longer hold to the belief that a secular morality is necessarily going to have a stronger hold on people once they are exposed to it* - a position that I would not have reached until quite recently because I was, irrationally, clinging to a belief common amongst many of my current peers.
Anyway, the point is that we need to be cautious when confronting beliefs that seem strange to us. Leaving aside the question of whether or not they can be objectively justified, it is unusual for the people holding them to be guilty of whatever easy shortcomings we can slather them with. The bad news is that this means that weird, even dangerous beliefs may be extremely resistant to eradication. The good news is that it means that we are usually dealing with people who are reasonable within a context, and understanding that context, rather than insulting or dismissing the person, may help to figure out what underlies such beliefs.
Oh, and Brian Dunning has leapt in my estimation from being fairly bright to being a genius.
*I will still argue that a morality based on actual reasoning and thinking rather than arbitrary religious rules is better for everyone. I just don't believe that it can be as easily come about or permeate the culture as other methods.
I think that this is a point that everyone, whether you consider yourself a skeptic, believer, Christian, Deist, atheist, or any other label needs to keep in mind. We believe things not only when they are aligned with reality, but often when they aren't, provided that we come from a background in which such beliefs align with what we have been taught, our interests, and out prejudices. I think that Brian Dunning of the Skeptoid Podcast sums it up extremely well.
I have friends who believe things about the past that, often due to their religions but also for other reasons, that I know to be false based on my exposure to the evidence of archaeology. However, none of that changes the fact that these people aren't insane or stupid, but rather that they come from a background in which such beliefs are common and espoused by trusted community leaders.
By the same token, for a very long time even after I ceased being a believer, I myself long believed that religion was the only reliable source of morality, a concept that I now know to be deeply flawed and incorrect. However, I also no longer hold to the belief that a secular morality is necessarily going to have a stronger hold on people once they are exposed to it* - a position that I would not have reached until quite recently because I was, irrationally, clinging to a belief common amongst many of my current peers.
Anyway, the point is that we need to be cautious when confronting beliefs that seem strange to us. Leaving aside the question of whether or not they can be objectively justified, it is unusual for the people holding them to be guilty of whatever easy shortcomings we can slather them with. The bad news is that this means that weird, even dangerous beliefs may be extremely resistant to eradication. The good news is that it means that we are usually dealing with people who are reasonable within a context, and understanding that context, rather than insulting or dismissing the person, may help to figure out what underlies such beliefs.
Oh, and Brian Dunning has leapt in my estimation from being fairly bright to being a genius.
*I will still argue that a morality based on actual reasoning and thinking rather than arbitrary religious rules is better for everyone. I just don't believe that it can be as easily come about or permeate the culture as other methods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)