Saturday, July 7, 2007
History of Presidential Approval Ratings
Over at Stranger Fruit we get this interesting chart of the historical approval ratings of all the presidents going all the way back to Truman. An interesting pattern I note is how similar Reagan's and Clinton's are. It also looks like we had a surge of presidential popularity after WWII which LBJ promptly squished with the Viet Nam war.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Revealing Case of Phineas Gage
Over at Neurophilosophy Mo has a great article on the case of Phineas Gage. Gage was a 19th century railroad worker who had a 3 foot long 1+ inch wide tamping iron blasted through his skull in a dynamiting accident. Not only did he survive, but he lived 13 years before dying of complications arising as a result of epileptic convulsions.
The most amazing thing about the accident was the effect it had on Gage's personality:
"Gage did, according to Harlow, retain "full possession of his reason" after the accident, but his wife and other people close to him soon began to notice dramatic changes in his personality. It wasn't until 1868 that Harlow documented the "mental manifestations" of Gage's brain injuries, in a report published in the Bulletin of the Massachusetts Medical Society:
His contractors, who regarded him as the most efficient and capable foreman in their employ previous to his injury, considered the change in his mind so marked that they could not give him his place again. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint of advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinent, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. In this regard, his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage."
This has dramatic implications for concepts of self and soul. I the soul is a thing apart from the brain, then how does one explain a change in personality from damage to the brain. It is especially stark here since Gage did not lose any physical function. He simply became another person.
Food for thought.
The most amazing thing about the accident was the effect it had on Gage's personality:
"Gage did, according to Harlow, retain "full possession of his reason" after the accident, but his wife and other people close to him soon began to notice dramatic changes in his personality. It wasn't until 1868 that Harlow documented the "mental manifestations" of Gage's brain injuries, in a report published in the Bulletin of the Massachusetts Medical Society:
His contractors, who regarded him as the most efficient and capable foreman in their employ previous to his injury, considered the change in his mind so marked that they could not give him his place again. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint of advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinent, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. In this regard, his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage."
This has dramatic implications for concepts of self and soul. I the soul is a thing apart from the brain, then how does one explain a change in personality from damage to the brain. It is especially stark here since Gage did not lose any physical function. He simply became another person.
Food for thought.
Who's the Bigger Hypocrite? The Most Boring Game in Politics
In the wake of President Bush's controversial pardon, er, commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence for perjury, the Republicans have predictably launched into the most boring game in politics: Who's the bigger hypocrite. This is the technique of dispensing with a rational discusion of the pros and cons of the event in question for a tit-for-tat historical revisionists wet dream. It goes something like this:
Democrat: The commutation of Libby's sentence was an abuse of power and a travesty of justice.
Republican: Well where were you when Bill Clinton was pardoning [insert most hated Clinton associate here]? Why didn't you criticize that?
What follows tends to be a substanceless exchange where each side tries to paint the other as hypocritical, often with the most obscure examples each can find. Never mind that the person being asked "where were you?" was often not even in public life at that time, or possibly not even an adult. Yet they are asked to mold their opinions of the present as if they had been around in the past.
This is not to pick on the Republicans. Democrats are more than willing to play this silly game whenever it is their guy in the crosshairs. But the result is the same: no substantive discussion of what the actual issues are, and a pointless point-counterpoint of interest only to political wonks and hacks who will cheer for their side of the aisle no matter what the facts or circumstances.
This sort of diversionary rhetoric short circuits the democratic process. What needs to be discussed is what is happening now, and those events need to be judged on their merits, and those merits alone, not according to some hackneyed comparison to history. Historical events, even fairly recent ones, always involve different circumstances, and different people. Pretending any perfect parrallel can be drawn is delusional. Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is justified or not based on the facts of that case. Nothing Bill Clinton did or did not do can change that, just like the pardons Bill Clinton handed out are or are not justified based on the facts of THOSE cases, and not via some obscure reference to something Ronald Reagan supposedly did.
History is just that. We can learn from it, but we must not make the mistake of thinking wrongs in the past justify wrongs in the present. Anyone who thinks President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence was justified, needs to make the case based on THAT case. The minute the words "Bill Clinton" exit your mouth, you are conceding that you cannot in fact make your case. Whining "Bill Clinton did it too!" is just a way of dodging the issue, the same way your 5-year-old might try to weasel out of a punishment for not eating his greens by claiming you didn't eat them when you were five.
A democracy requires an informed citizenry critical of its leaders, which holds them to high standards of behavior, regardless of what their predecessors might have done. Doing otherwise guarantees poor behavior in the future, to the detriment of us all.
Democrat: The commutation of Libby's sentence was an abuse of power and a travesty of justice.
Republican: Well where were you when Bill Clinton was pardoning [insert most hated Clinton associate here]? Why didn't you criticize that?
What follows tends to be a substanceless exchange where each side tries to paint the other as hypocritical, often with the most obscure examples each can find. Never mind that the person being asked "where were you?" was often not even in public life at that time, or possibly not even an adult. Yet they are asked to mold their opinions of the present as if they had been around in the past.
This is not to pick on the Republicans. Democrats are more than willing to play this silly game whenever it is their guy in the crosshairs. But the result is the same: no substantive discussion of what the actual issues are, and a pointless point-counterpoint of interest only to political wonks and hacks who will cheer for their side of the aisle no matter what the facts or circumstances.
This sort of diversionary rhetoric short circuits the democratic process. What needs to be discussed is what is happening now, and those events need to be judged on their merits, and those merits alone, not according to some hackneyed comparison to history. Historical events, even fairly recent ones, always involve different circumstances, and different people. Pretending any perfect parrallel can be drawn is delusional. Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is justified or not based on the facts of that case. Nothing Bill Clinton did or did not do can change that, just like the pardons Bill Clinton handed out are or are not justified based on the facts of THOSE cases, and not via some obscure reference to something Ronald Reagan supposedly did.
History is just that. We can learn from it, but we must not make the mistake of thinking wrongs in the past justify wrongs in the present. Anyone who thinks President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence was justified, needs to make the case based on THAT case. The minute the words "Bill Clinton" exit your mouth, you are conceding that you cannot in fact make your case. Whining "Bill Clinton did it too!" is just a way of dodging the issue, the same way your 5-year-old might try to weasel out of a punishment for not eating his greens by claiming you didn't eat them when you were five.
A democracy requires an informed citizenry critical of its leaders, which holds them to high standards of behavior, regardless of what their predecessors might have done. Doing otherwise guarantees poor behavior in the future, to the detriment of us all.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Happy Birthday America!
No better day than today to ponder the greatness of our nation, and yes it's weaknesses, and how we plan to deal with the challenges we face. The days ahead promise much challenge, and we should keep in mind the principles this country was founded on, and how important it is to defend them. We are a country of laws, not of men, of principles, not short-sighted pragmatism, and of individual liberties, including the right to believe, or not, as we see fit.
For inspiration, it is tough to beat Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful. But if you want another candidate, here is Whitney Houston singing the Star Spangled Banner.
For inspiration, it is tough to beat Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful. But if you want another candidate, here is Whitney Houston singing the Star Spangled Banner.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Are Children Natural Scientists?
Over at Living the Scientific Life, the question was asked:
"I have sometimes heard it said that all kids are natural scientists (i.e., ask questions), but that most have it trained out of them as they grow up so that the few who become scientists as adults are the few whose ability to question is strong enough to survive this training."
Asking questions is the first step of science, but it is not science. After all, creationists ask questions all the time: how did the eye evolve, where are the transitional forms, if we evolved from monkeys then why do we have Larry King? None of this is science. It is far more like religion, where one asks questions, gets answers, and moves on.
What seperates science from other epistemologies is the insistence on setting up falsifiable experiments to answer those questions, and doing so in a way that others can replicate. This is decidedly NOT the way children think. Children do tend to ask questions, but they ask them of whatever authority they trust, and often accept the answer at face value. When they don't, they reason it out for themselves, as far as they are able. What they rarely do is go perform experiments to validate their theories.
I'm of the opinion that growing up, if you will, from this rationalistic mode of thinking, to doing real science is what is lacking from pseudoscientists of all ranks. Whether it is IDers/creationists, UFOlogists, or moonlanding conspiracy theorists, the common thread is rationalization, not science. In a sense, they never grew up, and still think like children. There is a reason Jesus said "suffer the children to come to me". He needed to get to them before they learned to do science, because once that happens, the gig is up.
The budding scientist isn't the kid asking you lots of questions, it's the kid digging in the ant mound to see what's there. After all, there is a reason science is done in peer-reviewed journals demanding detailed descriptions of replicable experiments. It is so anyone who doubts the results and wishes to replicate them can. Science is not satisfied with just questions and answers.
"I have sometimes heard it said that all kids are natural scientists (i.e., ask questions), but that most have it trained out of them as they grow up so that the few who become scientists as adults are the few whose ability to question is strong enough to survive this training."
Asking questions is the first step of science, but it is not science. After all, creationists ask questions all the time: how did the eye evolve, where are the transitional forms, if we evolved from monkeys then why do we have Larry King? None of this is science. It is far more like religion, where one asks questions, gets answers, and moves on.
What seperates science from other epistemologies is the insistence on setting up falsifiable experiments to answer those questions, and doing so in a way that others can replicate. This is decidedly NOT the way children think. Children do tend to ask questions, but they ask them of whatever authority they trust, and often accept the answer at face value. When they don't, they reason it out for themselves, as far as they are able. What they rarely do is go perform experiments to validate their theories.
I'm of the opinion that growing up, if you will, from this rationalistic mode of thinking, to doing real science is what is lacking from pseudoscientists of all ranks. Whether it is IDers/creationists, UFOlogists, or moonlanding conspiracy theorists, the common thread is rationalization, not science. In a sense, they never grew up, and still think like children. There is a reason Jesus said "suffer the children to come to me". He needed to get to them before they learned to do science, because once that happens, the gig is up.
The budding scientist isn't the kid asking you lots of questions, it's the kid digging in the ant mound to see what's there. After all, there is a reason science is done in peer-reviewed journals demanding detailed descriptions of replicable experiments. It is so anyone who doubts the results and wishes to replicate them can. Science is not satisfied with just questions and answers.
More Adventures in AA: Choose a higher being as you understand him, so long as it is our God
More adventures from AA. Seems my atheist friend was put into the position of having to choose a higher power. Having no gods at her disposal from which to choose, she chose a person, someone she respected very much, who had accomplished much in life, and could assist her in her recovery. It sounded like a novel approach to me, and one that could work. Not so said the AA people. Her higher power couldn't be a person, because "a person might turn on you, whereas God wouldn't".
Uh, can you say "worldwide flood"? You know, that loving act in Judeo/Christian tradition that has the One True God (tm) drowning every man, woman and child on earth, save the few lucky ones that got on the big boat. And isn't this the same god that promises to torment us on a lake of fire for all eternity if we do not accept that he came down in the form of man to die for our sakes to prevent him from condemning us all for something someone else did? Don't ask me, I didn't make this stuff up.
So I guess they need to change their steps. It's not "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him", but rather "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him, so long as that falls within the bounds arbitrarily chosen by AA."
For years I have been skeptical of the claims made by AA proponents as to its effectiveness. It seemed to me that many people didn't get well, they just substituted one dependent behavior (frequent meetings and catchy slogans like "progress, not perfection") for another. One can also peruse the Wikipedia entry on AA and look at many studies done on the 12-step program as well as other techniques. The evidence is inconclusive as to how effective the 12-step program is. In particular note the Project Match results, which compared the 12-step program to other treatment techniques and concluded:
"The conclusion of the research was that patient-treatment matching is not necessary in alcoholism treatment, because the three techniques were approximately equal in effectiveness...However overall success rates for all treatments were, and continue to be, less than spectacular. Based on information from Dr. Mark Willenbring of the NIAAA, Newsweek reported in their February 2007 issue that 'A year after completing a rehab program, about a third of alcoholics are sober, an additional 40 percent are substantially improved but still drink heavily on occasion, and a quarter have completely relapsed.'"
From my POV it is obvious why the 12-step program would not produce stellar recovery rates. If someone is told they are powerless to help themselves (which in general I agree with regard to addicts), and then told to turn their lives over to God, then they are essentially depending on themselves, which we already know won't work. Dressing it all up in God language doesn't change anything.
But the real tragedy is for people like my friend here. Eager to recover and willing to do what it takes, she's told she can't because she doesn't share the religious sympathies of the program facilitators. People like her have enough to overcome without being told they have to give up their thinking along with their drinking.
Uh, can you say "worldwide flood"? You know, that loving act in Judeo/Christian tradition that has the One True God (tm) drowning every man, woman and child on earth, save the few lucky ones that got on the big boat. And isn't this the same god that promises to torment us on a lake of fire for all eternity if we do not accept that he came down in the form of man to die for our sakes to prevent him from condemning us all for something someone else did? Don't ask me, I didn't make this stuff up.
So I guess they need to change their steps. It's not "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him", but rather "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him, so long as that falls within the bounds arbitrarily chosen by AA."
For years I have been skeptical of the claims made by AA proponents as to its effectiveness. It seemed to me that many people didn't get well, they just substituted one dependent behavior (frequent meetings and catchy slogans like "progress, not perfection") for another. One can also peruse the Wikipedia entry on AA and look at many studies done on the 12-step program as well as other techniques. The evidence is inconclusive as to how effective the 12-step program is. In particular note the Project Match results, which compared the 12-step program to other treatment techniques and concluded:
"The conclusion of the research was that patient-treatment matching is not necessary in alcoholism treatment, because the three techniques were approximately equal in effectiveness...However overall success rates for all treatments were, and continue to be, less than spectacular. Based on information from Dr. Mark Willenbring of the NIAAA, Newsweek reported in their February 2007 issue that 'A year after completing a rehab program, about a third of alcoholics are sober, an additional 40 percent are substantially improved but still drink heavily on occasion, and a quarter have completely relapsed.'"
From my POV it is obvious why the 12-step program would not produce stellar recovery rates. If someone is told they are powerless to help themselves (which in general I agree with regard to addicts), and then told to turn their lives over to God, then they are essentially depending on themselves, which we already know won't work. Dressing it all up in God language doesn't change anything.
But the real tragedy is for people like my friend here. Eager to recover and willing to do what it takes, she's told she can't because she doesn't share the religious sympathies of the program facilitators. People like her have enough to overcome without being told they have to give up their thinking along with their drinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
