Collecting Dust Bunnies Among the Stars

Tags

life in the foothills, opinions, ruling the world, stupid people

You have to remember that I’ve never done this before, so excuse the oopsies and missteps. You’re not gonna do any better I just want ya to know.

This agin’ shit is pretty much play it by ear ya know. I ain’t never been here before. So if I don’t always get it right, hey, I’m a work in progress.

See I take no responsibility for all this. The world I mean. It purely sucks if you look at it all, into every nook and cranny as they say. It purely sucks.

We don’t learn from our mistakes, we don’t see the trends from multiple strands of social interaction across the globe. We mostly are oblivious. We use trite phrases to avoid thinking.

We say stupid things like, “everybody is entitled to their opinion.” What the hell does that mean? Does it literally mean that one of the hallmarks of humanity is the right to spew any sort of fermenting slop as one’s “opinion” thereby classifying it along such noted remarks as “I came, I saw, I conquered”, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” and “Mikey likes it.”

I’m supposed to accept that your “opinion” about Donald Trump being a breath of fresh air is equal to my assessment of the probability that the dark matter in the universe is sufficient to close the universe from permanent expansion? I don’t think so.

See, we have got this notion that everybody is entitled to an opinion. They are not. This is not a handout in which every newborn is checked at the door. “Yep, little Ralph has his “opinion rights” right here in his diaper. Let him go forth unto humanity to spake his piece.”

Spake his piece?

Okay, let’s get this straight.

You are entitled to inclusion in the human race on very limited standards. Basically you must have the general physical equipment of legs and arms and knees. Mostly, but hey if you are missing one or two, not a problem. If you resemble being human more than say being a salamander, you fit the bill.

This does not entitle you, however, to a soapbox and a microphone. Nor does it entitle you to open your yap whenever you wish to spout some personal preference for anything if it is swimming in a sea of “just my opinion”. Your opinion is worthless flotsam unless it is tied to this thing we call FACT.

Facebook is a collector of such human dramas masquerading as intelligent people. Don’t get me wrong, there are tons of really smart folks on Facebook, millions of them in fact. It’s just that they are jumbled up with all sorts of misbegotten refuse who have the appellation of “human” while having little in the way of grey matter.  And the latter sort continue to intervene in adult conversations with their “opinions” which contain nothing but the machinations of their six brain cells operating at half power for thirty seconds.

And of course, the rest of us who are not tied to personal preferences and the desire to hang on to every penny we’ve managed to accumulate at the expense of the continuing efficacy of the planet if that’s what it takes, have to “address” these cockamamie “theories” as if they actually made sense.

So here’s the low down bottom guppies. If you are a marginal human being, meaning that you shouted “whew” at the end of twelve long years of recesses, punctuated by football floats and sneakin’ a peek at Ms. Andrews boobs when she bent over to help you with long division, and called that “being educated” then, here’s what you must do.

Shut the FUCK up. Unless it has to do with what brand of weed killer works best on fescue, shut the FUCK up. You don’t contribute to the conversation, you embarrass it. You can’t put two coherent thoughts together. Hell, you don’t HAVE two coherent thoughts.

Stick to birthin’ babies, greasin’ axles, and giving McDonald’s a reason to exist. They created bowling alleys for you. They created comic books for you. They created Disneyland for you. MOMA? Don’t trouble your often pretty head about that. Keynesian economics versus Hayekian? Stick to those abs.

See how easy this is? You return to the stuff you do best and leave us along to puzzle out the state of the world and the solutions to all those problems you haven’t really got time to think about anyway, since you really have to decide–should Hulk be the VP nominee or Sarah for the Trump machine?

See, we want you to think about that, cuz it doesn’t matter what your answer is. It has as much chance of happening as hell oozing into your toilet and nippin’ your nuts while you count backwards from a hundred and count ammo.

I’m pretty sure that your “average Joe” is pretty content to ignore politics and religion as being boring if they really thought about it. The average Joe is pretty happy with being average. He averages through life. He works, he retires, he fishes. His wife raises kids, retires (though few recognize the difference) and knits. Their parents did the same, and probably their grandparents. They think this is swell.

The rest of us, we are never satisfied. We are terrified of getting “set in our ways”, and doing the dreary ordinary things of each age category. We yearn to know everything, the faster the better. Our routines are only set in order to get as much done each day before we tear it all apart and set up new ones so we don’t get “set in our ways.” We flit from one thing to another, gleaning a bit of knowledge each time so that as we age, we do in fact become “wise” and able to discourse on hundreds of topics with some basic understanding.

I figure it is the “rest of us” since I never have believed for one second that I was very unique. Oh unique in the obvious sense, so we all are, but unique beyond the obvious? Naw, I doubt it very much. The Internets are good for that sort of thing–lettin’ you know you are not so unique as you think.

The Internet humbles the savage beast, or takes down the arrogant a peg or two at least. And sadly it has the worst possible effect on the stupid. A computer is so simplistic in its operation that it allows the most lacking in brains to get on it and find to their amazement, that their dumb notions are shared by a segment of humanity. And that makes them feel, what they are not–SMART.

And that gums up the entire works.

Was a time when stupid people knew they were stupid.

I’m guessin’ about that, but I know one thing, nobody thinks that today.

Hell, seventeen of them are running for President.

Well, You Can Always Think About Sex Instead

Tags

critical thinking, democracy, economic systems, opinions, political systems, reading

See? I’m learning. Wanna get somebody’s attention? Mention sex in the title. Works every time. Just what does that crazy lady have to say about sex? Let’s see.

Nothing.

This is not about sex.

It’s about dumbing down the conversation in the hopes that a certain bunch of yahoos might actually recognize that that thing attached to their shoulders actually can be used for deciding more than whether to have the spaghetti Lean Cuisine for dinner or the Salisbury steak.

Okay, so I said that wrong, and all the knuckledraggers I got to read at the mention of sex, now vaguely think they’ve been insulted and have clicked this off.

No matter, what follows is way over their comprehension level anyway. Only the bright bulbs will continue.

There’s a conversation that seem to be in the offing here, yet it’s not a good idea to say it too loud. The conversation revolves around the question: Is democracy the best choice in a modern world?

It’s a hard question, since there is pretty good evidence that we don’t have anything remotely like democracy, have never had anything remotely like it, and probably won’t have anything like it, so how to compare? Let’s not forget that at the beginning of this great adventure, the real argument was between state’s rights and the central government, and that in most places religion was state ordained, and the people who voted were property holders. Women? They voted only by the power of persuasion.

Basically power in a democracy is wielded by the “eligible” voter (who is eligible becomes rather significant wouldn’t you say?), either directly or through elected representatives who enact laws that are applicable to everyone in a just, fair, and equal way. Greece started the whole thing in Athens, but of course women and slaves were not part of that “eligibility” requirement there either.

So how democratic one is starts with who gets to be part of “the people”. Thus my statement that we have never remotely been  a democracy from the start.

People of course, (mostly the one’s who have already dropped out of this conversation) get democracy all confused with socialism, and all confused on top of that with communism, and theocratic states, and oligarchies, and monarchies, to name the most prominent of the “forms of government”. But not all these are actually forms of government. Socialism and communism are more properly economic systems, akin to capitalism or free market economies.

That’s the problem in a nutshell. We claim that communism is “bad”, but communism as practiced by Lenin and Stalin the late ungreat Soviet Union had little to do with Marx and Engel’s ideal which was a marriage of a communist economic system married to a democratic political system. Similarly, American Democracy joins capitalism with a representative “democracy”. For a good while France and England and others married a theocratic/monarchical political system to a feudal system of economics.

Today, in the US we have an acknowledged mess. Our economic system seems to have led us to a new animal called a corptocracy for want of a better word. An increasingly smaller and smaller number of corporations “owned” by a very few men and even fewer women, control larger and larger portions of the national and increasingly international economies. They “buy” politicians and direct them as to what legislation they wish, and how to vote. They often, through groups like ALEC, even write the legislation themselves. By controlling economies they effectively control politics, and thus are the heads of the political system.

Although the trappings of “democracy” remain, through elections, more and more those votes don’t really count. The corporate interests choose the candidates, and fund their campaigns. As studies show, they have the greatest of influence on the introduction and passage of laws.

Perhaps it is time to at least begin the conversation as to whether or not capitalism or free markets are at all compatible with democracy as we might wish it to be? This is the question asked in This is Not What Democracy Looks Like: The Long Slow Death of Jefferson’s Dream.

The problem with posing the problem, is that it presupposes that the average American can (1) recognize the importance of the question, and (2) critically discern the arguments to be made and choose one that is both logical and right.

And there is much that suggests that this is not possible. In an seemingly endless list of studies done at different universities by respected scholars, the answer remains the same:  If your belief is a necessary part of the your world view, then NO evidence no matter how stellar, no matter how obvious, no matter how unchallenged by any contrary fact, is going to change your mind. You will continue to believe as you always have, because it’s necessary to your psychological well-being. Actual facts to the contrary become merely “conspiratorial” insertions. You don’t have to prove them to be a lie, (because of course you could not), but you can dismiss them out of hand.

This is sad news indeed. It means that much of what I do, is wasted. The people I can convince are already convinced more than likely. Those I need to convince will never be, no matter what proofs I bring to the table.

It seems the new studies need to focus on how one convinces a stone that is about to get crushed by the boulder, that it should roll on down out of the way.

Which all leads to another piece of sad news I’ve come across lately.

I’m reading a book entitled “How to Read a Book“. Now before you laugh and say, oh, for starters, take the cover and bend it to the left, and then look for words, continue to move pages to the left until you find some, then read them. Before you do that, listen a bit.

This book was written by a college professor in the early 1940’s and he updated it in the early mid-70’s, and he now dead. I heard about it in another very modern book I read, whose author suggested that it had impacted him like no other he has read since. It changed how he read. On that note, I purchased it.

So far it’s proving to be both provocative and enlightening. It’s could well be titled today, “How to Read a Book Critically” for that’s what it mostly is designed to do. The author, Mortimer Adler announces that there are four levels of reading. The first, is what passes for competence upon finishing high school. It is akin to being able to read the words and get a basic understanding from the sentences in fairly simple things, like a job application, or reading traffic signs.

Yes folks, that is the level of reading you acquired in high school. You were not taught to read anything beyond the level of basic comprehension. You were not taught to understand the deeper meaning of an author’s arguments, see their flaws or their merits. You were not taught anything about judging the value of what you have read. You read simply for information and not for understanding.

And the sad thing, is that the levels 2 and 3 and 4 are not mastered simply by attending college. Adler posits that some graduate students are still struggling after two years with mastering level four reading, the ability to properly analyze and compare works on the same topic with each other.

Critical thinking is still by and large not taught anywhere.

But you can learn.

If you buy the book and read it.

And it is hopeless to conclude that much will ever change in America until enough of our people can read and think critically. Certainly they cannot now, for if they could, there would not be a Tea Party, there would be no creationists, and there would be no climate deniers. Such people as these would remain hidden in their closets with their goofy ideas. They would certainly not have media access to spew their garbled thoughts across America.

So, you might as well think about sex instead.

 

 

How Do You Decide?

Tags

mind, opinions, psychology, thinking

I’ve mentioned more than once that I’ve been engaged in debate on Facebook with people who went to my high school, on a variety of topics.

As you might expect there are two camps, the liberals versus the conservatives. As you might assume, there are any number of shades of grey.

It got me to thinking. Yes, we are THERE again.

The Contrarian asks me occasionally why I bother. “You will convince no one, you know that don’t you?” he muses.

Yes I know that. Here is my list:

1. There are lots of people who read but don’t comment because they are interested but not passionate. My comments may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables them to form an opinion. They more people who are involved in the process the better.
2. I learn a great deal myself. Arguments lead me not to empty talking points but to actual research, and so I learn refinement of my opinion as well as to create a more cogent argument for what I believe.
3. In attempting to figure out why those who disagree with me believe what they believe, I’m forced to confront my own reasons for believing what I believe. Sometimes I find that my reasons aren’t worthy of supporting that opinion–in a word, they are self-serving. I can adjust  my opinion accordingly.

It’s this latter point that I wish to address.

I’m inclined to think of myself as something of a Renaissance woman. Now before you commence to laughing out loud, let me proceed. I am such only in the sense that my interests are very far-ranging and always have been. Along the way, I’ve managed to learn more than the average person about a whole lot of things from cosmology to paleontology, to biblical studies and theology, and so forth. I am not a Renaissance woman in the sense of having expertise in any of these, just an intense interest and the willingness to learn.

That said, this is how I approach forming an opinion. I will use the example of an area of biblical study called Markan priority. Markan priority simple states that the Gospel of Mark was probably the first gospel written that has come down to us. It posits that both Matthew and Luke used Mark, their own independent information, and a source called “Q” to form their own gospels which were written 10-15 years after Mark’s.

I’ve read numerous books on various aspects of biblical studies, some couple of hundred at least, and I have studied under three professors with PH.D’s in the field. I’ve attended dozens of workshops and adult education classes on various biblical issues as well. So I consider myself above average in knowledge.

Yet, I am no expert. Far from it. I cannot read Koine Greek which is essential to actually study of the bible on a professional level. So how do I arrive at an opinion?

You may first wonder why anybody cares. I can tell you that they do; there is a hotly contested debate over this issue. Why?  Because to a fundamentalist, not only the words in the bible, but their very organization within the bible is something God ordered. Open any bible and you will find that Matthew is the first gospel you come to. To disturb that by suggesting that Mark was written first is tantamount to calling God a liar.

So I have read all the arguments pro and con on Markan priority. I understand them well enough. I am aware that at this time, there is a clear and fairly overwhelming majority who believe that for all kinds of reasons, Mark was probably written first. All kinds of other things make sense when this is assumed. They make no sense by and large when you don’t.

So my opinion, given that I am no expert myself, is that the better opinion is that Mark was written first.

This is how I arrive at opinions on any field of study that I am not an expert in.

Sometimes, I might even wish that the things were otherwise. When it comes to theories about the future of the universe, I’m compelled to accept that the majority opinion is that the universe is continuing its expansion from the “big bang” and that that expansion is accelerating. I’d rather believe that the universe is in a “steady state” meaning it’s stable. For some reason, that’s comforting to me. But I feel that I have no basis to buck the experts who spend their lives studying this stuff, and like any real scientist, aren’t going to pursue dead ends intentionally. There is not glory in pursuing obvious falsehoods.

So while an opinion might make me feel better, I cannot maintain it for that reason alone.

Similarly, I’d love to believe that global warming isn’t true. It would make me feel a lot better about the future certainly. But I’m constrained to believe what 97% of all climate scientists tell me–that humans are indeed part of the equation of global warming and that we need to do what we can to turn it around before it is too late–if that is at all possible.

What troubles me deeply is the degree to which average people, who have no expertise in the area of climate (just like me) are passionately in the camp of the 3% claiming that global warming is a hoax. Since they cannot possibly be following the same process of opinion forming as myself, what system are they using?

I’m afraid that they are buying into the hoax theory simply because they wish that to be the answer. Either because they feel guilty that they have been a part of the problem, or because they don’t want to pay (taxes) to attempt to solve the problem. If you admittedly aren’t an expert, how do you “choose” one set of arguments provided to you by  those who have a very high stake in their position, i.e., gas and oil interests and those they pay to “study” the issue?

Is my model of opinion formation wrong? Am I missing something here? I’m puzzled, and when I am, I figure you guys can bail me out. So straighten out my aching head, for I’m confused.