You Have Problems
Julie Leung writes about putting bodies to text at BloggerCon.#
The blog may be a human voice. Yet I found that there are qualities that don't translate through text. Dimensions are added when we meet face to face. If there's disembodied presence, there is definite bodied presence. What is communicated without words. Bridges built by being together. There are links that we type. And there's linking that happens from living. There's no substitute for visiting with people in person. Being flesh and blood in a circle of chairs. Sharing the same air. Or plate of fries.
It's an odd sensation. Although I didn't get it as much with this BloggerCon as I did with the last one because of work, but meeting Julie was nice.
The Revealer looks at a thug from Iraq.#
Simon asks Sadr why he isn't grateful to the U.S. for ousting Saddam; Sadr replies that "the little serpent has left and the great serpent has come."
Simon then tries to trap Sadr in the logic that fueled the Cold War: "Isn't the enemy of your enemy your friend?"
Sadr responds by echoing George Bush, who sometimes says that freedom is derived from above: "Our salvation from Saddam was only from the grace of God."
Simon presses the specific means of "salvation": "If it was a favor of God, why was it that God waited until the Americans came in to do the job?"
Sadr bats it back: "All praise is to Allah. He works in mysterious ways."
Tyler Cowen on free trade and welfare states.#
Does free trade make a welfare state harder to maintain?
I'll say "no."
The common argument for "yes" confuses absolute and comparative advantage. If you can see that conclusion right away, I commend your economic intuition. Eric Rasmusen unpacks the core insight: [...]
Chip Gibbons discusses logical fallacies for two reasons. One is great point about arguments and the other about health care--which I will not quote but is very important.#
I'm not a big fan of arguments and debates. The reason is that reality, i.e. the truth, is not dependent upon the outcome of a debate or argument. Objective Reality is what it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it. That is the primacy of existence over consciousness.
If a person believes that reality is dependent upon consciousness, they believe in the primacy of consciousness, rather than the primacy of existence. There is no evidence that the universe, which is the sum of all that exists, is dependent upon consciousness of it. The scientific evidence that we have suggests that the univerese existed long before human consciousness and will most likely exist long after human consciousness has become extinct.
I am left to ponder why I am a fan of arguments and debates and what this means. I will explain my thoughts, and warn that I may use generalizations for people, but I mean me. Also, there are number in brackets so I can refer to the ideas later.
There are three reasons that one can engage in debate:
[1] Improvement of Others: This is when you position yourself as a personal missionary for another person. You have the truth and you engage them in order to convert them into your way of thinking either [1a] by force ("winning") or [1b] by seduction (explaining in such an undeniable manner that another can see your truth.)
[2] Improvement of Oneself: This improvement can also be of two varieties: [2a] practice, i.e. keeping contact with falsehoods and constantly reminding oneself of your truth to ensure that no accidental "slipping" occurs; and, [2b] enlightenment, when you think there is a probability you are wrong and thus want to experience as many viewpoints as possible until you find something better, or "more true" if you prefer.
[3] Egotism: This person simply enjoys to be right and for others to be wrong. Maybe they will employ dirty tricks like a bar fighter, and maybe they will be like the "honourable" noble dueler who employs etiquette without respect. I think the difference is that the [3a] noble wants to be right, and the [3b] bar fighter wants others to be wrong.
Next, it occurs to me that there are consequences of each of these...
Someone debating for reason [1] may be legitimately trying to enlighten others, or the may be simply trying to "win converts" for the glory of their cause. Either way they are probably ignoring their would-be convert's individuality or not doing any favours after all. (Thanks to Richard for this book.)
Another observation is the assumption of person [1] is that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The only different between style [1a] and [1b] is the degree of respect for others. I think that both will have a large amount of dogma, but [1b] will accept failure and [1a] will be furious or upset at their partner.
Furthermore, a practitioner of style [2a] also possess this quality of dogma. They too assume that they are correct and are merely looking for a sufficiently strong dummy to spar against.
I am unsure of whether to characterize debater [3] as dogmatic, because she fights without regard to the truth, although she may naturally gravitate toward for its innate power. It does not matter what the fight is over, she fights for the thrill of victory.
A natural progression of this discussion is how do these pairs interact with each other, and which is the most desirable.
On Interaction: I think that any of the dogmatic varieties are likely to be sore fights, with varying degrees of blood. A [3] versus any other, as well as a [1a] versus any other will be unhappy because of their sheer desire for victory. A [1b] will never be turned, nor would a [2a], but they are unlikely to sacrifice dignity and demand submission--they will only opt-out eventually or feign loss.
The most desirable state.
Notice now that I have not mentioned [2b] at all, either with regards to notations or interactions. I believe him to be a special case, but it is unclear (as you shall see) whether he is truly desirable.
The advantage that [2b] has is humility and the ability to improve not only their conduct of debate (something that all others possess but [2a] seeks,) but also their content. By not assuming correctness, he opens himself to unknown truths. But, this has a danger associated with it.
First, I think that [2b]'s lack of conviction is a disadvantage in battle. He believes it possible that he may fail, and thus may sign a pact with defeat and not fight wholeheartedly. I am unsure whether this is a worse disadvantage than pride would be, I suppose it all depends on confidence. Just because his confidence is not 100%, does not mean it is 0%. Perhaps the effect of confidence is U-shaped?
Secondly, there is no guarantee that if [2b] "finds higher truth," he is actually coming closer to attaining the truth. For example, suppose that God does not exists, then when an Atheist becomes a Deist he is "losing truth," even if he thinks he is gaining it. Perhaps, an argument here is that weaker truth can never defeat stronger truth when the stronger is protected by knowledge of debate and fallacies.
Hopefully you have enjoyed this journey. It is unclear to me which one of these is the best to possess, and I think it very likely that at varies times and with regards to various different matters we possess them all. All in all, it seems that [2b] is the least wrong, but not necessarily the strongest. The potential for strength seems to be [3a]--He seeks to improve his art and defeat everyone without regards to the truth. This means he can choose the "truth" he is fighting for to best suit the opponent, rather than [2a] which has one that he is fixed on.
Also, for "enjoyment," I impart some one-dimensional archetypes of how I envision these varieties:
- [1a] A rabid religious zealot, the traditional vision of "bad religion."
- [1b] A warm religious person who offers their truth but does not demand compliance, the traditional vision of "good religion."
- [2a] Some sort of endurance or physical artist who has a vision of success and seeks to master it.
- [2b] The American fairy tale of a wise Asian martial artist who goes from teacher to teacher seeking higher truth. (Caveat: This fairy tale possesses internal truth that would not permit falling from grace, something that is possible in my explanation.)
- [3a] The height of the British Empire gentleman who cultivates ways to display his superiority.
- [3b] The braggart and fighter who punishes others and may or may not posses skill himself.
Related to the above, Tyler Cowen and Alfred Mele write about the benefits of self-delusion.#
There is a phenomenon called "depressive realism". Depressed people tend to be significantly more accurate about their positive and negative attributes than do people who are not depressed. Whether depression is a cause of the accuracy or the accuracy is a cause of the depression is an open question. But should you want to cause yourself to be depressed so that you can be more accurate about yourself or work hard to be more accurate about yourself at the risk of causing yourself to be depressed?
Perhaps, finding truth is not actually wise? Strange ground.
Chip Gibbons writes another opus of brilliance about some articles by bell hooks and Sut Jhally that I had summarized earlier.#
The whole thing is great, I recommend it.
He comes up with a new fallacy created by complainers called the "Argument from Abuse."
While the AFA incorporated other fallacies its basic premise is this: I have been wronged, therefore I am right.
In other words, the faults of those who have hurt me make my position the correct one. The abuses committed by others against me make me superior, a better human being; therefore, what I have to say about abusers must be true.
What a great incentive to be a victim! You don't ever have to work through problems rationally, you can just go out and get hurt, and then you are instantly blessed with an easy grasp of all truth and knowledge. You don't have to do anything. Just take the beating, and you will be a smarter person for it.
And continuing...
So all you whiners out there need to check your premises and implications. Just because some males have hurt others does not make all males wrong and you superior or right. You are not right just because a male has wounded you; you are right when your mind is in sync with reality. It wasn't his job to take care of you in the first place. It wasn't his job to make you feel good about yourself. He's probably just hitting back in self-defense, challenging your expectations without fully understanding why he's doing it. For him to understand why he's acting in self-defense would come at huge cost. He will be an outlaw, unpatriotic, a coward, a fag, or whatever other insult to his manhood you choose.
The appetite for violent video games and movies is more a symptom than the cause of male violence. We must consider the possibility that males enjoy these activities because they reinforce their role as fighters, defenders and protectors, a role that is assigned to them the day they are born, and reinforced every day thereafter. Any effort to demand that boys be protectors and defenders, while condemning them for honing their skills as protectors and defenders is bound to cause confusion and rage in a rational mind.
Julie Leung posts BloggerCon pictures. The third one down is me talking to Sun.#
Correction writes about communion.#
One thing that the Methodist Church does during communion that I frankly could do without is this bizarre practice called "intinction." I've been a methodist for going on seven years, and I still don't get it. What happens is this: you head up to the altar and the first officiant tears off a scrap of bread from a loaf (none of those queer-tasting little wafers for the Wesleyans); you take the bit of crust and dip it into a common cup of grape juice (no alcohol for the historically teetotaling Wesleyans, either); and then shove the soggy mess into your mouth and pray that you don't hurl on your way back to the pew.
Actually, I exaggerate. It doesn't taste that bad. But what will make you gag is if you are the last person in a church of three hundred to take communion and you have to dip your little morsel into a cup half full of soggy little crumbs and lengths of crust. This is just gross. It seems like some awful fraternity initiation ritual. I have to admit that I much preferred the way it was done in the Episcopal church. The priest presses the poker-chip sized wafer on your tongue (I guess so you don't cheat and pocket the thing in hopes of throwing it out later--it tastes like cardboard) and then comes back around with the chalice, filled with real, honest-to-goodness wine, and gives you a little sip.
Why did the Methodists have to mess with this? Were people getting cold sores from sharing that single cup or something? Lockjaw? I don't know the history of it, and don't really care to.
Alex Tabarrok mentions Somalia and the theory of anarchy. Wild.#
Somalia continues to provide a unique test of the theory of anarchy (competitive governments) promoted by David Friedman, Murrary Rothbard and others. Somalia has no government but in many respects it is booming. Somalia has what is perhaps the best phone system in Africa, for example, because entrepreneurs are unburdened by any regulation. See, Andew Cockburn's amazing piece in National Geographic (not all here but watch the videos) for more description.
Russell Roberts on what most people don't understand about "drug reimportation."#
The Times article does not mention the possibility that easy imports from Canada may change the price American pharmaceutical companies charge Canadians. The Toronto Globe and Mail uses the story from the Associated Press which also ignores any possible ramifications for Canadians. Allowing drug re-importation is treated as a public service on the part of Canadians, something akin to selling Americans cheap wheat or lumber.
But Canadian drug prices aren't lower because Canadians are better at producing low-cost drugs. They are lower because the Canadian government negotiates a single price for Canadian consumers. If Americans are allowed to import drugs from Canada, American companies will change the price they charge Canada or the Canadian government will have to get very involved in how drugs are distributed in Canada.
Grant Henninger tries to make an economic argument for why robbing people is actually good for them, and others.#
If this is the case, we need to view money the same way we view any other good. The more you have the less utility you get out of one extra unit (one extra dollar). The less you have, the more utility you get out of that extra dollar.
This would mean that you can take for the rich and give to the poor and actually increase the utility of the economy. Sure, the dollar value of the economy might be diminished, but the dollars that are given to the poor hold a high enough utility to offset the loss of dollars.
Chai Tea Latte sees the true source of our problems: "Anyway, it's not my fault. I blame the oppressive male patriarchy and possibly, Halliburton."#
Joel Spolsky is hilarious.#
I could go insane with the web page behind the discussion board. First I could make it 110% xhtml 1.1 + CSS. Heck, why not xhtml 2.0 just to be extra addictive-personality-disordered. Then I could neatly format all the html code so it's perfectly indented. But the html is generated by a script, and the script has to be indented correctly so that it's perfect too, and a correctly indented ASP script does not, by defintion, produce correctly indented HTML. So I could write a filter that takes the output of the ASP script and reindents it so that if anybody does a View Source they would see neatly indented HTML and think I have great attention to detail. Then I would start to obsess about all the wasted bandwidth caused by meaningless whitespace in the HTML file, and I'd go back and forth in circles between compressed HTML and nicely laid out HTML, pausing only to shave.
Don Boudreax complains about Earth Day people...#
On this Earth Day 2004, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and many other organizations and pundits complain about how polluted and toxic our world has become.
These complaints remind me of the cancer victim who, cured of his horrible disease by medical science, endlessly complains about the scar left from his successful surgery.
And I am reminded of The Life of Brian:
REG: We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
[...]
REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
[...]
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
[...]
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Wendy: "I'm in love. This we know."
Joey: "As long as you're not hiding some kind of axe-murder thing, I'm cool, sweetie."