I have had a few recent experiences with people cherry picking evidence for arguments and I was interested in reading Dan Kahan view:
“Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values,” says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.
Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.
“If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way,” he says.
And if the information doesn’t, you tend to reject it. NPR
The way Britain is governed has gone wrong and is in urgent need of reform, a group of former Whitehall chiefs has warned in a highly critical report.
The former civil servants paint a picture of badly trained ministers rushing through “ill thought-out” legislation to satisfy media demands. BBC
Which reminds us:
I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
I was just thinking about the proportionality of beefing up airport security. With 15.1 million passengers per year flying through the major UK airports, and say it takes 10 minutes to queue and clear security, that amounts to 287 person-years of waiting (per year). Now assuming the average person has 43 years remaining to live (life expectancy 82 years, average age 39 years). So security in UK airports uses enough time to consume the time of 7 peoples remaining life spans (on average, per year).
Anti Citizen One
Update: Recent analysis of airport security on The Register is very relevant and interesting:
First: It is completely impossible to prevent terrorists from attacking airliners.
Second: This does not matter. There is no need for greater efforts on security.
[...]
Terrorism simply isn’t a visible factor in your chances of dying while flying, or indeed while doing anything else: it is insignificant, a problem that has been almost totally eliminated for Western citizens since its not-very-serious heyday in the 1970s and 80s, and you shouldn’t worry about it. It would make absolutely no noticeable difference to your or my chances of violent death/injury if terrorism was eradicated overnight. Lewis Page
‘Fake fingerprint’ Chinese woman fools Japan controls
A Chinese woman managed to enter Japan illegally by having plastic surgery to alter her fingerprints, thus fooling immigration controls, police claim. BBC
Wow, it’s amazing. So called “fool proof” technology has human ingenuity applied to break it. Very cyberpunk.
A agree with most of this, but not that we can ever “prevent it happening again”. That requires eternal vigilance. Oh yeah and if we gave power to the people, is that a good idea since they may be manipulated?
What I like about this video is the little heard idea that YOU HAVE THE POWER. (Well assuming a working democracy … or the possibility of political revolution.)
Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.
More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons – or provinces – voted in favour of the ban. BBC
An interesting issue is at stake. Amnesty International, for whom I have great respect, is against this – as well as the Swiss government. But democracy is a funny thing – freedom in politics conflicts with freedom of religion. It again illustrates the self conflict of natural rights. On the other hand, is this really a matter of religion? Admittedly, my knowledge is limited but I was not aware that minarets was a religious duty? And if it is a cultural convention, can’t Swiss culture said to have precedence on its own ground? Even if it was a religious law, why does religious freedom trump architectural tradition and taste (and therefore cultural practice)?
I feel somewhat unsatisfied with the above, as it raises several questions and hints at my views with very little commitment… What is my view? Good question… mmm. I don’t think minaret construction is a major issue. More significant are the values that go with it. By “it” I mean religion generally and particularly institutional religion. Political control lies behind most or all additions to early manifestations of religions. I’d say let them be built but question the goal of their construction – to cement the influence of institution over personal religious or mystical experience. But very few have the appetite for individual ventures in this rocky terrain.
(Looking at the above, I think post-modernism has warped my fragile little mind.)
Anti Citizen One (still reading Derrida! for now…)
The British inquiry into the Iraq war has already been informative. I look forward to further developments. For some reason, my listening to the band Rage Against the Machine has increased in response. Questioning of authority and consequences of obeying authority are major themes. For example, they question if we should be follow the current political course when it is unsustainable and self destructive?
I am the Nina, The Pinta, The Santa Maria
The noose and the rapist
The fields overseer
The agent of orange
The priests of Hiroshima
The cost of my desire
Sleep now in the fire (RATM)
In other news, I finished re-reading Lord of the Rings. It is very interesting after the reader changes to perceive things in a new way on returning to a book. “There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same.” There are many times when the protagonists pity other characters (most often, Gollum). It might be interesting to study if any of the pitied characters actually recover from their pitiable state…
In related news, I have finished the translator’s preface of Of Grammatology. This took significant effort! I will perhaps blog my thoughts one day…
Human rights lawyers reviewed computer games with a war setting.
The group chose games, rather than films, because of their interactivity.
“Thus,” said the report, “the line between the virtual and real experience becomes blurred and the game becomes a simulation of real life situations on the battlefield.” BBC
This key assumption, that actions in games are morally equivalent to actions outside the game is laughably untrue. We don’t see people getting post traumatic stress disorder from computer games. Playing games is nothing like being in a war. Other studies show that gamers are not desensitised to actual war violence (stated later in the article). Therefore, the choices are not the same as those posed outside games. Games are more or less works of fiction and the choices posed to the player are almost forced outcome moral choices, since the player is not acting as “himself”, but as the character created by the game’s script writer.
I was recently hearing about the Australian Prime Minister apologising for the treatment of child migrants. This apology was presumably done on behalf of the institution that he represents i.e. the state. But the state does not feel “regret” since it is merely a concept. Even if the people comprising “the state” feel the actions were wrong, it is the individuals themselves that are responsible, not the state itself – which cannot act or think independently! Unless the individuals themselves were responsible, guilt does not even apply. Although it may cheer the victims of injustice, I am concerned that if we shunt the responsibility (and “guilt”) for wrong actions onto institutions, it diminishes the personal responsibility that each individual bears and transfers in onto a mere concept. In the extreme case, it may lead to the bystander effect, were everyone does nothing to correct injustice because it is “the state’s” responsibility. So I distrust all institutional apologies and think of them as political tools.
In agreement with our favourite existential thinkers, a new study has linked suffering with religiosity:
Gray and Wegner created a state-by-state “suffering index” and found a positive correlation between a state’s relative misery (compared to the rest of the country) and its population’s belief in God. Sciam
I short book and very concise for it. It examines the strategic and personal traits of successful princes. What makes the book notable is Machiavelli’s view of “successful” is in terms of a prince maintaining or expanding their realms. For our times, he seems rather paranoid of invasions and defeats – but then it was a serious concern in 1500’s Italy (or what is now called Italy). For him, the end always justifies then means. His view of people is rather low, being concerned mainly with self interest. He calls for Princes to do “good” when possible and “evil” when necessary. To say a person should do evil almost turns the concept on its head. It certainly flies in the face of objective moralists.
Regarding the current wars in Afghanistan, I don’t think Machiavelli would approve of the current approach. Western armies have injured but not eliminated their enemies. They have installed a puppet government instead of direct ruler who resides in the territory. They have not established permanent colonies (the Romans were well known for this). The West has instituted new laws which are a lack of continuity from local customs. A stranger to the land has become powerful, through links with groups in Pakistan. Western forces mostly don’t speak the local language.
Perhaps it is unwise to apply Machiavelli’s ideas to the modern world, but it is likely that they would succeed in rapidly subduing newly acquired territory. But does the end justify the means? One cool name for a chapter: “Of cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved of Feared”. They don’t write them like they used to…
Recent Comments