The JetBlue pilot and a reason why I am an outspoken atheist

   People often spread these silly notions that we should just let people believe what they want to believe. (Alternatively: Live and let live.) It turns out this JetBlue incident may be an example of why those people are wrong. Here are videos from ABC's Good Morning America. Below the videos and the fold are my comments.





   In the first video, it is revealed that this pilot started "delivering 'a sermon' about 'sins in Las Vegas.'" Later he talked about "150 souls on board." Early on, he is reported to have mumbled something about "being evaluated by someone." At this point, I have a suspicion as to who he thought was evaluating him. JESUS CHRIST! This first video also reports that friends said he "showed no signs of mental illness." This is where we begin to get into the problem of not only allowing people to believe what they want to believe, but making it socially acceptable to believe in fantasy. Perhaps he had been showing signs of mental illness, but no one noticed. This is, of course, all speculation at this point, but I'm really curious to know more about his church involvement. Was he, for example, speaking about Jesus more in the weeks leading up to this? If so, that could have been a bad sign. However, our culture would not recognize such a sign because that is actually viewed as a positive thing. He would have been viewed as a "good Christian" or a "strong man of faith" if this were the case. And those views are often regarded as positives instead of the negatives they should be.

   This gets us into the second video. In that video, it is discussed how what the pilot had may be an "accute psychotic break" where "you have a disconnect from reality" That emphasis is mine. I stress that because that is what Christian belief is (a disconnect from reality). Seriously, I will not go lightly on this. The Christian god concept, particularly that which is generally worshiped in church as opposed to that which is represented in the Bible, has some serious logical flaws that make it basically impossible for it to exist. I don't want to go into all the details here, but the biggest problem this god concept faces is the problem of evil, to which the free will defense seems to be the most popular. However, (1) many Christians don't appear to actually believe in free will and (2) why should they? The whole story about God coming down to earth in the form of a man named Jesus and performing miracles left and right is a violation of free will. By the way, if you want to claim that Christianity is not a disconnect from reality, don't you at least find it interesting that this pilot, if he indeed was having a psychotic break, was preaching during his break? (Yes, I realize that the idea he had a psychotic break is mostly speculation at this point. Entertain me.)

   Getting back to the point, this man has likely had a disconnect from reality for quite some time. Worse, it is a disconnect that is often respected. He could have been borderline psychotic for quite sometime, yet, since we have this society that thinks it should "respect the beliefs of others," there is no way to tell. On that point, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that all Christians are psychotic. That is far from it. Nor am I suggesting that atheists are not capable of having psychotic breakdowns or that this pilot would not have had a similar breakdown if he were not religious. (Though he probably would not have been so concerned with not going to Las Vegas for its relation to sin.) What I am suggesting is that early detection of such mental issues becomes more difficult in a society where some disconnects from reality are celebrated. Might this incident have been prevented if we lived in a society that instead celebrated the discovery of truth and religion? It is hard to know for sure without a time machine, yet I suspect it would help. This is one of many reasons why I have become an outspoken atheist.

---

UPDATE: I want to make it clear that I referred to the general Christian concept of a god above. Different denominations of Christianity can have different concepts of their god. And not all of these denominations will have a concept that is so flawed as to be absurd. That, though, does not mean that those concepts are acceptable to believe in. One should not believe without evidence. Though some of those Christians may think they have evidence, trusting in their priests or apologists that have told them such evidence exists. In which case, they don't have as strong of a disconnect with reality as those who believe in the contradictory concepts of a god. At the same time, I am still going to be outspoken against even those believers because I believe the world would be a better place the fewer false beliefs people hold.

---

   If this wasn't enough, JT Eberhard posted a story about a woman who slit her 5-year-old boy's throat. Apparently the woman believed her child was possessed with demons. JT's post is so good, I'm going to paste most of it here.

Beneath the immediate condemnation, there are some facts that will go missed in this story.  This mother was trying to save her son.  She loved her son and was trying to help.  The problem was not malicious intent, it was the belief in demons.  Thus is the corrupting power of bad ideas – they can make love and care irrelevant.

Other believers will say this woman was crazy, implying that she wasn’t a normal believer.  I find that odd.

“Even if you believe in that sort of thing, how can a 5-year-old be possessed or have something like that? It’s inconceivable in my mind,” said Greg Riley, a Magnolia resident.

How can a man rise from the dead?  How can a man walk on water?  Plenty of people who find those things as believable as headaches will say this woman must’ve been out of her mind for believing in demons.

And god may be righteous in ordering Jephtha or Abraham to kill their children, but this woman is just batty.

The crime of dedicated unreason resides on the shoulders of every faithful person whether moderate or fundamentalist.  Irrationality is the problem, and 0ther believers are not rescued by condemning this woman for not being irrational like them.  Other beliefs about god are no more likely to be true than this woman’s belief in demons, and it’s high time that believers are confronted directly with how worrisome it is to endorse any brand of dedicated unreason (i.e. faith).

There are consequences when populations feel comfortable believing absurd things.  The crime of religion is telling people that abandoning reason is acceptable, even necessary if you want to avoid the fires of hell.  This is a crime for which religion should be held accountable.

   So, to the next person who wants to suggest we just let people believe what they want to believe, I have just two words for you. FUCK. YOU.

On cognitive dissonance and how it ruins conversations

   Last night I stumbled upon a long, 64 or 65-comment thread on Facebook, which started with asking a question along the lines of "Why is it so hard to have a discussion about religion?" My answer essentially comes down to cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

   It occurred to me this morning that I spent a lot of time responding to a comment left by a theist than I did explaining cognitive dissonance. It also occurred to me that this would be great for a blog post. I also want to discuss another tread I encountered back in late November/early December where dissonance was on display, only related to politics instead.

   Continuing... As the Wikipedia article points out, dissonance is a discomfort. One important point that I did not notice in that article is that the more one is invested in their belief, the more dissonance any contradicting information will create. Now let's throw in a second important factor with religious belief—people often obtain their base religious beliefs when they are children. This already makes religious believers quite invested by the time they are adults just due to the years of holding the belief alone. Then add in time spent in church activities. It should be obvious that the more time spent, the greater the investment, and hence the greater dissonance any dissenting views will create. This is why it is hard to have a discussion—having one causes discomfort for the believer.

   Next I want to take a look at the ways people deal with dissonance. In that long Facebook thread, I recall someone pointing out that discussions typically devolve into ad hominem attacks. Indeed! There is also a reason for this. In order to reduce dissonance, the person experiencing the dissonance needs to somehow manage the conflicting data. One way to do this is to discredit the new information that has produced the conflict by discrediting the source of that information. In other words, if the source of the information is not trustworthy, neither is the conflict-producing information they present! Once that information is discredited in their view, dissonance is reduced.

   In addition to ad hominem attacks, the person experiencing dissonance may also stroke their own ego (I briefly explain why this is important in the next paragraph), though, it is worth noting, that this can also be done through the ad hominem attacks. That is where the conversation I encountered around late November plays in. Here was a conversation where one person was supporting torture and the other person's response was something along the lines of "Are you trolling?!?" The person in support of torture came back with the excuse of "desperate times call for desperate measures," which is actually a dissonance reducing statement in itself (again, see the next paragraph for more on this). The other part was an ad hominem attack, which, as I recall, involved calling the person against torture a "pussy" and implying that they were un-American by suggesting they should leave the country. This is also a way for him to stroke his own ego. By presenting his opponent as an un-American pussy, he conversely presents himself as a strong patriot.

   The above is explained in the book "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" which I highly recommend, primarily in Chapter 7: "Ricardo Orizio interviewed...other dictators, including Idi Amin, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Mira Markovic (the "Red Witch," [Slobodan] Milosevic's wife), and Jean-Bédeal Bokassa of the Central African Republic (known to his people as the Ogre of Berengo). Every one of them claimed that everything they did — torturing or murdering their opponents, blocking free elections, starving their citizens, looting their nation's wealth, launching genocidal wars — was done for the good of their country." The book also talks about "the ticking-time bomb" and how those who are capable of exhibiting the most dissonance think highly of themselves. Why is this? Those with low self-esteem are more likely to admit they are wrong because that fits their personal view of themselves.

   That is cognitive dissonance in a nutshell. Thoughts?

---

UPDATE 1: There are two things I want to add to this. First, an ad hominem attack may not automatically be a sign that someone is dealing with dissonance, though I have noticed that it does seem to be quite a good indicator. Second, sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between an ad hominem and a straightforward personal insult. An example I've seen to demonstrate this involves person A calling person B a dumbass. Is A doing this to dismiss B's argument or is B's argument so pathetic that only a dumbass could think it was a good argument? The former is an ad hominem while the later is not. Now, if A is not making an ad hominem, they should follow up by pointing out the flaws in B's argument. Without this, I find it would be best to give B the benefit of a doubt (in other words, that A is making an ad hominem attack).
   (I have also personally experienced frustration having to tell some theists the same thing multiple times and then see them still fail to grasp what should be fairly simple concepts...or just seeing them fail to grasp concept after concept is frustrating itself, never mind the need to repeat! It can be tough to not start insulting their intelligence. I have certainly failed in restraining myself now and then, and I know other atheists struggle with this same problem. So, do we sometimes make personal attacks? Yes. Ad hominem attacks? Not so much.)

How to Justify Crime - Joe Paterno

   In discussion with friends, there was the question of what goes through the mind of someone like Joe Paterno. Based on what I've learned from reading "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts" I think I have some ideas on how this works. And it's actually quite simple. It's a matter of taking it one step at a time until you find yourself beyond a "point of no return."

   It could possibly have started out with Paterno convincing himself that "Sandusky is a good man. He wouldn't do that!" Later, Paterno would find out that Sandusky would indeed do that. Then the justification would be along the lines of "Sandusky is still a good man! He's just a little troubled, but there is no reason to taint or even ruin his reputaion and career by bringing the police into this. If we just support him, he will get over this." There will be little to no consideration of the victims in this justification. The cognitive focus will be on the abuser. After all, that is who Paterno knows; he is not emotionally attached to the children being harmed. As horrible as it sounds, this makes them easier to dismiss from the equation.

   At some point, Paterno may have realized that Sandusky is not going to just "get over this." But by this point, he is too committed to change course; he is beyond the point of no return*. He knows that if he goes to the cops now that they will be wondering why he didn't act sooner. When word reaches the media, they will be asking the same questions. See, Paterno has already acheived the roll of accomplice. He knows this. He is no longer just protecting Sandusky; he is also protecting himself, and he likewise turns his rationalizing on himself as well. Now it's "I'm a good guy, but they will treat me as though I am not!" The desire to protect one's own image, unfortunately, all too often is greater than the desire to protect others, in this case, the children that Sandusky was abusing.

   And Joe Paterno has had a very positive image to protect, as should be evident by the way people have been supporting Paterno. This is also why I am disgusted with their reactions. They are demonstrating the same cognitive processes - protecting the public image of a person - that leads to such cover ups.

---

* The idea of the "point of no return" is that if the person who has been justifying bad behavior stops doing so after this point, their personal reputation will be damaged. They can never be entirely guilt free from their actions. Whereas, if they had stopped justifying early on, they could have been forgiven and no damage would have been done. However, many people wrongly decide to avoid damaging their own reputations by continuing to justify bad behavior instead of fessing up. The reason this is the wrong decision is that, if and when the bad behavior is discovered by outsiders, the damage to one's reputation becomes much worse. In the third paragraph, I talked about how Paterno had reached the point of no return. If he would have reported Sandusky at this point (and it's hard to know exactly where that point is - it's mostly an arbitrary point), his reputation would have been slightly damaged. However, as a result of people finding out about Sandusky through other means, Paterno's reputation is now quite damaged.

The Shame of Penn State - Students and Coaches Alike!

   It is bad enough that administration personel and coaching staff at Penn State have been covering up child rape, but what may be worse is the reaction of students and other supporters of Joe Paterno.

   First it was rallying outside Paterno's house in support of Paterno, but now it has turned into rioting in reaction to Paterno being fired. Such behavior is simply indefensible.



   I have also seen support on Facebook, with some people making comments along the lines of "he wasn't the guy who did it." Sure. He wasn't. But, according to the grand jury report, Paterno knew about the allogations and did very little about it. This makes him an accomplice. Supporting Paterno at this point is equivalent to supporting accomplice to rape. That is pretty sickening.

   The one argument I have heard that I can partially accept is that Paterno be given a chance to defend himself. Others have been calling this "Duke II." That's a disastrous situation* to compare this to, but one implication seems to be a concern that a decision was made too quickly. (The other implication is that Paterno has been falsely accused; this seems quite unlikely and I cannot support such a defense.) Even with such arguments, I feel the Board of Trustees would have at least had to suspend Paterno.

   But, in spite of those more valid defenses of Paterno, I cannot help but suspect if this was pretty much any other coach, few would have objected to such quick action. I cannot help but get the feeling that there is special pleading taking place here. And it sickens me. It sickens me for at least two reasons:

1. This gives special protection to people with privelege and weakens the chance that the victims, when they belong to a less priveleged group, will get their justice or if they'll even report their case.
2. The support of Paterno sends the message that a significant portion of the populace finds #1 to be acceptable.

   So, Penn State protestors and Joe Paterno supporters, consider yourselves a disgrace to the human race. Whether you realize it or not - and I suspect many of you don't - you have effectively made yourselves part of the problem of covering up for rape.

   As for the Board of Trustees, h/t. Thank you for treating Joe Paterno equally as you would have any other coach. Equal treatment for all is the way society should operate.

---

* I am disturbed about people bringing up the Duke rape allogations because one of the disturbing parts of that situation was how the accuser was treated. It was one of those cases where she "couldn't have been raped" because she was (1) a striper (and thus probably a "slut") and was (2) allegedly either drunk or drugged up or both. It's the problem where rape is not considered rape by many people because they think the victim "had it coming." And while the accuser in this case was making false accusations, this discrediting of potential victims based on looks and behavior - as opposed to examining the evidence of the case - makes it harder for actual rape victims to speak out honestly, if at all, about their assults. This effectively promotes the rape culture in America.

Radical!!! - Part 5: The Overton Window

This is part of a 5-part series. Following are the links to the other parts. Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 4

   In the first part of this series, I talked about some issues that have changed over time, including allowing women the right to vote, civil rights for blacks, and even acceptance of birth control. One I did not mention that is very important to this discussion is gay rights, particularly the right to marry. All of these issues relate to the concept of the Overton Window. This is a political theory, conceived by Joseph Overton, that deals with the range of politically acceptable ideas in regards to the possible ideas.

Imagine, if you will, a yardstick standing on end. On either end are the extreme policy actions for any political issue. Between the ends lie all gradations of policy from one extreme to the other. The yardstick represents the full political spectrum for a particular issue. The essence of the Overton window is that only a portion of this policy spectrum is within the realm of the politically possible at any time. Regardless of how vigorously a think tank or other group may campaign, only policy initiatives within this window of the politically possible will meet with success. Why is this?

Politicians are constrained by ideas, even if they have no interest in them personally. What they can accomplish, the legislation they can sponsor and support while still achieving political success (i.e. winning reelection or leaving the party strong for their successor), is framed by the set of ideas held by their constituents — the way people think. Politicians have the flexibility to make up their own minds, but negative consequences await the elected officeholder who strays too far. A politician’s success or failure stems from how well they understand and amplify the ideas and ideals held by those who elected them.

In addition to being dependent on the ideas that form the boundaries of the political climate, politicians are also known to be self-interested and desirous of obtaining the best political result for themselves. Therefore, they will almost always constrain themselves to taking actions within the "window" of ideas approved of by the electorate. Actions outside of this window, while theoretically possible, and maybe more optimal in terms of sound policy, are politically unsuccessful. Even if a few legislators were willing to stick out their necks for an action outside the window, most would not risk the disfavor of their constituents. They may seek the good of those who elected them, and even the good of the state or nation as a whole, but in pursuing the course they think is best, most will certainly take into account their political future. This is the heart of the Overton window theory.

So, if a think tank’s research and the principles of sound policy suggest a particular idea that lies outside the Overton window, what is to be done? Shift the window. Since commonly held ideas, attitudes and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the "window," a change in the opinions held by politicians and the people in general will shift it. Move the window of what is politically possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next great popular and legislative rage.

Emphasis mine. In short, if you wish to see political change, your course of action should not be to pressure the politician, but to educate and sway public opinion.

   Now, many people may be skeptical about this. There is the idea that our politicians are "bought" by corporations. Well, I actually agree with this, too. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. The corporatations, in my opinion, have been both moving polititions to their preferred side of the Overton Window as well as moving the Window itself by (mis)educating the population. Take this video, for example:



   See? These big oil companies are really just trying to create jobs and secure our energy future. It's not at all about making huge profits and harming the environment!

   That was, of course, sarcasm, but the point is that I think there is a two-frontal assult on the American people. This is necessary because the power ultimately rests in the hands of the electorate. If you can get the people to vote against their self-interests and get the politicians to vote against the interests of their constituants, you win! (And while I agree an oil pipeline will create jobs, it's a case of the cons outweighing the pros.)

   With regards to OWS, this is a mix of good and bad news. OWS will hopefully send the message that the Overton window is moving and that they had better move with it, or they will be voted out no matter how much money their donors give them. The bad news may be that the election results will not reflect this.

   I say this because I have seen a number of people supportive and even involved in this movement talk about how all our politicians are corrupted, some even going as far as to suggest that people not even bother voting. Based on theories like the Overton Window, that is actually the best way to ensure that things stay the same. Some suggest supporting a "third party," but I suggest that is also silly. (And the ones who suggest that the third party be Libertarians really give me the chills!) The idea of supporting a third party is that they will hopefully have good intentions and won't be corrupted - we'll call them "honest" politicians. But that's just bullshit, too. I occasionally argue with these people that some of the problem is that (1) the honest politions are often not going to win and (2) the more honest ones who do get elected are still going to be limited in what they can do, which (3) means that the honest ones may end up appearing corrupted in order to stay in office. Based on the Overton Window, I think I have been correct in such arguments.

   Just look at what happened last year. First, earlier in the year, there were a few Republicans who lost their primaries to the Tea Party. More importantly than that is a lot of other Republicans shifted their political views to the right. Then, in the general election, a lot of Democrats lost their seats. Additionally, some Democrats (seemingly the ones who were moderate to begin with) even adopted some Tea Party ideas in an attempt to win their elections. Some states had huge swings of power in their state houses (I think New Hampshire was one that had a large Democratic majority to a a large Republican majority), many states now have Republican governors that didn't before, and also the U.S. House of Representatives gained a Republican majority.

   How did this happen? The website where I learned about the Overton Window used a picture of a bunch of people pulling on a rope. While he didn't describe it as a tug-of-war, I think you could. And I therefore suggest that the liberals, for the most part, gave up on pulling for a while, and the Overton Window shifted to the right as those on the right kept pulling. The politicians shifted accordingly. The good news is that hopefully the Occupy Wall Street movement will effectively pull the window back to the left. In fact, that is the most important thing OWS can do. The politicians won't react to a movement unless the movement has demonstrated that it can or has affected election results. So, OWS people, keep pulling! And VOTE!!!

   And vote for people who actually have a shot at winning. I hate to say it, but you have to go with the electable candidate even if they are not the ideal candidate. Yet, keep pulling on the Window! That is ultimately the key. If and when the window fits over your ideal candidate, then and only then will they be electable. But if you give up on pulling the Window because you're discouraged as you can't get your ideal candidate in office, you will never get that cadidate in, nor will you get anyone close to that ideal candidate.

   Getting back to how this relates to the series is that the Overton Window cannot be shifted by people sitting in the window. Moving the Window must come from outside the Window. That means taking a radical position and then popularizing that postition, which ultimately makes that originally radical position the norm. The positions I mentioned at the beginning were once radical ideas. Few would think that today because the Overton Window was moved over top those radical ideas.

---

   I must add that one thing the Tea Party did correctly was promote the idea of holding politicians accountable as opposed to the idea of all politicians being corrupt. The former idea encourages the reality that people are capable of changing the system for what they think is the better as opposed to the pessimistic, self-defeating idea that there is no chance of fixing things. Additionally, it also encourages voters to evaluate their politians based on their performance, instead of painting them all with a broad brush. One of the other things that upsets me with those who suggest that all of the Democrats are corrupt is that they are also discouraging people to vote for the ones out there who seem reasonable. Take Elizabeth Warren for example. I really think she has the best interests of the people in mind. At the same time, she is registered as a Democrat. So, if you paint all Democrats as corrupt, you then paint Elizabeth Warren as corrupt, too. We can't be doing this or we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Radical!!! - Part 4: System Justification Theory

This is looking to become a 5-part series. Links will be added as the posts become available. Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 5

   Last Thursday, I learned from a blog about System Justification Theory (SJT for short). In part 1 of this series, before I had even heard of SJT, I suggested that many people are content with the status quo.
EDIT: By the way, I recommend checking out the entire series on this (currently 6 parts - don't know if there will be more); unfortunately, the author is not linking to the new posts from the original, so it'll take some work finding them.

Let's face it, most people will show content with the status quo. The status quo brings with it predictability. When things stay the same, you know tomorrow (that's a metaphor for the future, not the literal tomorrow) will be pretty much the same as today. You know how to prepare for tomorrow, because you've already done so numerous times already. Change, however, can be challenging. When you don't know what tomorrow will bring, how do you prepare for tomorrow?

SJT agrees with this premise. According to Wikipedia:

System justification theory (SJT) is a scientific theory within social psychology that proposes people have a motivation to defend and bolster the status quo, that is, to see it as good, legitimate, and desirable.

   Essentially the theory states that people have three interests for which they desire to hold favorable views: self, group, and system. More importantly, and more relevant to this topic, the theory addresses how people behave when their favorable views are threatened. (A threat is basically anything that suggests that the person's favorable view is incorrect.) According to the theory, people reach for stereotypes to help keep their views favorable. Additionally, people in the privileged group are likely to believe negative stereotypes of the underprivileged groups while the underprivileged groups are likely to believe positive stereotypes of the privileged group.

   In regards to OWS and more specifically to the differences between rich and poor, the rich will tend to believe stereotypes like "The poor are poor because they are lazy" while the poor will tend to believe stereotypes like "Rich people earned their money because they are smart and/or hard workers." Note that the poor won't necessarily buy into the stereotype that they are lazy. This is because they still desire to have a favorable view of themselves. So they instead buy into a positive stereotype about rich people. Or, interestingly, they will throw their group under the bus. (My guess is that out of the three views, the "group" view is actually the least important.) This can be seen on the "We are the 53%" tumblr, where people, many of whom are probably part of the 47% (in reference to those who did not pay federal income taxes in recent years) at some point of their lives, are posting messages suggesting that the Occupiers should STFU (shut the fuck up). They seem to be doing two things: 1. Playing on the stereotype of poor people being lazy by stating that they are hard workers and 2. Implying that they do not consider themselves poor (some say they make "good money"). Or, maybe they consider themselves part of the responsible poor, so they are actually dividing the group, throwing who they consider to be the rotten apples of the bunch under the bus, so they can keep their overall favorable view of the group? (As this theory is relatively new to me, I still have kinks in my understanding to work out.)

   This idea of throwing the group under the bus is important to understanding part 3 of this series. There, I backed up criticism of a woman with a "Not..." sign. This woman is in some bizarre state where she is distancing herself from the groups advocating for change, yet is out advocating for change. A possible explanation can be found in some of the discussion about this woman on various blogs. There is the suggestion that as soon as this woman and likewise the middle class get what they want, they'll abandon the movement and leave the hippies, freaks, the poor, etc. to fight for themselves. Unfortunately, with how this woman has distanced herself from those groups, that is probably a correct assumption.

   In regards to part 1 (and even part 2) of the series, the theory explains the misuse of the word "radical." Those who use the word in a demeaning way are going to be those who don't want change and this is their way to exclude those advocating for change from the group.

   In light of this, I got one thing slightly wrong in part 1. There I suggested that in addition to avoiding change, people might use the word in a demeaning way to make themselves feel superior. I treated these ways to use the word as though they could be independent of each other. In other words, one person may use the word in a demeaning way to justify the system and to avoid getting involved in advocating for change, but not necessarily to make themselves feel superior. Or, they could use the word to feel superior, without really caring if things change or not. But, based on my understanding of SJT, they are actually independent. People will most likely use the word in a demeaning way to both discourage change and make themselves feel superior (or rather to split the group).

   As discouraging as it is to be outcast from the group, if you are pushing for change, stay strong. Hopefully you now have a better understanding of the motivations behind the name-calling. Realize that you are actually the courageous and/or altruistic one, while they are either the timid ones too afraid to rock the boat (when coming from the underprivileged group) or they are selfish (when coming from the privileged group).

Radical!!! - Part 3: OWS and more on shooting yourself in the foot.

This is looking to become a 5-part series. Links will be added as the posts become available. Part 1  Part 2  Part 4  Part 5

   When I first started drafting thoughts for this series in my mind back in September, I was thinking of it primarily in terms of atheism, though the ideas can be applied generally. Now we have the Occupy Wall Street movement and this series gained a greater importance. In part 1, I alluded to this movement in my supplementary material. Of particular interest is the picture of the woman below:

   While this woman is supporting the OWS movement, her sign is problematic. Most people probably don't see the problem (commentary reacting to the original blog post linked above support this idea). Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds does a good job breaking down each point of the sign. I suggest you go read that piece, but I'll go ahead and summarize here: The woman is addressing groups that have been negatively stereotyped by those who do not want to succeed, so she is distancing herself from those groups when she should be embracing them, effectively empowering the stereotypes of those trying to destroy the movement. Just for an example, take Zvan's point of being a hippie:

It is the hippies who have kept the spirit of protest alive over these last few decades as everyone else has been calling participatory democracy “un-American.” Without the hippies, no one would have much idea how to put these protests together.

   Some of those defending the woman have pointed out that she could be making factual statements. Sure. But does she need to announce this to the world? I don't consider myself a hippie, for example. I have discussed before that I think they abuse the appeal to nature fallacy, thinking that anything natural is automatically better than anything engineered (food and medicine, particularly), but I am a fan and support that "spirit of protest," even if I might happen to disagree with what they are protesting. When it comes to OWS, I do not disagree with the hippies, so why should I distance myself from them on this issue? I shouldn't, and in fact I am with the hippies! After all, protests work better the more people you have.

If you don’t understand that part of a protest is the threat of numbers, perhaps you should be listening to the old-timers more. Without a mob, these protests would have no power.

   Long point short, don't be the woman in the picture if you support change. This includes supporting the groups that advocate for change, even if you don't agree with them on every issue. This is what I was upset about in my first post about the new girlfriend of a friend. When she was saying things like "I'm an independent." or "There are extremists on both sides" she was being that woman in the picture. Good luck advocating for change after you've isolated yourself from all the groups that are. Or, as I suggested in part 1, maybe that's the point? I'll cover this more in part 4.

Sam Harris says (almost) everything I wanted to say eloquently!

(via pharyngula)

Apparently, Sam Harris has been taking some heat from his Libertarian fans from a post he made regarding the rich, and Harris recommended raising their taxes. I have been collecting notes for a post of my own on Libertarians and why their proposals won't work, but it seems Harris has covered many of the points I was planning to make.

Many of my critics imagine that they have no stake in the well-being of others. How could they possibly benefit from other people getting first-rate educations? How could they be harmed if the next generation is hurled into poverty and despair? Why should anyone care about other people’s children? It amazes me that such questions require answers.

This is something that I have encountered that bothers me everytime I see it. I once saw someone ask the question of why they should have to pay for other people's children to go to school when her and her husband were not planning to have kids. There are many examples of why they should, but the one I provided was that it was going to be other people's children taking care of her in a nursing home if and when she gets to that age. It's amazing how short-sighted people can be.

Why do we have laws in the first place? To prevent adults from behaving like dangerous children. All laws are coercive and take the following form: do this, and don’t do that, or else. Or else what? Or else men with guns will arrive at your door and take you away to prison. Yes, it would be wonderful if we did not need to be corralled and threatened in this way. And many uses of State power are both silly and harmful (the “war on drugs” being, perhaps, the ultimate instance). But the moment certain strictures are relaxed, people reliably go berserk. And we seem unable to motivate ourselves to make the kinds of investments we should make to create a future worth living in. Even the best of us tend to ignore some of the more obvious threats to our long term security.

(Bolded emphasis mine.) Libertarians tend to promote this idea that people have become dependent on government, taking away from their motivation to take care of themselves and making them lazy, with the implication being that if you get rid of government, people will magically become motivated, hard workers. It may be true that some people do become less motivated, but reality seems to be exaggerated by the Libertarians. Consider Ron Paul's comments on how we should get rid of FEMA and be like 1900. The reality is that 1900 is nothing to brag about. According to Wikipedia, the Galveston hurricane (to which Ron Paul was referring...and apparently they did not have a hurricane naming system yet) is cited as the "deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States," killing an estimated 8,000 people. Ron Paul, you can keep your 1900; I prefer living in the 21^st century! ***EDIT:*** In a slight defense of Ron Paul, I doubt there would have been much for warning or hurricane tracking systems back then. So, it's not quite fair to compare the impact of hurricanes of today to those back then, however, I still find that Ron Paul's policies would be a step in the wrong direction and would likely result in more disaster related deaths.

Or take Marco Rubio speaking about medicare and social security, claiming that these programs have "weakened our people." The reality is that it really hasn't. Again, there could certainly be people that have been "weakened," but these programs appear to do more good than harm. On a side note, Rubio claims that people had to no longer worry about saving for security because it "was the government's job." But, people do save for security! They are called payroll taxes. If he wants to bitch complain about government forcing people to save, he can do that, but claiming that people don't otherwise save is misleading. ***EDIT:*** I myself have a 401k in which I build up savings.

Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles...

Many of the Libertarians I engage online seem to have this idea that people become wealthy because they are either smart, hard workers, good decision makers (which could be considered part of being smart), or--even better--a combination of the three. Harris's club foot example is exactly the type of ignorance these people exhibit. For example, those who claim their intelligence helped them out seem to have neither considered that they might be good learners nor any remorse for those with learning disabilities.

I have more to say on Libertarian ideas and how they are based on a world of fantasy, so keep an eye out for a future post.

One thing Harris said that I do want to address is this statement:

As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly “objective” morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded.

I think it's a bit unfair to compare Objectivists to autism. My thought is that Harris was trying to make an analogy to the impared social behavior of autistic people, because that would be the result of selfishness. I could be wrong, but I do not believe Harris was trying to insult anyone with autism.

Very good video from DarkMatter2525

DarkMatter2525 has released a video discussing why some theists have a dislike for atheists, which has been displayed in recent news, which I made mention of in my prior post. Watch it; it is very good!



There is research to back up DarkMatter2525's claims, too. Nicholas Epley has conducted a study to show that people's personal beliefs tend to match that of what they think is their god's beliefs, even after their own beliefs have been changed through manipulation. In other words, after the subjects had their beliefs changed, their opinion of what their god would believe also changed. (In other words, "Gloria is Theresa.") As the previous link only goes to an abstract, click here for a more thorough breakdown.

OK, that was disappointing

In my last post, I talked about how ABC's Nightline was having a special on demonic possession. It turned out to be fairly lame. Most of the people on the show had admitted to having been heavy drug users in the past. And, frankly, that really damages their credibility to speak on the subject. My wife even pointed out that they could have fried a few brain cells during that time (paraphrasing). The most exciting part, for me, was the brief moment (maybe 10 seconds) when Darrel Ray appeared on the show. Unfortunately, I was too busy shouting, "Holy shit! It's Darrel Ray!!!" to really even listen to what he had to say. I think it was something about suggesting that people seek professional psychiatric treatment instead of exercisms, though.

The reason seeing Darrel Ray was exciting for me was mainly because what I wrote yesterday about hypnosis was influenced by him through what he has written in his book, "The God Virus," which I am currently reading and also have a signed copy of as I purchased it directly from Dr. Ray when he was at the American Atheist national convention in Des Moines, IA, this past April. (Damn, why didn't I get a photo of this?!?)

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion." - Robert M. Persig

YES!!! A show with vomiting(?) hypnotized people!!!

Note: The following post contains ideas I have collected from researchers in pyschology and my own personal understanding of that research. I do not claim to be an expert in the field of pyschology. I am not any more than a "hobbyist."

Tonight, ABC will have a Nightline special - Beyond Belief: Battle with the Devil at 10 PM, EST. I am tempted to watch out of pure pschological interest. It is amazing (and scary at the same time) what the mind can do when it is manipulated emotionally to the point that hypnosis is induced. And that is what not only I find to be true, but former ministers like Rich Lyons, who claim to have performed exercisms, essentially say that is what it is - induced hypnosis. Let's first be clear on what hypnosis is. As Wikipedia states, "contemporary research suggests that hypnotic subjects are fully awake and are focusing attention, with a corresponding decrease in their peripheral awareness." It's not limited to this "you're getting sleepy...very sleepy" while watching a pendulum (usually a round pocket watch) swing by stuff that used to be portrayed in media.

I have had some experience with hypnosis. In my freshman year of college, a hypnotist put on a show on campus. I actually volunteered to go on stage to be hypnotiszed (OK, am I British now?). The procedure had us close our eyes to relax¹ and then start accepting suggestions like, "Your arms are SOOOO heavy, it is impossible to lift them." This is what Wikipedia says is the induction technique. I like to think of this as a "warm-up," where the hypnotist is getting the subject loose and ready for more "powerful" (for lack of a better word) suggestions. I was about the second person kicked off the stage, though, as I wasn't really playing along well during that warm-up. They perhaps noticed that my response to the question, "What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?" was not as enthusiastic as those of the other participants. (On a side note, the most enthusiastic answer probably came from my old friend, Jory, who answered "Beer flavored!" Update: Actually, now that I think of it, I'm quite sure I laughed at that, though tried hard to cover it up. That might be where they noticed I was not fully entranced.) Yet, when they asked me to get off stage, the hypnotist was suggesting that the ice cream was melting and dripping on our arms. As I was walking off, he suggested that everyone like off the ice cream. Even though I was not hypnotiszed enough to remain on the stage, I did catch myself sticking my toung out and raising my right forearm up toward it. Even though I was not playing along very well, I still had fallen slightly into a hypnotic trance. Imagine if I had played along during the warm-up. I may have remained up on stage and been riding imaginary horses, or whatever else the hypnotist had people doing.
¹ I suspect, as this was done in front of the audience, this was done so as to not hypnotize the audience by keeping them from following along with the suggestions intended only for those on stage.

Now, how does hypnosis come into play in exercism? The first and most important key is getting people to believe in demon possession, as suggestions will be much less effective without such belief, much like I could not be easily hypnotiszed as I was not going along with the idea that my arms were so heavy I could not lift them. This belief is developed and reinforced over time, though, and not in just one session, as in the case of my hypnotic experience. The suggestion does not necessarily come from the exorcist (hypnotist), either, though it will come from somewhere in the Christian church. After this point, a person then needs to believe they are possessed by demons, but this is an easy step to take. And this is the second important thing to realize: those people getting exercized already believe they are demon possessed, whether they convinced themselves of it or were convinced by family, friends, or the exercist. They already believe their arms are too heavy to lift.

Another important part should be to stir up an emotional response. For this, I'm not entirely sure how the emotions might be built up, which is a reason for me to watch the show. When it comes to the actual exorcism, I have heard that there can be a lot of screaming, some of which comes from the exorcist, and crying, coming from the audience. There is also another emotion that I had not before considered. As the reporter's notebook points out, "there is a triumph unfolding before our cameras -- a triumph over Satan." Need I explain how people tend to act when they are stirred up emotionally? Behavior is typically anything but rational. If I had not been thinking rationally during my hypnotic experience, I may have been more likely to buy into the suggestion that my arms were too heavy to lift.

Perhaps the last important part (unless I forgot anything) is the response from the hypnotic subject. This is where someone might not recognize exercism as hypnotism because the subject is not clearly being fed verbal suggestions. Well, like that key belief in demonic possession, the response is suggested prior to the hypnosis. People like Rich Lyons, who I mentioned earlier, who have performed exercisms believe the responses come from what they expect demon extraction to look like. If they expect it to involve seizuring, then they'll flop and shake on the floor. If they expect it to involve vomitting, then they'll vomit. These ideas can come from many sources, including literature, Hollywood, and other believers in demonic possession. The exercist does play a role, though. It is their job to trigger when these responses occur with non-verbal suggestions. Such an action may be placing their hand on the head of the subject, and then slowly pulling their hand away from the subject as though they had a hold of the demon, or even pretending to push the demon out. Just take Benny Hinn for an example. If Benny Hinn tries to heal you, what do you do???


...You fall to the floor. Why? Because that is what you are expected to do! Sometimes seizures are involved, as you can see.

Let's now dig deeper into the reporter's notebook. There are some other ideas that are important to the hypnotic suggestion:

1. "People have to humble themselves..." - This is part of the induction technique in which people prepare themselves for further suggestion; it is similar to the very start of my experience where I was told to close my eyes.
2. "...it looks foolish. But there's a verse in the Bible where Paul the apostle says that God uses the foolish things of the world, things that look foolish, to confound the wise." - This is another part of the induction technique to surrender rational thought. Let's change this quote up a bit and consider how it might have impacted my situation: "[The idea that you cannot lift your arms sounds] foolish. But there's a verse in the Bible where Paul the apostle says that God uses the foolish things of the world, things that [sound] foolish, to confound the wise." Of course, since I don't believe in the god of the Bible, this still would not have worked on me, but hopefully you get the idea.
3. Believers like to quote the old line that the devil's greatest trick was convincing people that he does not exist. - This is a way to rationalize that primary key belief in demon possession. It is a defense mechanism against skeptics/doubters who threaten this induction step.

In closing, the important thing to realize is that most of the induction techniques have already been completed prior to the subject arriving at the location. For example, someone who has never heard of Benny Hinn before will not be taken up on stage, or, if that somehow did happen, that person will not fall down like they are supposed to. Likewise, a person who has heard of him, but is certain he is a fraud, will likewise not fall down. A doubter, however, may very well fall down. Why? Because they will get caught up by the emotional part of the induction, which is the component that completes the induction. They have accepted enough of the other parts of the induction technique that they will give in completely once their rationality is subdued. And, being familiar with Benny Hinn, they know what to do when he gives them the non-verbal suggestion. I expect something similar out of this show - the people who go to these exercists already know the routine!