Call to Stop War Spending!

This courtesy of USLAW (US Labor Against the War):

This week, the House is expected to debate and vote on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) - the bill authorizing spending $553 billion for the Pentagon and another $118 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is time we brought our troops home from Afghanistan and stopped wasting billions of dollars we need at home. The last thing Congress should be doing is authorizing endless war, but that's exactly what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act does.

Call Congress today, using this toll free number 1-888-231-9276*. The calls started yesterday, and we want to keep pressure on Congress until the vote which is expected on Thursday.

Out Candidate Almost Wins, World Almost Ends

OK, the latter is an exaggeration. But Sherrie Cohen, whom I helped get on the primary ballot and then did phonebanking and leafleting for in the last days of the campaign, was first runner-up in Philadelphia's City Councillor-at-large race, falling just 1600 votes shy of winning a seat. And it was her first run for office. Not bad!

I also made myself a new reusable placard to show the End Timers leafleting on May 20. Unfortunately I only found one of them, but the sign evoked favorable comments from others and sparked a good conversation on the subway ride home. Among the slogans were "It's never too late to kick the faith habit" and "Reality speaks to us through our senses and NO WISE ELSE."

Sorry for Being a Stranger

It's been a while since I posted much here, on account of my no longer having Internet access from home, and being preoccupied with matters related to my having to move.

I'm not wired from my new home yet, but now that the move is accomplished I hope to post more regularly again.

Objectivity .NE. Centrism

The latest On the Media had a discussion about whether NPR is biased. While it was acknowledged that media fragmentation has led to a lack of consensus about what constitutes the "center," no one questioned that said "center" is a relevant reference point for defining bias. I made the following comment (which had to be edited slightly before submission because of a character limit):

The fundamental flaw in this discussion is the unexamined assumption expressed by the phrase, "journalism that tries to stick to the center and tell both sides." This assumes 1) that there are only two sides to an issue, and 2) that somehow the "center," whatever that means, is more likely to be right than any other position.

One sees how ridiculous these assumptions are if we do a historical thought experiment. At one time, the "center" was undecided on whether slavery was right or wrong. Does that mean a journalist who acted on the usual assumptions of today would have been biased in doing totally antislavery reporting, but unbiased by giving the proslavery position equal time? How can what was biased then be unbiased now, and vice versa? Plainly such an approach is not unbiased at all, but is instead biased against change. The study you discussed, which found the Inquirer's "pro-peace" bias on Palestine/Israel to effectively favor locking in the status quo, is just one example of this.

Also, on any particular question, one side favors a change from the status quo while the other wants to preserve it. So you can give equal time to both sides on various issues, but still skew your coverage simply by your decisions about what issues to cover.

Often what we would now view as the right position would have been considered totally fringe at one time. The "doughnut" approach is fundamentally at odds with freedom of thought because it rules out positions which may in fact be correct, simply because they are presently unpopular. To be truly objective (to the extent humanly possible), journalists must stop worrying about what is or is not the "center" and simply try to report all the relevant facts that come to light. As in science, the corrective to individual biases will be found not in a cult of "objectivity" that really masks a centrist bias but, rather, in the interplay of the different perspectives of multiple journalists, each helping to check and correct the bias of others.

Support the Nadler-Lee-Stark Amendment

The Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment will be voted on today or tomorrow.

The Congress is voting on a Continuing Resolution to authorize funding for 2011. Continuing resolutions are used when a new budget has not been adopted. It allows the government to continue to operate while debate continues on the budget.

This amendment to the Continuing Resolution, which will set the budget for FY 2011, would strike $90 billion from the proposed $100 billion allotted for Afghanistan, leaving $10 billion for the withdrawal of US troops.

Call the Capitol Switchboard TODAY: (202)-224-3121.
Ask your member of Congress to vote in favor of this amendment.

Missing the Forest for the Mystery Lights

At a PhACT meeting recently, George Hansen complained to me that, in a couple of earlier posts ("Review: The Trickster and the Paranormal" and "This Movie Is for the Birds"), I had misrepresented him by saying he portrayed Linda Moulton Howe as a credible source of information (and I had added that I thought this reflected negatively on his own powers of critical judgment). He said that, on the contrary, he had written about how "even her friends sometimes become exasperated at her for uncritically accepting information from government personnel." I said I'd reread that part of his book and issue a correction if necessary.

I've now reread the section in question. It's true that he makes the statement about her uncritical reporting of claims by government personnel. But that's a very limited criticism compared to what I observed when she spoke at the Central Library in 2002, which didn't even involve quoting government sources. As I wrote in my review of Hansen's book, Howe failed to see evidence of the artifactual nature of "mystery lights" that was literally staring her in the face, instead seeming to see only further "mystery" in it. Likewise, she irrationally dismissed the revelation by the two Englishmen about having made crop circles — with a demonstration of how they did it — on the grounds that these two men couldn't be responsible for circles on multiple continents. This totally missed the real point of their revelation, which was that if they could do it, anyone could do it. And evidently many have.

Compared to this, what is Hansen's observation that Howe is unduly credulous about claims coming from government sources? Why, it's hardly anything. He ascribes to her such broad positive traits as "incredible energy, tenacity, and dedication" as well as "integrity ... above reproach," yet he doesn't see fit to criticize her incredible obtuseness when it comes to recognizing information that disconfirms her beliefs? Such an imbalance might be called "praising with faint damnation," and borders on dishonesty in my book. Unless, of course, he doesn't mention her obtuseness because he shares it with her.

Critical Thinking Discussed, Not Applied on NPR

Today's Morning Edition discussed a study that purported to show that a large fraction of college students aren't learning critical thinking skills. This may well be true, but it was never stated how this outcome had been measured — particularly ironic given that Steve Inskeep had opened the interview with a declaration that he'd be applying critical thinking to the study, yet never asked this rather basic question. Here's the comment I posted:

You said you'd apply some critical thinking to the study, but actually did very little. You never asked the guest how it was determined that a third of the students surveyed showed little improvement in critical thinking skills. The only metrics mentioned were the amount of writing done, and how difficult students feel their courses are. Neither of these bears any necessary relation to critical thinking. One can write at great length, but if the teacher gives a high grade simply for regurgitating what he said, no critical thinking need be involved. On the other hand, if a professor knows how to teach critical thinking really well, the student might find it very easy despite the fact that he's learning a lot.

Some good ways to measure such skills can be imagined. For instance, one could ask a person to read an essay and then identify all the fallacies it contains. This might involve very little writing — none at all if administered orally — but would still provide a definite measure of critical thinking skills. But the guest said nothing about whether this or any similarly relevant test was actually employed in the study.

You can read a transcript of the story at http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=133310978.

A Little Exposure Never Hurts

Last Sunday I had an experience to which I didn't respond as promptly as I would have liked because of social anxiety.

I was doing the laundry at a place around a couple corners from my building. This is a place I started using a few weeks ago, when it had just opened. The location is much more convenient than where I'd been taking the laundry, at 7th and Girard, and also cost less. It's built into a little apartment building on Carlisle Street.

The first few times I used it I was quite satisfied. But last Sunday, I looked inside the only dryer that wasn't in use, and found there was water at the bottom. I got the manager's attention, saying, "This dryer isn't working right." Then I pointed and said, "See, there's water at the bottom."

The manager responded by going to get a rag or washcloth, coming back, and wiping the water up. Then he left the dryer just as it was.

From past experience, I'd always assumed that a dryer in this condition is not functioning properly. How can it get clothes dry if there's water at the bottom? So I was simply stunned that the manager was wiping the water up — in effect concealing that there was a problem — and not putting an "Out of order" sign on the machine. I didn't even think of asking him about it then, so conditioned I seem to be by fear of confrontation.

At the time I simply decided I wouldn't come back to this place, as the manager was evidently either incompetent or a crook — and a brazen one too, to have done what he did right in front of me. I started also thinking of putting signs up in the neighborhood to report on what had happened.

But a day or two later I told a couple of my co-workers about it, and one of them asked me, "Did you say anything?" I admitted that I hadn't, and he noted that the manager apparently had not been wrong in thinking he could be so brazen. This thought had crossed my mind, but hearing it from someone else made it impossible to simply push out of consciousness. (Social proof to the rescue!) So I resolved to go back there and ask the manager to explain his action.

This past week I've been lacking a home Internet connection, keeping me out late using a library computer. So I didn't get a chance to address this matter till today. When I went there, a different person was managing, who has hardly any English. He pointed to a sign across the street with his boss's number on it, so I called that. I asked the man who answered if he was the one managing last Sunday, and he confirmed this. But when I reminded him of what had happened, he simply denied it. He repeatedly asked "Last Sunday?" and I would again confirm that that's when it happened. But he just kept saying, "There was nothing wrong," and "No one said anything." So finally I said, "Well, either you have a bad memory or you're a liar. Either way, I'm not bringing my business here any more."

I wish he'd been there in person, so I could have confronted him face to face. Not that I relish that thought. Just the contrary. It would have been more anxious-making — and therefore a better "exposure" to help me learn I can handle my social anxiety. But that's the way the cookie crumbled. Better than nothing, anyway.

Memo to Ira Glass: Ignorance Is Not Bliss!

The episode of This American Life broadcast today included a segment he told us was "not suitable for children." I've responded to this profoundedly wrongheaded "warning" with the following message:

How on Earth can you say that your story from Westword (about the man who wanted to kill the rapist from his childhood) is unsuitable for children?

Do you honestly believe it's better that children not be aware of how they might be victimized if they're not careful? How is that going to protect them? It will, to the contrary, leave them that much more vulnerable.

Were you concerned that the material might be too disturbing for children? That admittedly is a possibility worthy of consideration — although children are often able to handle (and already aware of) more than adults give them credit for. But if that was your concern, you should have said so plainly and not left it open to the other interpretation, which reinforces an appallingly irrational and misguided, if still too common, attitude.

Ignorance is not bliss. It is danger!

You can hear the program at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/425/slow-to-react. You can write Glass at web@thislife.org.

Review: The Kings of Clonmel

Last spring, while I had a second job with the Census Bureau, I ordered a few books from Powell's , and with these I was sent their latest catalog. I noticed that one of the books listed, a novel for young readers, concerned a religious cult, and was curious as to how accurate and informative it might be on the issue of psychological manipulation. So I offered to write a review of it for the International Cultic Studies Association . I've now done so. Here it is:

Ranger’s Apprentice Book 8: The Kings of Clonmel by John Flanagan. New York: Philomel Books, 2010.

John Flanagan is a children’s fiction writer living in Australia, with a background in advertising. The central premise of this book, set in a fictionalized medieval Europe, is that a religious group is rapidly gaining influence and converts by covertly orchestrating acts of destruction and lawlessness, while publicly offering its god’s protection against these threats. The book is intended for young readers, and my interest as an ex-member was in seeing to what extent it provides them with an improved understanding of how cults work and how one can guard against them.

To a limited degree it does so, illustrating some of the ways perceptions and emotions can be shaped by stagecraft, but not the subtler and more psychologically invasive forms of manipulation. Similarly, it treats cultism as a matter only of deception, not self-deception, depicting the cult leader and his inner circle as conscious charlatans who believe in none of what they’re doing. Only the more recent converts are actual believers and, because they’ve been deceived purely by control of information rather than systematic ego destruction, it’s not too hard for the heroes to turn them against the cult once they’re in a position to expose its fraudulent practices.

Of course, when even much of the (real-world) adult population has no understanding of cults whatsoever, most juvenile readers will come away from this book with more understanding than they had before. And perhaps a psychologically deeper treatment would go over the heads of many. The most important lesson taught by The Kings of Clonmel may be that expressed by these words of a sage old woman who hasn’t gone in with the cult: “A god who brings you good and bad in equal amounts doesn’t ask for much. Maybe a prayer or two. Maybe the odd sacrifice of a beast. But a god who promises only good times? A god like that will always want something of you.” In other words, any offer that seems too good to be true not only probably isn’t, but also is likely to end up costing more than one counted on.

It's been accepted for publication and will be appearing in ICSA's magazine, ICSA Today.

How Social Psychology Can Be Used to Create an Effective Message: A Case Study

This week's Living on Earth radio show featured an interview with Robert Cialdini, the leading authority on the psychology of social influence, about how he'd worked with an environmental group to develop an extremely effective PSA promoting recycling. You can read the transcript here: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=10-P13-00051&segmentID=2

The first point discussed in the interview was perhaps not made as clear as it could have been. When Cialdini talks about "what those around us are doing," he's referring to a principle of social influence called social proof. What this means is that we tend to look at other people's behavior to decide what we should do. In the context in which he mentions it — raising awareness of global warming caused by fossil fuel use — the point is that, if the message is saying "everyone is doing it" (i.e., wasting energy), the listener's reaction, consciously or otherwise, is likely to be, "If everyone is doing it, why should I do any differently (especially if it's inconvenient)?" Instinct tells us to follow the herd, even if our intellect says otherwise. Effective messaging avoids triggering this in a way that's counterproductive.

The point here is not limited to environmental issues. The basic principles of social influence — including social proof and the other one mentioned in the interview, reciprocity, and four others — apply in all areas of human life. Activists would do well to study them carefully.

Give It Away for Nina

Nina Hartley is facing an urgent financial situation: she needs funds to pay for her recovery after upcoming surgery. The appeal follows.

http://www.giveforward.com/giveitawayfornina

Help Our Friend Nina

If you’re reading this you’re likely already a friend, or fan, of Nina’s. Thanks for taking the time to be here. She’s always made an effort to connect on the personal level with all she meets, and it’s from that personal level that I write this. If you’ve ever had a moment’s fun with any of her work there’s something real, concrete and life saving you can do for her and it won’t take much.

She is seeking funds to cover her recovery from surgery, tentatively scheduled for late January/early February 2011. Recovery will take 2-4 weeks, depending on how it goes.

As some of you already know she has fibroid tumors in her uterus. They’re genetic and are not cancer, nor will they turn into cancer, so that’s a blessing right there. However they are unsightly and are starting to cause other, negative side effects. After dealing with them for nearly twenty years the time has come for a permanent solution. She thought that nearing menopause would cause them to shrink but they show no signs of doing so. So, surgery is the next step. She’s lucky enough to have medical insurance to cover the cost of the operation. What she needs is money to cover her expenses during recovery. In twenty-six years she’s never needed help more. As an example of how easy it could be, if each of her Twitter followers donated just five dollars that
would cover everything.

Some may ask, “What about Ernest?” Her darling husband is facing his own medical crises, as well as a cut back at work. He won’t be able to help her financially, though he’d very much like to do so. He’ll be there to take care of her when she comes home from the hospital. Anything we raise here will be a big help to both of them at this difficult time.

She’s never asked for help before, and it’s hard for her to do so now, which is why I’m doing this, but this counts as an emergency. She’s been hit by the recession as badly as the next person and her reserves won’t cover what she’ll need. Her family is not in a position to help, though they would if they could. That leaves, in the words of Tennessee Williams, “the kindness of strangers.” “Strangers” being you. Of course, Nina doesn’t think of her fans as strangers, only friends she’s not yet met in person, so I like to think I’m asking her friends for help.

After all she has given me, taught me, been there for me, it is my pleasure to give back to her. If she has ever taught you anything, been there for you when nobody else understood, or just made you happy with her sweet, wonderful demeanor, please donate at least five bucks. You can help her continue to give from the depth of her being to make you happy.

Please, let’s all show her how much we love her…

Lesley

Bring Courage Back to City Council

That's the slogan of Sherrie Cohen's campaign for City Council, which she officially kicked off last night. I met her last May Day, at the dedication of a memorial to the Haymarket martyrs in Southwest Philly, where she was passing out a leaflet announcing her intentions. That was the first I heard of her. The next time was at OutFest, where she had a table staffed by a supporter.

Shortly before the election I added a link here to her Twitter page, which was the closest thing to a campaign site that she had at that point. Now she has an official site at http://www.cohen4council.com/.

Sherrie is the daughter of the late David Cohen, who used to be one of the most progressive Councilmembers. She has a long history of activism around economic justice, women's, and queer issues. Most recently she headed the successful Campaign to Save the Libraries.

Meeting her for the second time last night, I encouraged her to study the psychology of social influence in order to maximize her effectiveness, and signed up to be a volunteer. Just now I sent her a link to Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice. I'd have lent her my own copy of an earlier edition, but it's still on loan to Hugh Giordano.

On the Wagon Again

It's been a while since I wrote about my struggle with social anxiety disorder. Partly this is because things were preoccupying me that left me little time to post about anything. But I also felt that I was backsliding, and was not eager to write about this.

I was trying to use the weekly messages from a seduction "email bootcamp" to keep me motivated, and initially it worked. But then I started to fall behind on my email. I could have made an exception for these emails and kept up with them even while lagging on the other messages, but didn't do so, due presumably to an unholy alliance of social anxiety and obsessive-compulsiveness.

When, a few weeks ago, I decided to resume the boot camp, I found the instructions to be totally over my head. They seemed to require me to already have proficiency in areas where I simply didn't, and I despaired of following them in any but the most perfunctory way, which might fulfill their letter but not their spirit.

Reflecting on this impasse led me to the feeling that this approach might be too rigidly goal-oriented for me (especially when I can't negotiate personally tailored "homework," as I could with a therapist). I also recalled someone's observation that OC people are always telling ourselves that we need to be "more self-disciplined," when actually we need just the opposite. So I decided to focus on practicing mindfulness more -- both to be more open to possibilities to start conversations with strangers, and to avoid the kind of self-talk which, even though intended to motivate me, seems often to just end up making me more anxious by raising the stakes too high.

I judged that I need to do less reading, more simply being and doing in the moment. And now there's evidence that this was a good choice. Yesterday, while standing in line at my neighborhood post office, I started a conversation with an attractive student standing behind me, in the course of which I got her email address. This was the first time in several weeks that I'd done something like this. (I'd made small talk on elevators in the interim, but never asked for contact info despite the notion that I should try to.)

An example of the different approach I was now taking is that I resisted any temptation to strategize in my head during the conversation. At those points where I had nothing to say, I simply turned away and maintained my poise without thinking about anything in particular, and when something apt occurred to me I turned back and expressed it.

Over the preceding couple days, I'd actually started unsubscriibng from several people's attraction and seduction-related newsletters which I wasn't keeping up with. I worried that this might be a manifestation of avoidance, but yesterday suggests it was in keeping with an approach that may prove to be more sustainable than my previous one.

Wednesday, 15 December: Day of action for Rite Aid workers

Jobs with Justice reports there will be a national day of action 15 December for Rite Aid workers, whose benefits are under attack. I've left the following message for their CEO, who just gave himself a huge raise:

Stop attacking Rite Aid workers!

Think you have to make cuts to keep the company profitable? All right, then how about cutting your OWN salary to that of the average employee? After all, they're contributing as many hours per week as you are. So why should you be making any more than they are?

In an earlier entry, I posted the words to my filk song "Trinity," based on Lois McMaster Bujold's fantasy novel The Curse of Chalion. Two weeks ago at Philcon, I got it recorded, and today uploaded it to my computer.

Turns out that at present, Blogger provides no way to post an audio file directly in a blog, so I'll have to find a service to host it as a podcast.

Talk on Psychology and Social Change

Lucky I learned about this — it was almost by accident. Nick Cooney will be speaking Friday on his new book, Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Tell Us About Spreading Social Change at Grindcore House, a new vegan café in South Philly:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=158039280898401&index=1

Halloween and Election Day: The Hidden Connections

I've spent most of this weekend strolling the streets of Roxborough, leaving doorhangers for labor candidate for state representative Hugh Giordano. This has given me plenty of time to think, and today a profound insight came to me about the relationship between Halloween and Election Day.

For some years I'd noticed the temporal proximity of the two days, and certain parallels. I'd come to refer to the period they bookend as "Monster Week," because on both days we find the streets filled with scary creatures making loud noises and demanding we supplicate them -- first with candy, then with votes. I figured it was just a coincidence.

But today I realized otherwise. Consider: Halloween is the one day when the dead return temporarily to the land of the living. Because of how the elections are scheduled, they only have to stay here a few more days to participate before returning home. Can there be any doubt that this is precisely why Election Day is held when it is? There's none in my mind. It's too great a coincidence to have happened by chance.

Of course, the dead aren't allowed to vote, on the grounds that they don't have a "fixed stake" in the affairs of the living. But it shouldn't surprise us that some politicians will try to get around this when they think the dead will vote for them. The fact that they usually appear to vote as a bloc confirms this hypothesis.

Speaking of the Underworld, this also explains another observation: the fact that the dead vote in significantly higher numbers in South Philadelphia than in other parts of the city. This can be explained by the consideration that more of the South Philly dead are restless. They can't find peace until their deaths are solved -- which may never happen because nobody saw anything. If this isn't proof of paranormal activity, I don't know what is!

Cultism Is About Psychological Manipulation, Not Doctrine

I've been having a discussion turning partly on this point with another atheist. You can read it here: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=151629424879710&id=504226569

Quote of the Month

"Where there is equality there can be sanity." -- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four, page 181 (Signet Classic edition)