Good News, Everyone!

I'm working on a big new project. Actually it's a lot of old projects I'm compiling into one project. Actually, I'm taking the best material I've written on this blog and in my philosophy classes and turning it into a book. How bout that.

I've got about 200 pages (in MS word) of material so far and I haven't yet edited it into anything comprehensible. I'm expecting to add a bunch to it considering that I've still got two more philosophy papers to write this semester and will need to bridge the gaps between my works so they all make sense together.

The book is going to contain my arguments for metaphysical realism, existentialism, and evidence based teaching. I've got a good idea that my audience will be scientists, atheists, agnostics, and theists looking for a fight. I'm going to try my best to make it accessible to non-academians and professional philosophers alike. I'll have the assistance of one of my professors who is a published author himself and with a little hard work and luck, I'll be able to publish in time for the proceeds to help me go to grad school. I'm not expecting this to be big, I'm not even expecting to be able to live off of it for any period of time. I've just got a lot of writing lying around and want to make something of it. 

Why can't we be friends? (in response to "I'm Christian, unless you're gay")

I just read I'm Christian, unless you're gay on Dan Pearce's "Single Dad Laughing" blog. It's incredible, makes some awesome points, and leaves little out. The post is so powerful, the author followed it up with two posts of people's responses to it. I'll admit I haven't read those yet, because I'm inspired in a way I don't want to lose. I'm using this energy to write out a few things that I thought were missing, and perhaps invoke a thought process that will lead to a happier life for my readers.

First things first, Dan's right: it's all about love. The problem is that the love becomes frustration which becomes hate, as outlined. All well and good, but I think it's important to understand why. Here, I'll attempt to explain it. It starts with our beliefs, or more specifically, our beliefs about our beliefs. It's difficult to say it inoffensively so I'll just say it plainly: Some people, maybe you, maybe your family, your friends, even myself sometimes, believe that our beliefs make up who we are. We are attached to them, we believe them to be absolutely correct. That's not true. For example, as I read "I'm Christian, unless you're gay", I discovered that I haven't been as loving and kind as I often believe I am. I've played the hate game myself, separating out a "them" from an "us". I also discovered why I begin to make that distinction.

It starts with love. First believing that I love everybody, at least in some small way, I allow myself to think that I can "save them" if I convince them of my obviously correct beliefs. That's mistake number one. Then, I discover that when I try to "convert" people to my way of thinking, they get mad at me. Mistake number two. I can then logically conclude that "they don't want saved" or "they don't understand why it's good for them". Mistake number three. I might try harder, believing that it might take a little force to help them understand. Mistake four. Failing again, I can then conclude that they are some kind of enemy, for surely they hate me now if they didn't already. Final mistake and last step in the transmutation of love to hate. I have created a "they" out of difference because I believe my way to be better.

The solution is easy, if you're willing to understand it. Stop clinging to your beliefs. They may not be as true as you want them to be in the first place, and they are probably not any better than anyone else's. Even if your beliefs can be objectively true, and imagine that at least one of them is for now, the only time someone else's belief is a problem for you is when they try to force it on you.

Sadly, I feel a need to clarify the tone I take on many of my posts. I realize I'm not the most diplomatic of personalities out there. I don't say things because I mean to offend anyone, I say them because if I don't there won't be any conversation about it. It's true we have conversations to convince people of our beliefs, but that's no reason to get angry about it. I don't want you to stop reading because I said something you don't like. I want you to address it. I want to hear other points of view so I can better understand my own. I've been accused of being closed minded because I don't automatically accept what people tell me as fact. I don't want you to accept my words as fact, I want you to rip them apart and see what makes them work. Topics get touchy when large groups get loud about them, when we become emotionally attached to our beliefs about them. Those topics won't be resolved by yelling matches. Those topics weigh heavily enough on our minds that refusing to talk about them is probably more destructive than risking a few hurt feelings.

The message I extracted from "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" can be distilled to this: we don't need to get mad at each other when we share our ideas. We don't have to be cold and heartless to have a deep conversation. Discussing things calmly is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. We don't have to deny our emotions, but we can't let them take control of us, either.

If I've said something that pushed your buttons, I want to hear about it. I want it outlined for me, and I want to know what beliefs I've contradicted. Calling me names and yelling and pleading about how I must be wrong gets you nowhere. If you can make a good case for your belief, I'll probably adopt it. That's the thing about open mindedness: being convinced of something contrary to an older belief is not some earth-shattering process. It's quiet, it's subtle, and it can start with everything from outright denial to simple statement of contrary belief to questions about the new information. Closed mindedness is the loud one that screams in the face of contrary evidence simply to preserve an obviously outdated ideal.

While America Watches the Grammys...

I've been thinking. I've been reading the news. I've been paying attention. I think it's time this nation did something different. The internet is a powerful tool, and powerful people are trying hard to control it. The by now traditional forms of media are becoming propaganda engines. Fox "News" has a death grip on it's audience. Ads on radio and all TV stations spew mindless crap about products and candidates for political office flood the airwaves with attack ads. I say enough is enough. I will vote for the man or woman with the most solid understanding of leadership. I will vote for the man or woman who takes no money from large companies and spends no money on self promotion. I will vote for the man or woman who rises up from obscurity to gain the support of the internet. I will vote for the person who understands the intent of the constitution and the need for sensible regulations. I will vote for the person best able to protect small businesses and individuals from power hungry factions.

I don't know if the information I have is accurate. I've learned that very few sources are trustworthy these days. I do know that there are a lot of people out there accusing each other of lying about all sorts of things. I've seen people pretending to use cold hard logic to support flimsy ideals to the point of absurdity. This nation is the butt of jokes the whole world over, but people only snicker behind our backs because they are afraid of us. This country is strong, it always has been. But we are no longer the matter-of-fact sincere little children with big guns that we used to be. This country is coming into it's adolescence, and it's kicking and screaming and looking for someone to hurt. Those of us who have had or known people who have had violent teenage years know how it works. They also know that most people tend to settle down after the rebellion has run it's course. The trouble is that a nation is much more dangerous than a person. We have factions built up around many fictitious lines, and they are doing battle in every way they know how. But even as we tear ourselves apart searching for our lost national identity, we lash out at other nations. Certain factions among us have pursued laws that favor them so exclusively that all others would die. Sometimes we catch them at it and shut them down, other times I'm sure we've missed the chance. This nation is severely lacking in solidarity. This nation needs a leader that people can respect even if they disagree. This nation needs a leader the people can trust to do what s/he believes is right regardless of who screams about it. You can't please everyone, certainly, but you can't please yourself, either.

I checked the most popular topics being searched on google right now, and I discovered that it's the Grammys. I don't give a flying flip about the Grammys but it must be fairly important. After all, celebrities don't become celebrities for no reason. They have the most exposure to the public. They create the illusion that anyone can know them, any one can understand them, anyone can talk to them if they meet on the street. Most of us know that's not true, but many of us like to preserve the illusion anyway. It's fun. It helps us ignore our own troubles. It helps us imagine a better life, even if it takes away our drive to work for it. Whitney Houston died recently. I've never heard of her before. I may have heard some of her music, but I'd have never known she was famous if I hadn't been told. I get the impression that a lot of people started caring as soon as they heard about her death. People who'd never heard of her before apparently rushed to buy her music, as if it were somehow worth more now that there isn't going to be anything new.

In order to be sure to put someone in office that will be the best for the country and not sell out to special interest groups, we have to make corporate support taboo. We have seen what corporate money can do in the SOPA/PIPA bills. We have also seen the power of the people relative to those same bills. The problem is that it is very difficult to be perfectly vigilant. Legislation can easily sneak through congress without the people being aware of it. The best way to stop such things is to create an atmosphere of disapproval for the types of behaviors that lead to such dishonest legislation. This country is supposed to be by the people, for the people... but we've been left out of the loop. We can take control of the country again the same way that religious organizations gain control over people.

For the record, Religion is a cultural phenomenon that has placed taboos on all sorts of activities. It's true that many people break these taboos from time to time, and that some people break them very often. Some people understand that some of the taboos are silly, and choose to ignore them in the face of ridicule and violence. Simply because enough people have decided that there is something inherently "sinful" about something, we have laws in place to discourage that thing. Thus, it becomes a very simple marketing plan: take something that is currently pissing people off, like corporate money in politics. Demonize the hell out of using it and anyone who uses it. Then show them an alternative, something we can call "clean", such as a grassroots candidate with no party affiliation that agrees with the majority of the citizens on points that are tearing up the regular candidates. For example, Republicans are rabid about gun laws, Dems are largely quiet about them just now, so our ideal candidate supports the right to bear arms. The candidate will be totally in charge of what media coverage they get (by making their own videos). By taking a stand with people on the more basic issues and generally making an effort not to piss people off on the complex ones, people will begin to support the candidate more willingly instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. As long as people understand that this unregistered internet candidate is serious, s/he will get votes. I could organize the whole thing, but not without some help and a little time to work on it.

Recent political events have opened people's eyes to new issues. If I send a big enough wave through the internet, people will pay attention to it. But I can't do it alone. I happen to know that most of my friends are partial to cold logical arguments. Well, politics is neither cold nor logical. If we want to be sure of electing someone we know to be a good leader, we need to use every weapon in our arsenal. You understand the ideal I would strive for, I understand that my ideal will be re-envisioned and the details will get out of hand quickly. I'm not looking to change the world, or even change this coming election. All I want is to plant the seed and water it.

I support Anonymous. They're getting a lot of attention. That's also why I'm posting publicly to people I know. I'm learning through watching the moves of Anonymous and various other movements just how ideas begin to take hold. It usually starts with strong feelings, but only goes places if people speak up about them. I know a lot of my friends have strong feelings, but don't often speak up. I'm loving the South Dakota Skeptical Society, but it's not as well populated as it could be. I notice some rather scathing posts about things from time to time, but they're mostly just complaints and have no action plan attached. Right now, I'm just encouraging those of us who have plans for our lives other than becoming celebritous political figures (yes, I made up that word) to speak up and make suggestions with the hope that those suggestions will reach the ears of a sympathetic party in a position to act. Speaking up is a very powerful action, even without any other action. If enough of us get behind one idea, no matter if it's fully worked out or truly possible, if at least some of our visions become reality, then we will have made a difference. We can make that difference without sacrificing ourselves to the cause, and that's the message I most want to get out. So maybe you don't like this particular idea. That's ok. It's a huge philosophical problem to understand the various implications. I've realized lately that, philosophical objections aside, if an idea can be considered even a marginal improvement on something, it's pretty useless to discuss how it doesn't actually help anything. If we spend all our time shooting down marginal improvements simply because they are difficult to achieve or don't achieve enough, then we'll never improve anything. That said, next time you have an idea about how to improve something, shout it out there, don't keep it to yourself. Nothing ever gets better if nobody tries to fix it.

Stop SOPA/PIPA

Because internet freedom is something I care about.

What craziness is this? (an essay on child rearing)

I consider myself to be fairly well informed when it comes to raising children. My own experiences growing up are still fresh in my mind, I've helped my parents raise my little brother in some ways, and I've spent years studying all things related to the topic. The one conclusion I keep coming to is that all children are different and the best way to handle it is to get to know them. Children are not and could never be little robots running around doing just what we tell them and growing up according to strict stages. They each have a unique personality and ability to process all the information the world thrusts on them. Forcing a child into any one conceptual box is likely to be stressful for the child and for you. If the child does anything that doesn't fit within your neat little box, the automatic reaction may be to think that there is something wrong with the child. That is not a healthy situation. The child gets frustrated and scared that they may have problems and you are simply confused about what to do.

I was reading through the comments on this blog about children and video games, and I noticed a lot of very extreme educational practices ranging from a belief that the child is to be completely in control (how will they learn about things that don't naturally occur in their environment?) such as "unschooling" to strict control over the child's every encounter (in ways that have been shown to produce unhealthy dependence). It's appalling to me to see such uneducated drivel appearing on a respected psychological blog collection and forum. It's true that children need to have a sense of control over their own lives, but what harm is there in guiding their choices? Yes, kids are natural learners and should be enabled to learn whenever possible to encourage curiosity and cut down on the stress of forceful schooling. That doesn't mean that limits are bad. Limits are a very real part of life and will be imposed by anyone in a position of authority. Frustration and boundaries are one of a wide range of things that children must learn to deal with if they are to lead happy lives on their own.

Here's a question for "unschoolers": what do you do if your child becomes fascinated by little animals? I don't mean in the love and kindness way, of course. Maybe you provide little Johnny with a bunny rabbit and he wants to see how it works, so he pulls it's ears off and guts it with a kitchen knife. Do you encourage that sort of learning, or do you impose some limits and have a long talk about moral treatment of animals?

Right, now here's one for the people advocating a strictly controlled learning environment. During math class, Little Suzie answers a question before she is supposed to know the answer. Do you assume that she is cheating, or that she understands the material early for some reason? This may not sound like a very harmful dilemma but consider for once what would happen if you choose wrong.

Imagine that Suzie has seen the problem before in another class. You accuse her of cheating. You have just punished her for curiosity which led to an advanced understanding of the world around her. You have introduced a stigma to extra-curricular learning that if such treatment persists, Suzie will likely resent, dislike, or even outright hate having to learn anything. Her grades will drop because the better she does, the more she is punished.

Now the opposite scenario in which Suzie was actually looking at the lesson plans ahead of time and memorized the answer so she could shock everyone in class. (I'd like to point out that this is highly unlikely as just sorting through the lesson plans is bound to be confusing and unhelpful.) If you assume she understands the material, you have just reinforced a process of getting answers that is at best unreliable and severely punishable at worst. If this behavior continues, Suzie will likely be thrown out of school for cheating on exams and will have learned nothing but how to sneak into offices in the meantime.

The way to correct all of these scenarios is to do a little investigation before you make your choice. The proper reaction to a child's behavior will differ by child and situation. Perhaps Johnny is really interested in biology and simply didn't know any better. His seemingly violent activity may be driven mainly by curiosity and ignorance. As such, just explaining to Johnny that doing violence to bunnies is considered wrong may stop his behavior. Now, it is not enough to simply stop a behavior. Just as it has been mentioned before in the comments and blog posts all over this site, you would be treating the symptoms and not the cause. Once you have placed a barrier on the undesirable behavior (often with some form of punishment) you need to give the child an acceptable outlet for the impulses that led them to the behavior to begin with.

Imagine a typical undesirable behavior such as stealing from the cookie jar. Regardless of the reasons you may have for stopping the behavior, little Ralph does it for one reason: he wants a cookie. Suppose you catch him stealing the cookie, and give him a sharp slap on the wrist or put him in timeout or whatever your favored method of punishment is. Instead of connecting that punishment to the theft, Ralph may (or is likely to) connect the punishment to getting caught. So Ralph tries not to get caught next time he wants the cookie, because you have not told him the grand secret of getting cookies without getting in trouble, which is asking pretty please. Besides, you can't catch him every time anyway. Ralph may get good at stealing cookies from under your nose and begins to apply his skill to other things. He may take an occasional chocolate from your secret stash that you never share. He may sneak a drink from the local convenience store (before he knows what money is and does). But suppose instead of simply punishing him for stealing that first cookie, you tell him that he can have a cookie if he asks first. Now, a parent may have many reasons for telling Ralph "no" when he asks, but you must first build a trust that asking for a cookie will be the best way to get a cookie, so start by telling him yes every time. After a while, his first response to wanting a cookie will be to ask for one. Then you can start backing off on the frequency of giving a cookie. You can start to impose limits like "not so close to dinner time" or "I'd like to save some for someone else". Do it slowly or Ralph may decide that you were fooling him and go back to stealing cookies.

Remember Suzie and the math question? Instead of jumping to a conclusion about whether or not she cheated, the whole problem can be solved by simply asking Suzie how she knew the answer. She may decline to tell you at first, which may seem like cheating, but if you gently encourage her to tell you how she figured it out she will likely reveal more information about her thoughts. If she looked it up or figured it out or has been previously exposed to the type of problem, it should become fairly obvious fairly quickly. After you have a better idea about what Suzie was doing, you can deal with her appropriately. If she figured it out, she'll likely be able to explain it to the class. Remember, teachers, you were going to do that anyway and you still have the option to refine the explanation. If she's seen it before, she's also likely be able to explain it. If she really can't explain it, that still doesn't mean she cheated. The embarrassment of not being able to answer your questions will serve to encourage her to have an explanation ready next time she has an answer. In this way, it doesn't matter whether or not she cheated because the end result will be the same, Suzie learns how to perform the operations required for solving the problem. Even if Suzie continues to cheat from the lesson plans, she'll be reading much more carefully so that she understands what's going on well enough to report it next time.

As far as video games are concerned, many of these subtle processes are built in to encourage the learning required to complete the game. Within a game, children are free to explore the limits of their environment and find many ways to solve the problems it presents. The limits serve to educate about boundaries and the freedom serves to educate about choices. The nature of a good game keeps players coming back to it by rewarding them for every small success, and punishing failure severely. Cheating is often difficult, rewarding in the short term, and eventually boring. Children may resort to video games because it gives them a sense of control over their environment that may not be present outside of the digital world. They are comforting, educational, and teach real life skills within a manageable framework.

Regardless of your personal philosophy on teaching and child rearing, children should be taken on a case by case basis. You must carefully assess each situation and tailor your response to the child's needs. Choosing the wrong response can only do harm to the development of the child, and is likely to cause everyone involved undue stress.