The Voice of Reason

9:13pm: New User Pic
Being to lazy to figure out how to embed pictures, I just uploaded a bunch of new "user pics". Sigh... once again breaking that rule about posting something remotely humanizing.

11:57pm: Half finished essay about academia

Within the upper echelons of academia it is widely (and often blindly) held that students benefit from being taught by cutting-edge active researchers; yet outside the “ivory tower” there is widespread doubt about how such a benefit is conferred, or if it is conferred at all. The doubts are well founded: There is clearly nothing about being an expert in a narrow line of research that guarantees superior teaching of introductory-level freshmen. This is clear, because we all know that some experts are lousy teachers. The confidence of academia, however, is also well founded: There are opportunities for students, both in and outside of the class room, that can only be offered by active experts. Further, there is good reason to think that those opportunities are of great value not only to students who will continue work in that expert’s area, but to other students as well. The argument itself suggests one of three problems: 1) those unique opportunities rarely actualize, 2) the opportunities are offered, but do not benefit the students, or 3) the benefits to the students are not recognized as such. Likely, all three of these problems are pervasive, with different emphases depending on local circumstances. Thus, the critical task in justifying the expense, bureaucracy, and mixed priorities of a research-oriented institution of higher education is ensuring that those unique opportunities are offered, taken advantage of, and that their benefits are understood.

 

A Community of Inquiry

The potential benefits a research institution offers to students all stem from the opportunity to be part of a community of inquiry. Research institutions are filled with active investigators struggling, among other things, to provide novel solutions to problems within a professional framework. Being educated within this context means that students can witness these creative acts, can take part in the creative acts, and can have a network of support in initiating such creative acts and seeing them through to their completion.

 

 

This differs very significantly from the typical educational institutions serving pre-college students, and not all institutions of higher education offer such possibilities.

 

Now, even if you accept the “community of inquiry” argument, it can be difficult to understand why a cutting-edge, world-famous scientist would be that any better to learn from than a run of the mill active scientist. Remember, we aren’t talking about being their graduate student or protégé, just a student in their semester-long seminar. Admittedly, there may actually be no justification! The question then is whether the benefit to the graduate students, the institutional prestige, and the boasting rights for the administrators should be taken into consideration. Presumably this matters less in the eyes of funding institutions such as state legislators, but matters more in the eyes of boards of trustees who get to share in those benefits (well, at least the boasting rights). On the other hand, we might justify this bias through back-door methods. Specifically, all would likely agree that a quest for the best and brightest, most elite and potentially expensive people available is likely to find people who are at least average. Whereas, an intentional search for minimally qualified people is not likely to build a strong scholarly base.

 

 

Downside

1) It ain’t for everybody. Surely the skills those experiences are particularly good at teaching will not benefit everyone. Surely there are some futures for which other experiences are better preparations. Of course, surely we should not redesign college to accommodate these people, but rather put resources towards alternatives to traditional college.  

 

2) Communities of inquiry have a funny habit of asking lots of questions: They inquire about things. This tends to make lay conservatives, who by definition would like things to stay similar to the way they have been in the past, a bit edgy. That in turn has lead to an overblown image of academia as completely composed of liberal elitist snobs. Sometimes this image is not so overblown.

 

3) Often it does not deliver. That is, often people are brought together who could ostensibly create a Community of Inquiry in which undergraduates were encouraged in their individual endeavors, but then it somehow doesn’t happen. This seems the present plight of most, if not all, large state institutions, and may explain a good deal of the legislature’s incredulity with regards to the college’s spending of state funds. On the other hand, this synergy is the defining element of a large number small liberal arts college, specifically those with active research faculty. Unfortunately, the reward structure of a large institution does not typically encourage faculty to engage undergraduates seriously or intensely. In the future, this will become increasingly problematic.

10:59pm: Drink of the day - Altoona ice tea
Move over Long Island, the Altoona Ice Tea is here.

Take a 1 pint glass mug with lots of ice and add

1 part margarita mix
2 parts Mountain Dew
1 part strawberry lavender cordial

Allow the red cordial to sit on top with the ice until ready to drink, then stir and enjoy.

Analysis: A touch of salt from the mix, sweet and sparkly from the dew, fruity from the cordial, with a nice effervescence from the lavender. Awesome after a hot day's weeding. If anyone steals this, I get credit!

----
----

P.S. Tracy... we're gonna need some more cordial... quick!

11:21pm: Three Edward Gorey Quotes

These had introductions to go along with them, but perhaps they are sufficently interesting without my saying why I found them so. Three Edward Gorey Quotes:

 

“In my case, my mind’s eye, and for that matter, ear, if you take that as a symbol or whatever for the verbal or writing part, if it/they exist, they do so on a completely unconscious level. I have no conscious visual imagination whatever, or at least I have no idea what the drawing will look like until it is done, which is just as well, because I would be so depressed by the difference between ideal and real that I would probably have never started drawing at all as a regular thing. When I do have to try and visualize before drawing for one reason or another—perhaps an illustration that has to have a certain number of elements in it—I tend to become paralyzed, and the results are usually terrible.” (Martin interview, 1980)

 

-----------

“I have a dumb theory that a creative piece of art is only interesting if it purports to be about something and is really about something else. Quite often when I write or draw, my work starts out as a parody and sometimes turns into a parody of something else. In other words, I take some sort of given, but by the time I’m finished with what I wanted it to be about, what I really wanted it to be about has crept into it.” (Solod interview, 1980)

 

----------

 

“[A museum] curator was quoted as saying that his creative life and his homosexuality were one and the same. All I could think was, “Hogwash, dear, hogwash!” Which is unfair, I suppose, because maybe for him the two are linked.

            I realize that homosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is—but then, of course, heterosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is, too. And being a man is a serious problem and being a woman is, too. Lots of things are problems.” (Solod interview, 1980)

6:50pm: An exception
So, on principle I don't like posting anything personal or humanizing on live journal. However, for the moment I can't figure out how to log into MrsGiggle's account. To help make me feel better, I'll provide the absolutely no useful information.

	New one
	The Girls

11:16pm: Its all in how you phrase it - Part I
Today, Pentagon officials announced that "61 ex-Guantanamo inmates had returned to terrorism". (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090113/wl_nm/us_usa_guantanamo_2)

Of course,what they really must have meant was "61 people who used to be suspected terrorists are now definitely terrorists". After they announce that, then reporters would have to ask "What changed?" and they would have to answer "They were held in Guantanamo Bay."

At this point, the government reports a 10% "recidivism" rate. If their initial assumptions are correct, then that is actually startlingly good! Of course, if their numbers are wrong, it could just as well mean that 10% of the people are made terrorists as a result of their ridiculously bad treatment at the hand of U.S. officials. Either way, I'd bet the 10% estimate is quite a low ball figure.

1:24pm: why intro psych makes me want to shoot myself in the head
Intro psych textbooks are filled with horrible crap like this :
A leading model of attitude change is the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) ( Petty & Wegener, 1998). According to this model, people are more likely to carefully evaluate (elaborate) a persuasive message when their motivational state is high ( i. e., when they are willing to exert the mental effort needed to evaluate the message) and when they possess the skills or knowledge needed to evaluate the information (see Figure 14.3).

WOW! People are more likely to do something they are motivated and able to do!!!!

Unfortunately, it isn't just the textbooks, this crap actually passes for insightful in professional articles, books, talks, grant applications.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG!

10:13pm: Who to vote for?

The decision of who to vote for seems remarkably complicated, but I think its pretty simple if the options can be laid out correctly. Lets get the easy one out of the way first:

If your happy with the way the last 8 years have gone, vote for John McCain. Now I don’t want to imply that McCain is just 4 more years of Bush, its not. Bush and McCain are very different. That said, McCain’s presidency will be closer in values and policies to the Bush presidency than any of the other options.

Now the hard part: If you are unhappy with the last 8 years, you have many choices. The easiest way to choose is to figure out what you are most unhappy about.

If you are most unhappy about the influence of lobbyist, or you think local representatives should have less ability to bring money back to your community (that’s what “earmarks” do) … vote for McCain! This is where McCain shines, and those are both definitely big problems. If congress lets McCain make changes, the changes will probably be pretty big.

If you are most unhappy about loss of US integrity and respect abroad, about a lack of government support for middle class Americans, or about not getting enough help with healthcare… vote for Obama! Obama’s big strengths are in terms of social issues, and he makes a very good argument for how fixing social issues helps with our national security issues. Really, however, both major parties seem generally about big government, generally have the same views on how to handle the war on terror, both see no reason to bring serious changes to the federal reserve, or limit debt spending, and neither has a great interest in protecting your privacy… so on plenty of issues people care about, they are just about the same.

If you are most unhappy about government infringement upon your freedoms, about the bloated size of government, about the government enforcing morality… or heck, if your old enough to be unhappy with the Republicans because they are not the Republicans you remember… vote for Bob Barr and any other Libertarians! Oh, and if you were a “Ron Paul Republican”, that probably means you are a Libertarian who hasn’t figured out that the Republican Party no longer shares your beliefs. History says that the best way to change the major parties is to vote for a third party that actually represents you, so don’t vote for McCain, vote Libertarian or Constitution.

If your primary concerned is something listed for the Libertarians, but you also think the government needs to consciously get back to having good Christian values … vote for Chuck Baldwin on the Constitution Ticket! For that matter, if your top priority is Christian values (not in terms of being free to practice, but in terms of enforcing them) the Constitution Party is definitely for you! For the life of me I can’t understand why the evangelicals are even looking at the Republicans.

If you are most unhappy about environmental issues, about the US having the wrong international treaties and not having the right ones, you have a really nonviolent “why do we have troops abroad at all?” attitude… or you want to support a woman who is actually running for the presidency… vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green Ticket!

If you are most unhappy about corporate corruption and a lack of accountability, and are concerned about product safety… vote for Ralph Nader!  Yes, Nader is still around, and like all the candidates listed here is on the ballot in almost every state. He’s also still the strongest candidate in terms of potential to bring integrity and responsibility to Washington.

-------------------------

Now, probably many of you are thinking, “Hey, your guide just told me to vote for a ‘third party’ candidate, isn’t that wasting my vote?” The quick answer is “NO!” The long answer has three parts: First, you should vote for the person you agree with, that’s the whole point of elections. Second, the only wasted vote comes from not going to the polls. Third, all it takes for a third party to become a major party is enough votes. Even if your party doesn’t get elected this time, the more votes they get now, the closer they are to public funds, national debates, and all the other bennies they deserve for the next election. It is just impossible to waste a vote on a third party – the payoff may not be immediate, but it will come. As an added bonus, because you know the current candidate won’t win this election, you don’t even have to worry about them as a person. You’re trying to get the next candidate to be president four years from now, not this guy. For example, I’m not sure how many people would vote for Bob Barr if they thought he had a chance, but lots of people will vote for him to try to get the Libertarians the attention they disserve, and to ensure them a serious shot in the future.

In fact, if your just unhappy with both major parties and are having trouble figuring out why… just pick a third party, I don’t even care which one, and vote for them! Get all your friends to show up and vote for a random third party of their choice too! Look at it this way: If you vote for one of the major parties, and your candidate doesn’t win, the shape of politics in this country won’t change at all. In contrast, if you vote for a third party candidate, and they lose, you have still gotten the party a step closer to becoming a major player… and if one of them gets close, I guarantee you things will start to change. If everyone who was unhappy with the major parties voted for a third party candidate, then we would have real change… change anyone can believe in. In a strange sense, voting for a third party is the only way to make sure your vote makes a difference!

1:05am: Draft "survival of the fittest" paper

Reproduction of the Best Fitting: Not “Survival of the Fittest”

Still somewhat sloppy abstract:

The phrase “Survival of the fittest” is antithetical to understanding the theory of evolution as a theory. The phrase is typically used in two senses: The first meaning is used primarily in propagandist arguments. It states that stronger individual animals will live through individual encounters with a danger. Alas, while this meaning seems effective pedagogically, it does not accurately reflect the theory of evolution, and is empirically false. The second meaning is used primarily in mathematical modeling. It states that the genes which produce the-organisms-likely-to-have-the-most-offspring will be the genes most represented in future generations. Alas, this creates a tautology, and hence is an empirical and theoretical dead-end. In addition, these two meanings are rarely distinguished adequately – often stories based upon the first meaning are used as support for the second meaning. The fundamental thesis of evolutionary theory, that those organisms that fit their environment better have more offspring, is not adequately captured by either of these interpretations. Though it is less catchy, a phrase such as “Replacement by the better fitting” would promote a more accurate understanding of the theory of evolution.

………………….

Meaning 1 – Used in an immediate short term analysis

Survival: The organism lives through the immediate encounter with danger (survives to fight another day).

Fitness: Being strong. as in “After the exercise program, Bill was more fit than ever.”

Model 1: Two horned beetles fight over a territory, and one dies. When compared, it is found that the larger individuals remained unscathed, while the smaller individual was killed.

Model 2: A pride of lions goes on a hunting expedition and eat the wildebeest trailing at the end of the heard. When compared with the rest of the heard, the trailing one is found to be weakened, i.e., the eaten one had a broken leg and was dehydrated.

What’s good about this meaning: 1) It is clearly true (in a probabilistic fashion) in many natural situations. That is, there clearly are situations where brute strength is a primary determinant of survival. 2) It is clearly true in many artificial situations that are very important to humans. We have all encountered or been bullies, we have all seen boxing matches, etc. 3) Points 1 and 2 together allow people to easily over-generalize and accept that “survival of the fittest” could be a fundamental principle of nature. 4) If “survival of the fittest” is then thought to be the fundamental principle of evolution, then the presenter has been effective in convincing people that they believe in evolution.

What’s bad about this meaning: 1) It is only indirectly tied to natural selection. Natural selection is not about living a long life, it is about reproducing – in the long run no animal survives. 2) To make an indirect connection with natural selection, the additional (oft unspoken) assumption is made that those who live longer lives will also reproduce more. In some cases this is likely correct, but in others it is clearly wrong. Geldings often survive their entire “natural lives”, but they are not being favorably selected. 3) It is absolutely not true that reproductive rate always correlates with being larger, stronger, or any other such single trait. Much work has emerged looking at the relation between survival and reproduction under different circumstances (R vs. K selection), and it has been clearly demonstrated being very large, etc. is often disadvantageous (or just as good) when compared to being very small. 4) Similarly, this type of “survival of the fittest” is equally applicable after organisms have passed their reproductive age, and in other situations where reproduction will clearly not be benefited by further survival.

……………………………….

Meaning 2 – Used when modeling change over time

Survival: Representation of a gene in future generations (i.e. “It is really the gene that survives.”)

Fitness: The probability of reproduction (characterized by terms like “evolutionary fitness”)

Model 1: Assume that one organism has trait M and another has M+N. If N makes the organism more “evolutionarily fit” then organisms with N will come to characterize the population.

Model 2: Two types of trout are being observed, one has 5 spines on its back the other 3 spines. After watching for several generations, we see that 5-spine trout are becoming more numerous in the population. From this we conclude that the 5-pine trout are more “evolutionarily fit” than the 3-spine variety.

What’s good about this meaning: 1) It is clearly true, if only by definition. 2) If you are interested in modeling, and not evolutionary theory itself, it simplifies your explanatory burden greatly. 3) It seems plausible that a gene, taken as a given pattern of ribonucleic acid, could continue to exist for a very long period of time. This makes it seem reasonable to claim that it is, in fact, the gene that Survives (with a capital “s”).

What’s bad about this meaning: 1) The term “evolutionarily fit” is clearly a tautology. To say that an animal reproduces more “because” it is more evolutionary fit adds no new information, because evolutionary fitness is here defined as reproducing more. 2) Because it is a tautology, it cannot be useful as a theory; it offers nothing to investigate empirically, as it makes no testable predictions. 3) Researchers sometimes try to get past this problem by assuming that organisms are more “evolutionarily fit” because they better match their environment. However this move relegates what should be the central, empirical thing-to-be-investigated to being a mere auxiliary, axiomatic assumption.

…………………………

It is problematic when stories appropriate for Meaning 1 are used as arguments in favor of Meaning 2. This is, in essence, a bait and switch. The sales pitch goes: I convince you one bear is more fit than another bear because it is bigger and stronger, then tell you that it reproduced more because it is more fit. If you are still comfortable with that sentence, even after reading the section above, that proves the extent of the difficulty.

………………….

Meaning 3 – What it should mean (perhaps even, what it was intended to mean?!? )

The primary hypothesis of evolutionary theory

Survival: Representation in future generations (note, this is poorly conveyed by the term “survival”)

Fitness: A match to the environment, as in “The organism fits well in its niche.”

Model 1: Hermit crabs live inside discarded shells of other marine animals. When, for what ever reason, the range of shell sizes is limited, but the quantity is abundant, only certain crabs will fit properly in their shells as adults. By virtue of some benefit conveyed by good fit, the next generation of crabs will contain more individuals that fit the available shells properly.

Model 2: Some stick insects match the common trees of the forest better than others. Insectivorous birds that hunt in this area eat stick insects. Those that match better are less likely to be eaten, and therefore live to reproduce. In the long term, those insects that better match their environment become the sole representatives of the population.

What’s good about this meaning: 1) It accurately reflects evolutionary theory. 2) It makes a clear empirical prediction that can be wrong. Hence, it is useful.

What’s bad about this meaning: Nothing :- )

But it should be clear that it is hard to see this meaning in the phrase “survival of the fittest”. A better phrase might be something like “Replacement by the better fitting.”

12:43am: A simple eugenic polemic

A simple eugenic polemic

\

Eugenics is inevitable. Eugenics is everywhere. From major policy decisions and advertising trends to casual banter and tips for services, countless daily actions continue to shape the course of human evolution, altering the composition of future generations, for better or for worse.

 

It is a fact, as well established as any other that could be chosen, that the variation seen in each generation is a function of the patterns of breeding in the prior generation. The functions are not always as simple as was originally thought, but they are there. This has been true in every past generation of humans, it is true in the current generation of humans, it will be unavoidably true in any future generation of humans.  It is true whether or not anyone is performing any actions with the overt intention of altering future generations.

 

Still, I am not a genetic determinist; development is a fluid process, and parsing any part of it into a “genetic” part and an “environmental” part is silly and out dated. Those issues do not matter here because, in my function as a eugenicist, I am not interested in changes that occur during a life time. I am only interested in demographic changes in the population between lifetimes, i.e. across generations.

 

For descriptive purposes, a eugenic act may be defined as anything that changes the number of viable offspring had by any given pair of individuals. By that criterion, eugenic acts are a ubiquitous part of any social system. People my not be motivated to do something because of its eugenic effects, but that does not alter the effect of their actions. Hence, the argument that we should not do eugenic acts is absurd. At best, one could argue that we should not intentionally do eugenic acts, or, phrased a little differently, that we should not do any given action because of its eugenic effects. That is, there is resistance to accepting eugenics effects as a valid explanation for a given action. This resistance is so strong that it is almost certainly responsible for the failure to accept the commonness of acts that can be accurately described as eugenic.

 

This argument that intention relates to moral acceptability has backing in many philosophies of morality, but from the point of view of the eugenicist, the application of those arguments to this particular case seems very odd. It is odd because traditionally those arguments dealt with unforeseen outcomes. For example, they creep into our current legal system whenever we ask what a “reasonable man” might have expected to happen in a given situation. However, in the case of eugenic acts, the effects (generally speaking) would almost always be obvious to any “reasonable man” who took the time to think about them. Hence, one cannot help but think the moral philosopher is, in this case either a) argument that is better to systematically remain ignorant of these particular effects of our actions, or b) denying us the right to use that knowledge in the decision making process. Because eugenicists have historically been “men of science”, the idea that we should be purposefully ignorant or willfully negligent in our actions has been met with disdain. This leads to the conclusion that we should be aware of the eugenic effects of our actions, and that we should take those effects into account when deciding what to do.

 

One gets into further trouble if one simply argues that we should not do any eugenic actions. This is problematic because if doing something would have a eugenic effect, then it is simple to argue that not doing something would have an equally eugenic effect. Claiming that making a sitcom with all interracial couples would increase the number of interracial couples in the next generation is only possible because same-race couples predominate sitcoms so heavily. It should be clear that, if all sitcoms had interracial couples, then making a sitcom with no interracial couples would decrease the number of interracial couples in the next generation. Hence any decision as to what to do with the couples is equally eugenic from a descriptive point of view.

1:13pm: Anniversary Post
The nice lady who performed our wedding requested a bunch of information from us, including a story about our first fight. She insisted that we must have had one, and that the story must be interesting, so I did my best to accommodate. I believe I read it at our wedding dinner THREE YEARS AGO (tomorrow)!

First fight:

We had never really fought before, until this one day when Christi threw out half a burrito that was left over from Del Taco.  Not a small one, mind you, but one of the Macho Burritos, so you know there was a good chunk left.  I was totally taken aback, I was like, hey bitch, you think I am just made out of money or something.  Shit, I thought, maybe in huffy puffy Napa neighborhoods you can get away with shit like that, but not in Davis, not when I am a starving student just trying to make ends meat.  So I told that bitch she could live without gas for a week if she wanted to throw my money away, and she said that was fine, cause she just filled up the day before.  Well, you can imagine that I was even more ticked then, and I was trying to figure out where she got the money for that from.  So I started throwin shit around, and she held out for a while until she finally started bawlin and admitted her dad had given her a few bucks when he was in town over the weekend.  I told her that was cool, but she should have been straight with me to begin with, and she should know for next time not to throw out my burritos.  I was still pretty ticked, but I didn’t want to see the bitch cry no more, kinda puts a gloom on things.  So I told her that I was only yelling to try to help her out and get her to be honest, that we were in it together and all that bull crap.  After a bit she stopped and I had her nuke some dinner.  I think she got the message.

6:44pm: Thinking critically about critical thinking
Start of a probably never to be finished essay:

Times are sad when we think that critical thinking is an end, in and of itself. Surely we strive to teach critical thinking to students so that they can gain something via critical thinking. If that is the case, then we should never try to teach student’s “critical thinking”, instead we should try to teach them to think critically about particular things. It should be assumed that the best way to get any student to think critically about novel things, is to teach them to think critically about many particular things. To these ends, I would like to encourage students to think critically about critical thinking.

Those who have designed your curriculum, who because of their smug feeling of superiority believe you should not be trusted to guide your own education, have determined that it is important for you to “learn how to think critically”. This should immediately bring a number of questions to mind, and the answers to those questions are not obvious. 1) What are the varieties of thinking that are possible, and what makes the “critical” kind unique? 2)  How are the lives of people who can think critically better than the lives of people who cannot not think that way? 3) What is the relationship between “knowing” how to think critically and actually doing so? 4) Is it really true that you (the student) cannot think critically, and therefore must learn how to? 5) What theory of learning supports this method of teaching? 6) Can your parents think critically, and if so, when were they explicitly taught how to?

            Any teacher who intends to teach you “critical thinking skills”  should be forced, by you, to answer these questions, related questions, and any follow up questions necessary if the answer are not to your satisfaction. If they cannot or will not do this, they are clearly either hypocritical or, worse, simply unqualified to be helping you with this subject.

10:46am: The Bipi
Well a girl who cries when it’s not too late
Is probably a baby.
And a girl who cries for a two hour bout
Is definitely fussy.
But a girl who cries with a shrill piercing sound,
Head turning red, feet flailing around!
See the tears a pouring down -- she's needs
The Bipi! The Bipi! The Bipi! The Bipi!

The Baby’s is upset!

The Bipi!
The Bipi
The Bipi

But you can get sleep yet.

Walk her once just to try to calm her,
Walk around twice I’ll pay you a dollar.
Once more round the kitchen island.
You’ll keep doing more,
'till it's hard to sta-and.

Do re me fa so la si
Do si la sol fa mi re do

Squeeze her once when she’s a cooking,
If you get a toot back, then that’s a good thing,
Once more for a poopy diaper,
If you get more then you’ll need to wipe her.

Do re me fa sol la si
Do si do

The Bipi!
The Bipi!
The Bipi!

The baby is upset.

The Bipi!
The Bipi!
The Bipi!

But you can get sleep yet.

The Bipi, The Bipi, The Bipi!
The baby is upset.
The Bipi,
The Bipi, The Bipi, but you can get sleep yet.
You can get sleep yet!
The Bipi!

5:57pm: notes on descriptive mentalism - inference

Part of the massive confusion as to the role of inference in guiding behavior, on the part of both psychologists and philosophers, is a slippage between causal and descriptive mentalism. There are ways of defining “inference” descriptively that are a) not an abuse of the term and b) make it obviously involved in the process of perceiving/acting. However, almost no one wants the terms to remain purely descriptive, and so the slippage continues.

It has been claimed (Hess, XXXX; Thompson, XXXX) that all explanations entail a model situation. That is, a model situation is offered which is known to share particular similarities with the target situation, and it is further asserted that other aspects of the model situation match the target situation. Whether or not that is true, offering explicit models in that form can certainly help facilitate understanding. Hence I will offer a model and target situations for “inference”.

--------------------------------- 

Model Situation: I am sitting with my grandmother, in a house with the shutters closed, in the woods. I hear a chaotic pattering sound upon the roof and say “I wonder if it’s raining”. Indistinguishable sounds are sometimes caused by rain, sometimes by a flurry of falling leaves and nuts. I check the paper and say “It says rains likely”. I check the barometer and say “This reads ‘rain’”. I then looked at a calendar and say “Its not nut season”. Then I return to my original chair saying “Yup, I it’s raining”.

I think this would meet most anyone’s criterion of an inferential process. More importantly, for the present purposes: My grandmother, observing all of this, would likely report that I had inferred it is raining. That is, she would have described the process I went through as an inferential one, in so much as I had incomplete information, I weighed the evidence, and from that I drew a conclusion.

Target situation: I am sitting at home with my dog, while my wife is running errands. A car pulls up in the driveway. My dog starts racing around the door excitedly.

Here now, the problems start. The cognitivist declares that the dog inferred its owner was home. The anti-cognitivist asserts that it was merely responding to the sound of the car and there is no need to bring any mental functions so-called into it. The entire argument then revolves around the false assumption that claiming “the dog inferred” is an attempt at explaining its behavior, rather than simply describing it. Both parties are in complete agreement that the dog acted as it would if the wife had arrived, and both agree that the sound does not invariably guarantee that the wife is home. If that description is all the term “inferred” is meant to imply, to imply the an objective parallel between the dogs running-to-the-door behavior and my saying-it-is-raining behavior, then there is nothing to argue about.

NOTE: Hence “inference” means only that, to the particular outside observer applying the label, it appears as if a decision was made based on imperfect information. The term “inference” thereby does not denote a separate entity which occurred during the events, it is not a step in the causal process, it is not an activity that occurs within a part of the brain; it is a description highlighting specific observed occurrences.

No Descriptive Mentalist need endorse the particular definition of inference put forth here. It should be clear however that what is being offered is a description of what happened, not a causal explanation for it. The definition is not offered to be correct in any absolute sense, but to characterize a recurrent problem in the literature and a viable solution.

1:26am: Rejected Second Attempt For Chronicle Job Search Diary

Searching for the dream job, while trying to stop dreaming

 

My dream was not unique: a small liberal arts college that requires a balance of teaching, research, and service, with smart, motivated students and supportive colleagues. But reality is hitting me harder everyday, with every application I prepare and send out. The jobs are few, the number of fellow applicants is large, the competition is fierce. Feeling a bit beat up by the nervousness and doubts, the soul searching has started to kick in. It is time to reevaluate my dream; not necessarily to reject it, but to try to understand where it came from, and in what ways it is still relevant.

 

People can have the same dream for different reasons. My reasons have certainly changed over the years, as I have come to know myself better. At first it was just an issue of familiarity and the superficial appearance of ease and luxury. Like many with the dream, I started in a small liberal arts college, befriended professors there, saw their lives, and glimpsed the inner workings of the place. There was good and bad, but the good seemed overwhelming. And of course, as they were the only thing I knew, such places had the allure of familiarity and comfort. My positive memories of the small liberal arts college were soon contrasted with the culture shock I experienced upon entering graduate school at a huge research institution. The general disregard for the undergrads, the myopic emphasis on research productivity, and the disdain for taking part in the larger university community were disorienting and felt foreign.

 

Seven years later my situation is quite different. I understand the powerful research university. It too is familiar. It too has its good and bad. Most of my friends are seeking, and some are getting, “research one” jobs. Why aren’t I searching for one? It is certainly the expectation of my advisors, and the wish of many relatives. Shouldn’t I want the most prestigious, most high profile, most research intensive job I can get? Is there something wrong with me?

 

--------------

 

No, and there is nothing wrong with you either. Different people fit different places. Nobody wants to be somewhere they don’t fit, and no institution wants to hire someone who doesn’t fit. On the other hand, people change and dreams should change with them. The question is, “Does the dream you had long ago make sense for who you are now?” It is a question I am struggling with, hard. It is a question that will greatly affect what jobs I apply for, and how I approach the application process in general. I have changed a lot in the last few years, it is time to retake stock of who I am and reevaluate what my dream should be.

 

Who am I?

Late 20’s, married, just had a baby. Background in animal behavior, Ph.D. in psychology, infant development. One year left on an NIH post-doc. Family on both coasts. Solid, but not prolific, teaching experience; solid, but not systematic, publication record; solid, really solid, funding history. Zealously academic. White, male, American, able to relocate, looking for an institution interested in a long-term relationship. I prefer a good book and lively discussion to long walks on the beach. Oh, and I really need a job!

 

As much as the dream starts to fall apart under the shear pressure of the last statement, something still holds most of the pieces in form. I need to dig deeper. Who am I from the perspective of a hiring institution? How does my hodge-podge of experiences fit together? Or perhaps, a better way to phrase that is: What has my past experience best designed me to do? What should I be looking for?

 

Reexamining my dream, I searched for the single most important factor. Which element would I be most sad to not have in my future? Here is where the many people, who ostensibly share the same dream, will start to part ways. Personally, my revelation came in a negative form, rather than a positive one. Despite the efforts of my graduate school to mold me into the perfect “research one” candidate, I am not driven by research. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy doing research and have been successful in my efforts. However, my biggest fear is ending up at a university where my time spent being a good teacher would count against me.

 

What does this realization do to the rest of my dream? It changes it. Some parts of the old dream are reinforced, some altered, and others cast aside completely.

 

Reinforced is my search for a school with a balance of obligations, but the reasoning behind that has changed. Rather than being an assortment of activities, a variety to keep me amused, they start to seem like a coherent whole. Much of my occasional dissatisfaction with research as a graduate student was its lack of connection with the rest of my professional life. My current post-doctoral research was partially designed to generate projects on which undergraduates could collaborate more easily, and I am a lot happier and more motivated. Research fits my life most comfortably as an instructional tool, a part of my role as a teacher.

 

Altered are my views on smart students and supportive colleagues; they are no longer something I see an employer providing for me. Instead, what I need are the time and resources to help make smart students, and colleagues, willing to interact. From their, making the interactions positive and productive is part of my burden. My desire for smart students in my class, and colleagues that support my goals no longer stands in a vacuum – it is an extension of my desire for students and colleagues that can benefit from me. I want to be able to care about those I interact with, students, colleagues, staff, heck, even the administration. Certainly that is unrealistic in all cases; but, when I don’t care for someone, I would like it to be because of who they are, not because the social structure of the University encourages it.

 

Abandoned entirely are my views on the size or general category of the school. Granted, I seek a situation like the one I saw at my original small liberal arts college, but the virtues I seek are not uniquely theirs. The professors I remember from my undergraduate days did not have easy or luxurious lives; they had lives focused around the things I find engaging and motivating. Suddenly my options seem to broaden. The same situation can be found in large schools, in dedicated teaching schools, and even some of the best research schools.

 

After all the reorganization is done, the key factor of my dream seems to be an institutional and departmental attitude: an attitude that encourages education at all levels, and that allows for, if not directly encourages, positive interactions between colleagues.

 

But wait! Attitudes are somewhat transient things; they come and go from a place. Some institutions last for a hundred years practicing those values seemingly effortlessly, others must consciously struggle to keep them, still others try and fail, or don’t specifically value them at all. More importantly, perhaps, those attitudes are products of the people who are at those places. They exist within a plethora of small, individual interactions, interactions of which I hope to be a part. I am confident in my ability to create those interactions, on a small scale, if not through a whole institution. If I can do that, I don’t need a dream at all! Maybe it is time to stop dreaming.

 

--------------

 

“Stop dreaming” doesn’t mean giving up hope: It means understanding that things can work out well even when dreams don’t come true, realizing that your dreams were narrowing your vision of happiness and success beyond reason. Sure, I’m still looking for that “dream job”, but I don’t feel the pressure to find the mythical perfect fit. Instead I feel the pressure to become more adaptable, to be able to fit perfectly the place that I end up, wherever it may be.

 

4:23pm: A contribution to SCA filk songs

I'm my own vassal

(You know the tune)

I’m my own vassal,

I’m my own vassal,

It sounds funny I know,

But it really is so,

I’m my own vassal

 

Now many, many years ago, when I was just nineteen,

I was squired to a rhino that knighthood had not seen,

I moved off to Aethelmarc and soon my belt did change,

I got myself a squire and swore Sylvan kings would reign.

 

(Chorus)

 

My squire settled in the East and tightened up his game,

In two years he made crown finals n’ the heralds yelled his name.

The rhino too had proved himself, his reputation grown,

My squire did grant him knighthood while he sat on the throne.

 

(Chorus)

 

 

The rhino is the grandknight unto the man I trained,

But he’s also the protector of the king who gave him fame,

To complicate the matter, though it makes me feel glum,

Rhino moved into Midrealm and his stick began to hum.

 

 

(Chorus)

 

 

Fealty of I owe course to my knight and to my king,

My knight owes his unto the east, ‘nd my squire unto me.

It’s getting plenty hard to see my allegiance as mine own,

While my squire and my knight sit upon opposing thrones

 

(Chorus)

 

 

Now we’re off to Pennsic War with battles to be won,

And under the August sun my mind will be undone,

For each of us did swear an oath unto our very squire,

That we would smite their enemies whenever they require.

 

(Chorus)

 

 

With three kings that I must defend, what was I to do?

I’m the enemy of my enemy’s enemy both of whom I swore to slew?

So I ran upon the battle field and fell upon my sword,

The only way I could fulfill the oath that I now abhorred.

 

I’m my own vassal,

I’m my own vassal,

It sounds funny I know,

But it really is so,

I’m my own vassal

8:04pm: Clearly

We often get away with saying things such as “Clearly, this act is communicative”. The word “Clearly” plays an odd function in such sentences. One would think the term was pointing out that the preceding paragraphs would have established everything necessary to remove the opacity from the sentence, but in fact it means the opposite. Most often, words of this sort are used to hide clearly troublesome statements; they are employed most often when, in fact, the claim to follow is not clear at all. Instead of pointing out clarity or obviousness, it serves as a plea to the reader to believe the claim!

 

So, a recommendation to all readers is -

Whenever you see such a phrase ask your self which of the following is most likely meant:

“We wish it were clear that …”

“We thus thought that …”

“Please believe us that …

“It is clear that …”

 

The more often the latter works, the better the writer.

9:18pm: BLITEOTW

Like it was said, I always new it would start in Worcester. I always knew, because I started it. This isn’t any kind of world to bring a child into. We need a world where we have control. Even if there is only desolation when this is through, it will be desolation with control.

 

Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that the second wave of attacks started in Davis? Didn’t our packages just arrive the day before? Can’t these people connect the dots? Of course not, and that’s why this happened.  

 

You’d be surprised the amount of biomedical work that goes on here. 12 colleges, medical and pharmacy school, and it isn’t hard to get into the “right” circles. Spread a little money around, help out on a few successful grant applications, and pretty soon everyone’s doing your project, and they don’t even know it.

 

The only catch is that it starts of airborne, and the timing can be tricky. Maybe a bit gets to the weak members of Woodland or Sacramento before it finds the right people in Davis. I suppose it just helps throw them off the track. Either way it spreads fast enough. Add some relatives near DC and New York, and that should get it spread nationally and internationally in no time. I’m not even sure the occult rituals were necessary… but they sure were fun, so no regrets.

 

Every thing will settle down soon. The earth will breath a sigh of relief with about a fifth of the human population. Oh, and did I mention the control.  It will be nice.

9:15am: Part 2

Behaviorism and Ethics - Part 2

 

Remember, I am not asking about what would happen in these situations, or what the law requires. I am asking you to make an ethical judgment as to who should be held responsible for the actions that took place, and to what degree.  

 

Scenario 1:

Billy lives way out in the country with his 4 sons. They play a game that involves a special slightly-squishy bright-orange ball - it is the only bright “orange thing they within 50 miles, and it is the only ball around. Whenever someone finds the ball they throw it at the nearest other person, who in turn must grab the nearest swingable object and hit the ball. Each of the children learned how to play this game when very young through a combination of imitation and shaping. By now they are all very good at it and get strongly reinforced only for hitting the ball hard, misses and weak hits are not reinforced. A correct response must be very quick and exact. One day, when the children are 5, 10, 15, and 20 respectively, Billy takes them into the city for the first time. They go to a pool hall, where the damnedest thing happens. Each of the children is standing next to a different table when a 5-ball (which is bright orange) gets knocked off the table towards them. Each child instantly grabs a nearby pool cue, hits their ball through the bar windows, and dent a customer’s car. By the time the police arrive half-an-hour later the children are already quite distressed and fearful. Who, if anyone should be, punished for the damage done to the 4 windows and 4 cars?

 

Deeper Questions:

(Presuming your answer differed depending on the child) At what age should you be responsible for not having had the experiences necessary to behave correctly?

 

(Presuming you held the father responsible for at least some of the damage) Why should the father be responsible for not having had the experiences necessary to behave correctly?

 

Would your answers be any different if the objects involved moved slower? (i.e., What if they had to hit feathers with a stick, and someone with a feather stuck to their jacket walked by?) 

 

Scenario 2:

Even more bizarre, two 18 year olds are also in the pool hall, one with a normal behavioral repertoire one with an autistic behavioral repertoire. Immediately after the four kids above broke their windows, two 5 balls jumped off the table at these unsuspecting children, and each one grabbed the nearest stick hit the ball, broke a window, and dented a car. The autistic child’s mother felt horrible, and explained that her son was is a generalized imitation training program in which he had been systematically trained to imitate observed behaviors. The normal child’s mother was dumbfounded because her child had never done such a blatantly destructive thing before and she couldn’t imagine why he would start now. Both children received an immediate reprimand, but the barkeep and car owners want more.  Who, if anyone should be, held responsible for the damage done to the 2 windows and 2 cars?

 

Deeper Questions:

Why should an “autistic” be held less responsible for having inappropriate experiences than a “normal”?

 

Would it change any of your answers above (to either scenario) if the offenders were from a country in which such behaviors were considered appropriate and encouraged?

 

Power Questions:

Given that all behaviors have antecedent causes, why does explicit knowledge of an obvious cause affect any of your answers?

 

Would it make a difference if I told you that each of these “children” were really well trained chimps?

4:19pm: Paper prepared for class discussion

Scenario 1:
At an art exhibit, a small child is shoved by an adult into a pillar supporting a $25,000 vase. The vase falls to the ground and shatters. What punishment, if any, should the child receive? What punishment, if any, should the adult receive? Why?

Scenario 2:
Billy’s father is a stay-at-home dad and a painter. He paints on wood and Billy loves to watch him. Sometimes they play a “game” where Billy tries to poke the painting his dad is working on, and his dad playfully stops him. This can easily produce 20-30 minutes of laughter. Sometimes Billy does manages to poke the work, but it never causes any harm because wood is very hard and it is easy for his dad to repaint any smudges he might cause. One day Billy’s dad takes him to an art show his friend is putting on at a local museum. Shortly after they arrive, Billy looks expectantly at his father, laughs, runs up to one of the paintings and pokes his finger right through the canvas! What punishment, if any, should the child receive? What punishment, if any, should the adult receive? Why?

Scenario 3:
Tim was a bitter artist, he hated the other artists in his home town because of their success and wanted revenge. Knowing behaviorist principles he spent a year conditioning his daughter to respond to the discriminative stimulus “Isn’t that a beautiful painting?”. Whenever his daughter heard that phase she would run up to the nearest painting and lick it repeatedly. On the first day that Tim unleashed his little monster the child did several hundred dollars worth of damage and ruined the opening show of one of the city’s premier artists. What punishment, if any, should the child receive? What punishment, if any, should the adult receive? Why?

Scenario 4:
George was never a violent person until he started hanging out with Smith, and older man who had been in and out of prison many times. Smith started George out light, whenever George chickened out of a fight Smith would punish him, and whenever George was willing to fight Smith would make sure the other person backed down or that George won. Further, after George won a fight, Smith and the other men around showered George with reinforcement. Pretty soon George was an experienced fighter; Smith didn’t need to help him take down his opponents and many backed off from the start. Of course, this type of behavior was mostly limited to bars and back alleys. One day in school however a fellow student bumped into George and told him to “back off”. George turned around and broke his nose. Alas, this time it was in a school and within an hour he found himself in the principles office with his parents and a police officer present. What punishment, if any, should the child (George) receive? What punishment, if any, should the adult (Smith) receive? Why?

Scenario 5:
You read in the paper that one of your old high school buddies was caught robbing a liquor store. At the age of 27, he apparently stole $1,500 and shot a clerk in the leg. They caught him a weak later using a stolen credit card to buy gas. What punishment, if any, should he receive? Why?

3:15pm: We should all see Steve Irwin die
.
This morning it was announced that the only remaining video footage of Steve Irwin dieing was given to his wife, who has never watched it and fears it may otherwise fall into the “wrong hands”. For those who don’t know, Steve Irwin was the “Crocodile Hunter”: He had a very successful nature documentary and children’s educational programs about animals. He was famous for jumping on the back of crocodiles, grabbing incredibly venomous snakes, saying “Crycy” when attacks narrowly missed him, and all without any protective gear. In some bizarre way, despite publicizing and glorifying behavior that would be foolish if done by anyone else, Steve managed to convey positive messages: He talked convincingly about respecting the animals and nature, of the delicate balance needed to keep our world healthy, and of the dangers he was putting himself in. Unlike many modern “extreme” programs, you could never believe that Steve was endorsing this kind of behavior in others and you always learned something watching. Steve was killed late last year in a freak accident where, during an underwater shoot, a stingray managed to thrust its barb directly into his heart.

For many, Steve Irwin is the human incarnation of Respect for Nature; what David Attenborough was for a generation earlier. That is why I think I should see him die, why I think you should see him die, why I think we should all have the opportunity to see him die. If he had a stroke, or fell down the stairs, it would be different. This is not a snuff film; it is a lesson, the culmination of all the lessons Steve put into his show. Steve spent his life trying to teach people to respect nature. Would he have shied away from showing it? I can’t answer that.

Still, his wife’s position is reasonable. The situation is tragic and painful. I can understand even more why his wife wouldn’t have the heart to put it into an episode, or to give it the cheery narrative overlay the show was known for. Yet, I still have hope that one day, perhaps after the initial sting of the tragedy has subsided, the tape will be released. Though can imagine disrespectful thing the “wrong hands” could do, I think the major effect of the tapes being released is that many people would see them. We would get to see the man who tempted fate countless times finally falling prey to the Nature he so loved. Maybe, just maybe, one of those “wrong hands” will have the patients to make a high-quality narration using of snippets of Steve’s own voice.

“Crycy, we can see why these little bugga’s are so dangerous!” – I think that is what Steve would have wanted.

6:35pm: Teaching
.
I do not believe that good teaching has any necessary connection with student’s in-class happiness, yet I am faced with a system in which I am judged purely on the basis of student happiness.

Most people are a tad more generous than I am. I have had numerous discussions, with people I believe to be honestly representing their opinions who tell me things like “Students learn better when they are enjoying class”, “If the student isn’t interested, they won’t learn”, and “A good teacher spreads their enthusiasm to the students in their class”. Further, clichés such as these can be found in countless well meaning handbooks on teaching that seem focused on increasing student enjoyment. However, we have all learned things when we were miserable, when we were not interested, and from teachers who were not very enthusiastic. Even more damning, research has shown that teachers make adjustments to increase student happiness even when they think the students will learn less thereby. In the extreme, all should be willing to admit that too much focus on student happiness can interfere with student education.

Admitted, I am a bit abrasive, adversarial, and antagonistic, but I am not advocating we try to make students unhappy. Rather, I am suggesting that we do whatever is most effective in teaching, whether that makes the student happy or not. This is especially important when faced with students who do not wish to learn. Yet, I am not advocating that anyone be forced to learn, especially at the college level. If students don’t want to learn, they should not be wasting their time, or my time, in class. I would happily suggest this rule be applied down through at least high school, if state mandates for compulsory education did not give me pause. Students who wish to learn should have the right to be taught effectively, and teachers should not have to compromise their teaching ability in order to appease students. While I have never heard anyone explicitly argue against this, professors are faced with a system that implicitly encourages poor teaching.

There are two primary reasons why effective teaching cannot be done. First, students can “vote with their feet” – if they get unhappy enough, they will leave and I will be left without a class. I must admit that I am not sure how much of a problem this is, as a) students seem remarkably resilient to any signs that it is in their best interest to leave a class, and b) most methods that push students to this point are likely to also be ineffective in teaching. Second, and most insidious, I am graded, as a teacher, primarily based upon how happy my students are. Psychology has a long history of studying what factors underlie the variance in students ratings of teachers; the most consistent result in this literature is that teacher ratings correlate most highly with how well students like their professor at the moment the evaluations are given. There is even ample evidence that certain objective measures of teaching success, such as how well students do on a class-content based exam, correlate negatively with teacher ratings – often students who learned more rate their teachers’ teaching as worse.

So, what’s a guy to do?

7:35pm: .
.
To whom it may concern,
If this letter is addressed to you: Please, cease and desist at once. Your concern has no place here. If there is even the slightest chance that it concerns you, there has been some terrible mistake which should be remedied at once. The things you permit to alarm you, the things about which you are willing to be vigilant, are so trite and trivial it baffles the mind. Whether it be some error of circumstance or upbringing that has brought you to this position, I urge you to heed this message and seek some much needed perspective.

Many things in the world are of serious importance to specific people. You are almost certainly not one of them. If you are, you probably have identified the wrong things. We have all been taught since youth to be worried about things. Even if we were not taught, I suspect the human mind would generate topics of concern spontaneously. This seems reasonable enough, as early in life, and back in our ancient past, there were a limitless supply of concerns worth our ardent attention. True, some people are still children, some people live in conditions much akin to our ancient past, but they are not the addressees. No, if you may be concerned with this, your priorities are seriously screwed up.

You must realize, first and foremost, that your concern does no good. Concern is a funny thing, far from indifference, but also far from repulsion, reprehension, or resolution. It seems as if it has become fashionable for people to sit in their homes and fervently practice being concerned. They then brag about their ability to be concerned to any who will listen, and compete with others to see who can be the most concerned about the most things. This concern seethes from them, causing them to assault others with the concerns, but rarely those who have any ability to address the cause of the concern. Even when, by happenstance, the correct person is assailed, it is rarely in the manner that would induce them to bring remedy. Nay, only when combined with the power of a group effort can those in power be persuaded. Yet group effort is increasingly unpopular in today’s society and can rarely be garnered for anything except imposing trivial rules on benign out-groups. When issues of real importance gain salience on a group level there are usually too many intelligent ways of remedying the situation for the mob to move in any one direction. Hence, your concern will not increase the probability of change, and even when change follows your concern, it is unlikely to relieve the underlying cause.

Not only is your concern ineffective in remedying any real problems, there is strong evidence that it is bad for your health. Every day new studies are published showing that the physiological correlates of worry, stress, and anger lead to wrinkles, heart attacks, and general unpleasantries of the body. In addition, concerned people end up in jail everyday because their concern drove them to do something stupid. Similarly, concerned people end up in the hospital everyday because their concern drove them into the path of some one else whose concerns drove them to stupidity.

Further, I am not sure what it is that you should be so up in a huff about it. Your lives are, by all reasonable measures, leaps and bounds better than you are letting on. No one concerned about the contents of this letter could possibly be starving, freezing, or actually working for a living. Seriously, it is a letter; if you can read it you should probably know better.

In conclusion, those of you whom it may concern should not be concerned. Those who are not at risk of it concerning you should be thankful. If you were not one of the intended recipient of this letter, I apologize for the inconvenience, however, it should be clear that unrequited concern is so rampant in today’s society that you can never be to careful.

Yours in service,

A Concerned Citizen

6:05pm: When words get in the way
In theory, at some ambiguously later time, I will elaborate on this, but here are some first thoughts.



- - - When Words get in the Way of a Good Discussion - - -

I consider it a first principle of inquiry that “Words are often misleading.”

How can this be?

Words often obscure the phenomenon in question. This can happen in two ways: People can be using different words to refer to the same phenomenon, or people can be using the same word to refer to different phenomenon. The solution to such a dilemma, if it can be recognized as such, is to appeal to the phenomenon directly.

For example, hypothetically, we could have an argument about whether humans are still being affected (effected?) by natural selection. The debate would could hinge upon the word “natural”. That is, we could both look at a given example and one say “See, there is proof that humans are still affected by NATURAL selection.” Yet the other would reply, “What are you talking about? That isn’t NATURAL at all!” If this occurs for a few examples in a row, it is probably time to determine if we are arguing over anything but the use of the word “natural”.

We need to step back and look at the phenomenon in question. Are we in agreement over exactly what IS happening to modern humans?

If we do not agree as to the phenomenon in question, then the word “natural” should be dropped from the discussion completely UNTIL consensus can be reached as to what is happening. Do we agree, for example, that all humans do not reproduce equally, and that said reproductive differences are related to inheritable traits? Do we agree that such effects cause systematic genetic changes in the make-up of the population? Do we agree that some of the differential in reproduction is caused by acts of other humans intent upon influencing the gene pool, and that some occur otherwise? Do we agree that evolution is possible without the fixation of traits? How much has the gene pool been effected by different historic events? The cultivation of plants, the Mongolian invasions of Europe, the evolution of syphilis, widespread ingestion of dairy products, the availability of make up, immigration to regions of colder temperatures, floods, earthquakes, the dust bowl, bringing small pox to America. On and on… until we are in agreement, or at least know the points of disagreement. If agreement is made, see below. If agreement is not made, then admit the disagreement is over an empirical question and hence can only be solved by investigation, not by rhetoric.

If we agree as to the phenomenon in question, then we must accept that we are in almost total agreement. This is difficult, because people like to argue over trivialities, and accepting common ground interferes with that. We are hence confronted with the troublesome decision as to how much we care about the label, and if it is worth our time and trouble to argue about it. Is there a reason why the word “Natural” would be worthy of such effort? Would the class be advanced by it? Do I mind if you use the word differently than I do, now that I know what you mean by it? How much am I convinced that my usage is, in any absolute sense, “correct”? On and on…. until we agree on a usage of the word, or at least know the points of disagreement. If agreement is made, rejoice. If agreement is not made, then at least you know the points of disagreement and know that they are, at some level, disagreements over the use of an arbitrary label.

9:19pm: Small Women
“Why was he so obsessed with small women?”

I had been fixated by that question for the past year, maybe longer. It was three summers back that I was asked to write a short piece on Martin Lamont, the cartoonist. You might not know his name, but you’d recognize his stuff if you saw it – at least that was my experience. I had seen it in magazines, and a friend had one of his coffee table books. He draws funny social commentary; pen and ink stuff, usually a bit edgy. He is iconic for his drawings of tall men with short women. The men are tall and athletic, but not too bulky, always with a hint of desire. The women are well proportioned, attractive, and about half their size, always with a hint of powerfulness. That was pretty much all I knew when I started.

A quick scan of the archives found a few biographic articles from early in his career and some treatments of his work by art critics. He was a recluse and full of the eccentric quirks people love to find out that artists have. He was an obsessive fan of baroque music, and it was rumored he had attended concerts of every major orchestra in the world and ranked them based on the quality of their oboe section, an instrument he had learned to play in middle school, but never touched sense. He kept parrots as pets but would get rid of them if they learned to talk, and one interviewer was thrown out after asking if “Polly want a cracker?” The art critics either praised his work for pushing the envelope, or criticized it for being crude and cliché. None of them mentioned the women, maybe that was why I missed it.

By the time my research was complete I was getting pretty desperate for an interview. It wasn’t easy to get, but the man was interesting enough that it was worth fighting for. Without one, it was a just another article; with one, especially with a few pictures, it was a cover story. At some point, between the pestering of his agent and the letters of appeal, I got my foot in the door. The appointment was made for two months out, and I had to agree to keep the address confidential and not eat meat for three days preceding.

He had two homes. The first was a city apartment in an elite high rise where, so far as anyone could tell, he spent little time. The second was a medium sized, but quite expensive looking home built on his family’s old vacation property in the country. It had a feeling of Frank Lloyd Wright, and I had the impression that either Martin had designed it himself, or someone had designed it based on some of the buildings in his early comics. On his front door was posted a piece of paper, in a plastic frame that would allow it to be changed easily. It said in large letters “Knock”, under which was written a short piece of music. “Clunk…… clunk, clunk… clunk, clunk, clunk”, nothing. I tried again, “clunk…… clunk, clunk… clunk, clunk, clunk”, still nothing. I glanced around the side and saw two other cars, one of which had obviously been driven recently. Around the other side I could begin to smell something baking when I thought I heard the door open and close quickly. As I approached the porch, empty as I left it, I could see a scribble on the note. Under the last note, the word “forte” was now conspicuously circled. I slapped my hand to my head, gave myself a moment of composure and tried again, “clunk…… clunk, clunk… clunk, clunk, BANG”. After a short pause a distant voice yelled, “Just a minute!”

He answered the door dressed in khakis and a white T-shirt covered by a silk Art-Nuevo print bath robe with a book sticking slightly out of the right pocket. Though he slouched, I suspect he was a few inches shorter than me, about five-five, probably a hundred and thirty pounds. “I hope you weren’t waiting long,” he said, and ushered me into a front room filled with orchids. From there the tour of the house commenced and I was shown brief flashes of fascinating rooms, all visible for too short a time to inquire upon. He seemed to know exactly how quickly to push me along so that it could never quite sink in. I couldn’t help but think that my presence was a bit of a disturbance, an obligation he felt some formal need to fulfill. We ended up in the back room, which attached to a patio overlooking a long, tree ringed field that was already stocked with a tea set and assorted pastries. “Well, that should do it,” he said, “now we will have a quick sup and you’ll be off.”

When I entered the veranda, I saw a large red and green parrot in a cage on the far corner, which I acknowledged with a nod. Seeing this, Martin whistled a tune which the parrot finished. It was late-baroque, somewhat familiar. “Georg Telemann?” I asked, and his sudden pause and slow smile affirmed it. From that point forward, the interview was smooth sailing.

We talked the most about his life. Anecdotes abounded of childhood debauchery and college soul searching, as well as his sense of connection with, yet alienation from, musicians. His political views were violently held, and in the discussions of current events I got many previews of the works I would see in magazines the coming autumn. We also talked about the adventures of his characters, how he thought about them (“They are real.”), where he thought they were going (with a wink, “I don’t, until they get there.”), and why people are so attracted to them (“Because they are people themselves”). I never asked him why they were who they were, but, again, it did not yet seem important.

After four hours of banter, I bid him a cheerful goodnight. The experience was wonderful and hence, so was the article. My editor loved it and I earned my first cover. The letters written into the paper mostly asked for further information, though at least one railed us for dedicating such a prominent position to a “no talent hack.” My friends in the local book biz tell me that they couldn’t stock his work fast enough during the months after the article came out.

Despite this success, I am haunted by the one question I didn’t ask, the one about the small women. They were everywhere in my research, and it was an obvious question, but it didn’t have any meaning for me. It wasn’t until a few months after the interview that I noticed I was watching them. Not the ones in the comic, but the real ones. Like most men, I had always liked women shorter than myself, but it used to be that a couple of inches was good enough. Now, I don’t even consider going after a girl that isn’t at least a foot shorter than me. When I see a taller woman I know is attractive, I just can’t make myself interested. I even had an ex come into town who’s one of the most fun women I’ve ever known, and it was pulling teeth to get myself going.

What is it about them? Why did the constant exposure to Martin’s work do this to me? The question always comes back to him – why does he do it? Do I understand something more about him when I do it? Is that why I do it? For the past year, whenever my thoughts wander, this is where they go. For the past six months I have been trying to get another interview. For the past three months I have been counting the days to the arranged date. Ten minutes ago I was back on his porch, knocking, trying to get the pattern right. Five minutes ago we arrived at the veranda and went through our pleasantries, he apologized that the food was not yet ready.

“What do you want to know this time?” he asked.

Without a pause, and with more urgency and accusation than professionalism, and a hint of desperation on my face, it came out: “Why are you so obsessed with small women?”

The pause was awkward, made more so by my obvious anticipation. His head tilted to the side with a smirk, then his brow slightly curled. Almost simultaneously I heard a rustle inside the house and our tea arrived, carried by an athletically built man of at least seven feet.

“George,” Martin asked, “am I obsessed with small women?”