A Critical Odyssey

Being Authentic for others

2009-05-16T05:01:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen a stranger smile and smiled yourself? I have, and you almost certainly have too – unless you have something like a cleft lip deformity.

We all are influenced, more or less, by what others around us say and do. If someone does something it makes it much easier for others to copy or reciprocate. You may want to smile/dance/sing etc and someone else doing that makes the whole thing much easier.
The people that I really like are those who do not care about what others think, in a positive way (more on this later dudes), who have bubbly personalities, smile and are warm. Why? Because I want to be friendly, I want to smile and I want to have a connection with other people. I want to be authentic and true to myself. Being around other people who embody this make the whole process much easier (and fun!).

My point is this: those who live authentically, wholly, with warmth and love give a great gift to everyone else – ie they make it easier to do the same.

I ran a project called smile a day – where I tried to do something new everyday to help others (and get at the very least a metaphorical smile). I had fun doing it and learned some cool stuff. One thing I learned relates to this: if you want to be kind there is no need necessarily do extra things for others, one of the greatest gifts we can give others is to do with how we relate to them and the example we set them.

The Four Noble Truths

2009-04-03T15:53:00.000-07:00

1) Life is suffering

Suffering (both physical and mental) is an intrinsic part of life. Just as birth, sickness, old age and death are inevitable parts of life. The good times never last for everything is impermanent, and sooner or later the good times will become boring or end. Life is intrinsically imperfect because everything is in constant flux.

Suffering is called dukkha which is better translated as unsatisfactoriness. What this truth has in mind is the frustration, pain and disappointment that comes with not getting what you wanted or not having your expectations met.

Identity: a collection of perspectives

2009-03-28T10:20:00.000-07:00

Here's a collection of perspectives on identity, all of which I think are right.

Overcoming Bias:

Identity gets in the way of reason. If our identity is tied to certain beliefs then we suspend reason when we think/read material that support our beliefs and are overly critical/dismissive when we come across challenging material. There was an experiment that supports this claim (I can't recall the authors' names or the source though): participants were asked to assess evidence that supported and undermined the death penalty and there was a clear correlation between the participant's beliefs about the death penalty and their assessments of the different data.

Several things can be taken from this idea. Firstly, we should recognize we have a predisposition to make charitable judgements of things we like and harsh judgements of things we don't. If we care about reasoning properly this is something that one needs to compensate for (perhaps by consciously seeking positives in challenging material - this is called the Principle of Charity - and seeking negatives in supporting material).

Secondly, we should detach our beliefs from our identity so to help one reason better. Otherwise we'll have an emotional reaction to attacks on one's beliefs. We'll interpret them as attacks on us which prevents critical, mutually beneficial dialogue. We need to be able to realize that an attack on a set of beliefs is not an attack on us. This poses a big problem, however, for fundamental beliefs. For example, a Christian might say that well even if this is right that aligning our identity with our beliefs makes it more difficult to reason well this is cannot be helped: their belief that Jesus is the son of God is so fundamental that it is inescapably part of their identity. They see themselves as first and foremost children of God.

So here we are lead to a deeper question: is it desirable to separate our beliefs from our identity (assuming that it is possible)? On one hand, we can claim that reasoning well is a positive value because good reasoning leads to better policy and helps us to make better decisions. On the other hand, we can claim that a certain belief is definitely correct (say the existence of the Christian God). To such a claim I would reply, that first most important things cannot be known for certain (and we could plausibly say that nothing can be known for certain). [I can think of several other arguments such as psychological benefits etc. They all seem post hoc rationalizations of an emotional dislike of being wrong or having beliefs we are attached to undermined or criticized.]

As for whether this is possible, I'm not sure as I don't personally believe in anything like the Christian God. To my mind though I think it is possible for people to believe in God without considering that their belief in God is part of who they are. Maybe that's wrong - I hope not.

This leads to a third point: if you want to persuade somebody of something you might want to help them become better reasoners first (and lead by example by being willing to publicly change your own mind). There is no point reasoning with the fundamental Christian if they are poor reasoners and emotionally reject what you say. It's a waste of your time. As a psychological side-note, there is an idea of reciprocity: if you publicly agree with something they say they are more likely to publicly agree with something you say.

Fourthly, if we are going to choose an identity (let's assume we can do this) then perhaps we should see ourselves as sceptics - people who question and follow where reason takes them. Such beliefs about our identities (which is not the same as beliefs that are part of our identity; the first is active the second is passive) can be self-fulfilling.

Dirt Simple:

Our beliefs about our identities are self-fulfilling prophecies (this links up to the fourth claim above). One of the best ways to change our behaviour (if we want to) is to change our beliefs. Want to stop smoking? Believe you are a non-smoker; want to be confident? Believe that you are confident. I think there is at the least some truth in this - beliefs do often have a self-fulfilling impact. However, this view may be incomplete.

Non-violent Communication:

If we communicate labels and identities to others (e.g. 'you are lazy') this encourages self-fulfilling behaviour. This can apply to positive labels too (e.g. ' you are a good girl'), and negative, neutral and positive labels can all have harmful effects. They encourage certain behaviour irrespective of what the label-holder really wants to do and it prevents them connecting with their own needs and feelings. E.g. if someone thinks they are 'good' they might do things that make others perceive them as 'good' at the expense of their own well being.

Moreover, using labels in our communication prevents empathy and connection. If we judge people (e.g. 'you are lazy and irresponsible') people get defensive and it is harder for you to empathize with them and for them to understand your perspective or want to comply with your request.

Sometime soon I'll write about the Buddhist view of non-self, and add that to this list of perspectives on identity. This is probably the most important perspective of them all - and it suggests that the tactic of choosing useful labels and identities in order to achieve desirable ends (like being confident or being a good reasoner) can distract from the path to self-realization.

Cuban Missile Crisis: on the edge

2009-03-28T05:12:00.000-07:00

How close the Cuban Missile Crisis came to conflict (see: http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Political-Science/17-40Fall-2004/B97EBEC8-1631-4EFD-9F93-9D61E2EC02AB/0/17_40_lec19_cmc.pdf)

I'm assuming some basic familiarity with the crisis here: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

Inaccurate Perceptions:

1. JFK didn't expect USSR missile deployment to Cuba. That's why he warned publicly against it--he thought his bluff wouldn't be called.
2. US policymakers didn't see a chief USSR motive for deployment (defend Cuba from invasion); hence they nearly overlooked the no-invasion pledge as a solution to the crisis.
3. Khrushchev didn't expect U.S. detection of his missile deployment.
4. US leaders wrongly assumed Khrushchev ordered the Oct. 27 U2 shootdown.
5. US leaders underestimated Soviet and Cuban military capabilities in Cuba
a. The US thought the Soviets had 8,000-10,000 troops in Cuba; in fact they had 43,000 troops. Cuba had another 270,000 well-trained troops. The US planned to invade with only 140,000 troops. Sounds like a tough war for the USA!
b. More interestingly, the US was unaware that the Soviets had roughly 100 Soviet tactical warheads and means to deliver them in Cuba. (US leaders did correctly believe the Soviets probably had some IRBM warheads in Cuba although they lacked hard information on this.)
6. Castro was unaware of US nuclear superiority. Also, Castro thought that the US was bent on invading Cuba. So ... he urged the Soviet Union to forestall this US invasion with nuclear strikes!
7. JFK was unaware of symmetry of Soviet and US missile deployments. JFK: "It's just as if we suddenly began to put a major number of MRBMs in Turkey. Now that'd be goddam
dangerous, I would think." Bundy and Alexis Johnson then explain "Well, we did, Mr. President."

How tight was central control on military operations? Not very!

1. The Oct. 27 Soviet shootdown of the U.S. U2 was unauthorized by Moscow.
2. US anti-submarine operations were more aggressive than JFK knew. Indeed, they were more aggressive and dangerous than the U.S. Navy itself knew. On Oct. 27 the Navy forced to the surface a Soviet submarine that, unbeknownst to the Navy, carried a nuclear torpedo and was commanded by a Soviet officer that feared he was under attack and had briefly considered arming his nuclear torpedoes.
3. A U.S. U2 strayed over Siberia during the crisis. The Soviets could have thought this a precursor to a U.S. first strike.
4. US test intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were armed with nuclear warheads during the crisis; and a scheduled test from this test-field was still conducted.
5. A U.S. intelligence ship remained close to Cuba early in the crisis--an inviting target.
6. A pre-planned retaliatory strike was nearly conducted after the U2 shootdown--another near-oversight.

What if someone else had been President? JFK was markedly more dovish than other U.S. policymakers. Had he not been President history probably would have been different and more exciting. The military favored war, Acheson favored war. [And his advisers favored war.]

In sum, the Americans and Russians almost blundered into a conflict. What is telling about this narrative is how mistakes, lack of control, lack of dialogue, psychological biases and inaccurate perceptions makes brinkmanship very dangerous. This suggests that the story that the MAD (mutually assured destruction) strategy prevented nuclear conflict during the Cold War is misleading: there was almost conflict despite MAD.

The Ontological Argument Shot Down

2009-03-27T11:20:00.000-07:00

There is a family of arguments that claim to prove the existence of God from the definition of God. They are called the Ontological argument.

I realised today that my rebutal of this argument dating from my A Level studies doesn't actually work, so I did some thinking and think I've managed to pinpoint the problem with this family of arguments.

The basic structure of the Ontological argument (loosely following Anselm's version) goes like this:

1) God is the Greatest Being possible.
2) If something exists it is greater than something which does not.
3) Therefore God exists.

For the sake of the argument let us assume that premise 1) and 2) are correct, for I don't need to refute these claims to show the Ontological argument fails.

I'm going to elaborate on 1)-2) so we can see why the conclusion 3) does not follow.

In premise 1) we are claiming that God, if He exists, is the greatest being possible. This is making a definitional claim. It is equivalent to saying that a bachelor is a unmaried man.

In premise 2) we are claiming that existence makes something greater. Now the correct conclusion to draw from these two premises is this:

4) In order for God to be the Greatest Being possible He must exist.

This conclusion remains in the definitional realm: we are simply claiming that a certain condition needs to be met in order for God to be the Greatest Being possible.

So we'll end up with a list of features that God must have in order to be the Greatest Being possible. Heres the crucial bit: it does not follow from 4) ['In order for God to be the Greatest Being possible He must exist'] conclusion 3) that God exists.

Conclusion 4) is a definitional claim which is saying that God is not the Greatest Being possible unless he exists. This is compatible with the claim that God does not exist. For if God does not exist then we simply conclude that God is not the Greatest Being possible!

In other words, we cannot logically move from the definition of God to the existence of God. Let me restate the crucial point: the claim that 'in order for God to be the Greatest Being possible He must exist' is COMPATIBLE with the premise 'God does not exist'. If that was the case we would simply conclude that God is not the Greatest Being possible.

So we don't need to look at philosophical claims about whether existence is a predicate (a quality) or not, or how the word 'is' is being conflated in the presentation of the argument or any other complicated argument designed to prove that the Ontological argument is wrong. The Ontological argument does not work simply because premises 1) and 2) only support conclusion 4) 'In order for God to be the Greatest Being possible He must exist'. Premise 4) is compatible with either God existing or not existing - i.e. we cannot conclude anything from 4) relating to God's existence.

Does that make sense?

Ethics and obligations

2009-03-21T05:47:00.000-07:00

I've finally got my thoughts about the existence and nature of good/evil sorted out.

I've been telling people for some time that I don't believe in good or evil and that we have no moral obligations. I've realised that this was for two reasons:

1) I'm sceptical of talk of duty and obligations because I am sensitive to the danger that such ideas can used to manipulate and control other people's actions. [E.g. you are obliged to fight for your country. You have a duty to respect your elders and do what they tell you to do.]

2) I want to keep personal judgements out of interpersonal relationships as I believe judging hinders empathy and communication.

3) A lot of people use the concepts good and evil as a way of dressing up their emotional intuitions and to create a dichotomy between 'us' and 'them'.

I've realised, however, that these concerns do not mean that the concepts good, evil and moral obligation should be rejected.

What is Good is what we should ethically do, and what is evil is what we should ethically refrain from. To see things ethically is, as Singer points out, to see things from the universe's perspective. It is to look at matters dispassionately, without adding extra weight to one's own interests simply because they are our own intersts.

Now if we accept a secular view of ethics then ethics is not objective (i.e. there is no set of objective moral facts). Rather ethics is subjective - but this does not mean that each view is as good as each other. Some views of what ethics requires are better supported by reason than others.

A moral obligation is what ethics requires us to do. Now although talk of morality has been used to refer to self-interest and been used as a way to control others this does not mean that is what ethics is. Ethics, done properly (which is difficult!), is a set of prescriptions based upon reason where our interests are not given extra (or less) weight purely because they are our interests.

Moreover, I think you can have a view about what is right and wrong action without thinking that right or wrong action makes the actor good or bad (perhaps its genes/environment; what if they sincerely believe that that is what ethics demands of them?; or we can refrain from making this jump on instrumental grounds - e.g. it hinders empathy and communication).

The really interesting question here is why be ethical? Why should we carry out our moral obligations? Here are three possible reasons:

1) Because it overlaps with our immediate self-interest. [But we acting self-interestedly not ethically.]
2) There is no objective meaning of life - we give life meaning. One possible meaning of life we can give it is to live ethically.
3) Living ethically meets our fundamental needs for love, compassion and empathy. [This is a deeper version of 1)]

I think all three together provide reason to do ethical actions: because we would do them anyway; because it is a source of purpose and meaning; and because living in such a way meets our core needs and helps us flourish as human beings.

Baptism Poem

2009-02-02T14:47:00.000-08:00

Here's a super poem, that put a smile on my face:

Baptism
A caterpillar is he who stumbles
Into that sanctuary
To be molded and mended while reason sleeps
And awake to find himself different, quite different
Than when he entered

Beauty now supercedes his previous countenance
For he is a creature of divine spirit now
Transformed by holy glory
Saved and repented of his ugly past

Angel's wings he bears
To flutter here to there
Among the heavenly flowers
Of his new inhabitance
Only to be snatched up
And eaten by an abominable frog

Darrell Orrell

More Sex is Safer Sex by Steve Landsburg

2009-01-11T15:16:00.000-08:00

A few arguments from his book:

- Children should be subsidised because parents don't take into account all benefits of having a child (e.g. future partner for others, invent something, be a friend etc) and such benefits outweigh unaccounted costs (e.g. resource consumption etc).

- The virtue of scrooge: if you earn a dollar but don't spend it the world is one dollar richer. [To be honest - I don't really understand this, if you do please explain!]

- Gold mining (like gambling) is a wealth-transfer activity. If you find gold you gain wealth by taking wealth from existing gold owners (as the price of gold drops).

'Fooled by Randomness' by Taleb

2009-01-07T01:21:00.000-08:00

Some gems from his book:

- Science is a 'light bean across noise of randomness'
- Giving advice assumes that our cognitive apparatus rather than emotional machinery exerts meaningful control over our actions (an assumption Taleb disagrees with)
- Journalism is a thoughtless process of providing noise to capture people's attention!
- A 20 year old has the same life expectancy as a 50 year old in Italy. (I'll leave it to you to work how this could be.)
- Science can never prove things, merely disprove hypotheses. What is regarded as science is really just unfalsifed hypotheses.
- Human beings 'favour the visible, the embedded, the personal, the narrated and the tangible; we scorn the abstract'.
- Luck is a frequent reason for extreme success.
- Emotion is 'lubricants of reason'.

Ludecy

2009-01-06T02:24:00.000-08:00

Ludecy exists where what is being done supports what is being done. For example, a lawyer may represent a defendant knowing that they are guilty by reasoning that if they don't someone else will. Ludecy, in other words, is a self-organising case where the outcome is sub-optimal and yet the individuals are acting rationally. [The Prisoner's Dilemma is, another example (of a different kind) where individuals acting rationally leads to a sub-optimal outcome.]

A good case could be made for intervention (state or otherwise) in changing the rules of the game to prevent cases of ludecy.

Free Market and Morality

2009-01-05T00:57:00.000-08:00

I recently read an interesting collection of articles on the relationship between free markets and morality (see here: http://www.templeton.org/market/).

There were some super points on both sides. In favour of the idea that free markets corrupt morality:

- Free markets appeal to greed and self-interest, providing a greater scope for such vices. [In response, it is not true that ego and ambition lead to bad character - one can be self-interested without being greedy.]

- Competition in free markets place pressure to break moral/legal rules, e.g. Enron (yet, conversely, for some brand names the opposite can be true as consumers demand Corporate Social Responsibility). The incentive to break moral/legal rules is related to the size of the welfare state - the bigger it is the more we can afford to have morals! [And yet conversly, the bigger the welfare state is the greater the possibility of dependency where people don't work. Or, as one writer argued, it damages people's moral fibre as they avoid risk, don't take responsibility and don't contribute to society.]

- Free markets in labour lead to high mobility. High mobility leads to low levels of stability. Stability is crucial for trust to develop and exist. Thus, high levels of mobility cause trust levels to decrease and this leads to less cooperation.

On the flip side:

- Free markets reward cooperation (e.g. with employees) and socially desirable innovation (at least that which is profitable).

- Free markets create wealth. Wealth is the means for philanthropic giving. [And there is a lot of philanthropic giving.]

- Free markets create moral expectations - agreements are binding, honesty is necessary in transactions to build trust and property rights are respected. All this causes social capital, or trust levels, to increase.

- Free markets prevent, to a degree, some racism (or any 'ism') because if one company refuses to employ a skilled black person - another company can do so and get an advantage. [This assumes that at least one company is geared to profits - a reasonable assumption in most contexts.] However, it does not rule out the possibility of systematic racism: an employer may not bother to look at black people's applications because black people on the whole have less education/skills/expertise than white people. This creates a vicious cycle - where black people are less likely to want to get an education/develop skills when they know they might not be employed anyway.

- Free markets encourage the spread of ideas. For example, wives of Japanese workers in the U.S. took home with them ideas about human rights. While international media (and the interconnectedness of international markets) means we care about what happens to people on the other side of the world. [In contrast, to David Hume's picture of us sleeping soundly while 10,000 Chinese die in an earthquake.] Although you could question the extent to which free markets are related to media scope and the spread of ideas - control economies can still have international media and large exchange of ideas (but possibly not as much).

One writer argued that corrosion comes from social institutions not from markets themselves, which are amplifiers of existing moral codes (e.g. philanthrophy, social innovations). This is not wholly correct (see moral expectations, prevention of racism and high mobility causing trust to fall).

So what to conclude? I don't know how to aggregate these diverse points, without quantifying them - and how do you do that? Perhaps it suffices to say that the notion that free markets corrupt morality is simplistic and narrow. Free markets also promote morality.

Give Well

2009-01-03T06:04:00.000-08:00

"GiveWell is an independent, nonprofit charity evaluator. We perform in-depth research on charities to help people accomplish as much good as possible with their donations."

http://www.givewell.net/

Fantastic - we could do with something like that in the UK. Maybe I'll set it up...

And here is a really good blog post, about the idiocy of 'the idea that we can find the best charities by seeing what percentage of their total expenses goes to program expenses...The problem is the fallacy - specific to charity - that how much you spend is more important than how you spend it'. Something which in retrospect seems rather obvious.

http://blog.givewell.net/?cat=6

Propaganda, human rights and the US media

2008-12-15T10:00:00.001-08:00

I really like this article: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2691

It is succinct, very informative and, of course, I agree. It's conclusion runs:

"There seems to be much reason to doubt the ability of the Fourth Estate to mitigate government bias and provide the American public with accurate news. The problem resides both in the government’s manipulation of information and in the incentives of news organizations that knowingly allow their coverage to be distorted. Regarding the latter, Walter Cronkite described the concerns of many Americans when he said in a speech at Columbia University in January, 2007: "The need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever. It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy."

I've changed my mind about affirmitive action

2008-12-08T07:37:00.000-08:00

Before I opposed affirmative action; now I am cautiously in favour in some circumstances.

I used to disagree because affirmative action is unjust. It is unfair that somebody should get a job when there is someone more talented also applying (who just happens to be of the 'wrong' gender/race/colour etc).

What's changed? Well I still believe that affirmative action is unfair (unless, for example, the beneficiaries systematically under perform in job applications), but I've realised that, for me, boosting a group's self-esteem and social status trumps justice in this case.

Allow me to explain. Imagine a society where, on the whole, pink people have less education than blue people. Now imagine you are a job interviewer who has to go through lots of applications and pink people have pink names and blue people have blue names. It makes sense for the job interviewer to pay less attention to the pink applicants and their applications. This reduces pink people's chances of getting the job. Now if you are pink person in such a society deciding whether or not to go to university you might decide it is a waste of time because you are unlikely to get a much better job for your trouble. This leads to a vicious cycle where pink people are relatively less educated than blue people.

If you substitute African-American for pink and white American for blue you have the sketch of arguably a real life example. In such a case affirmative action can break this cycle by guaranteeing certain jobs to the African-Americans who get a higher education.

It is not necessarily the only way - perhaps applicant discrimination could be addressed somehow. Perhaps they are not allowed to see people's names on CVs?

However, there is a case for overriding justice and pursuing affirmative action in cases where there are self-perpetuating cycles of underachievement. What do you think?

Growth and the credit crunch

2008-12-02T02:01:00.000-08:00

A year ago George Monbiot wrote an article arguing that a recession would be a good thing, centring his argument on the premise that growth is bad. [See here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/09/bring-on-the-recession/]

Monbiot is economically illiterate - and economically illiterate people who write about economics write misleading rubbish. Which is ironic given that Monbiot has dedicated himself to countering the misleading rubbish that the Climate Change sceptics produce.

Let us dismember his many errors - it'll prove an instructive exercise:

1) I quote 'as is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquillity and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis.' The last sentence is incorrect. Two points here:

Firstly, jet skis in this case cause negative externalities - or negative consequences that do not accrue to the agent carrying out the activity. In other words, jet skis cause noise pollution that the riders of the jet skis don't pay for. Generally, economists want to incorporate externalities into the market. This could result in a tax on jet ski use equivalent to the social costs it imposes, or the several hundred people each pay a little to the jet ski users to persuade them to not use their jet skis. Either would produce a better social outcome.

Secondly, even if an economist favours economic growth it does not follow that they think growth in jet skis is a good thing because a) the negative externalities of jet skis are not accounted for and b) Monbiot's assertion is misleading: jet ski usage multiplying is not a goal worth aiming for from a social point of view, but one could argue that if there is growth in jet ski usage (with negative externalities accounted for) that is a good thing.

2) 'However hard governments might work to reduce carbon emissions, they are battling the tide of economic growth.'

Monbiot seems to think that growth is damaging to the environment. Now there is some truth in this idea. The industrial revolution was a period of massive growth, and it caused a large amount of enviromental degradation.

Nevertheless, several things are worth noting. Firstly, there is a relationship between wealth and a general population's concern for, or valuation of, the environment. In other words, the rich are more willing to sacrifice growth for maintaining the environment, while the poor (in absolute terms) are just concerned with survival.

Secondly, many environmental problems are essentially problems of negative externalities. Noise pollution, toxic waste, acid rain, greenhouse gas emissions are all negative externalities and there are ways of accounting for them within the current economic system (e.g. taxes or permits). Hence, addressing these problems does not necessarily require no growth - although it could lead to less growth.

Thirdly, what matters here is that noise pollution, toxic waste and acid rain (etc) are released in socially optimal amounts. In other words, the best solution is NOT (or rarely is) producing nothing of these pollutants, but rather marginal social cost will equal marginal social benefit somewhere below the current levels of these pollutants.

Four, as Larry Elliot points out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/01/global-poverty-credit-crunch-recession), 'the financial crisis has so dominated the political landscape in the past 16 months that it has crowded out almost every other issue. What, for example, has happened to concern about climate change? It has been pushed on to the back burner as attention switches to the short-term need to create jobs and boost growth, that's what.' In sum, the recession Monbiot was hoping for arguably makes it more difficult to muster the necessary political will to address adequately major ecological problems such as Climate Change.

Five, improving technology, at the very least, mitigates some forms of environmental damage. Improving energy efficiency can lead to less greenhouse gas emissions, for example (although not necessarily because if an appliance is more energy efficient it may be used more).

3) 'Growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy.'

Ignoring the questionable underlying premises that growth causes income inequality and that social campaigners accept the arguments that growth is a panacea and hence don't protest, we can make the simple point that growth can take different forms. Hence, even if the current form of growth really did produce such consequences it does not follow that all forms of growth do.

At the same time there is some genius in Monbiot's article:

'A new analysis by Goldman Sachs shows that current house prices are not just the result of a shortage of supply: if they were, then the rise in prices should have been matched by the rise in rents. Even taking scarcity into account, the analysts believe that houses are overvalued by some 20%.' [Just how many economists would be telling you this last year before the housing bubble burst?]

'Sacrificing your health and happiness to earn the money to buy this junk looks like a sign of advanced mental illness.' Yes, there are problems with consumerism.

Third Dimension of Power

2008-11-30T23:07:00.000-08:00

I am currently reading Lukes' book 'Power: A Radical View' for my weekly essay.

The main point of Lukes' book is that there is a third dimension of power that previous political theorists have ignored: it is, essentially, the power to shape people's preferences.

On a social level, for example, leaders, advertising and mass media can shape people's preferences. This also, I think, applies to the interpersonal relationships. My behaviour affects, to a varying degree, the behaviour of others - regardless of our intentions. In other words, we have a certain amount of power over other individuals. My arguments may persuade other people to act in a certain manner; if I am kind to others then those watching may be more likely to be kind themselves; and the angry parent is more likely to bring up an angry child.

In sum, we are constantly influencing those around us, and I contest that this is a form of power. Sometimes we are directly influencing others (e.g. via arguments), while at other times it is indirect and possibly unintentional. It is worth being aware, I think, of how we influence others.

Humans: Poor Decision Makers

2008-11-25T00:55:00.001-08:00

An interesting, if skimpy, introduction to the psychology research that indicates that humans are irrational thinkers can be found here: http://www.observer.com/2008/mini-malcolms

Basically, we misunderstand probability, we make poor decisions, we are lazy and we misjudge the impact something will have on our future happiness.

This, if broadly correct, has several implications:

1) It poses a serious, although not necessarily insurmountable, challenge to anti-paternalistic political philosophies like libertarianism.

2) It would help policy makers to make better policy - as they would base such policies on how humans generally behave.

3) It may suggest that some economic models need revising for there are significant limitations to the homo economicus, or economic man, assumption [humans are rational, perfectly informed and self-interested actors who desire wealth, avoid unnecessary labour, and have the ability to make judgements concerning these ends]. To be fair economists have always known that this was incorrect - it was just a simplifying assumption - but what the research suggests is that the homo economicus model is less accurate than some previously thought.

Cycle Ride to Birmingham

2008-11-23T02:51:00.000-08:00

Eight of us cycled Oxford-Birmingham yesterday. A route of roughly 70 miles, although we got a taxi for the last five, so we would catch our train on time!

There were crashes, steep hills, muscle spasms and a mad dash to the station at the end.

The picture shows the cycle team en route. We were raising money for Muslim Hands, an international development charity, because of a recent earthquake in Pakistan.

For me (after cycling in France last sumer) this was a lovely, gentle (if rather chilly) ride.

If you want to donate you can do so here: http://www.justgiving.com/cycleforpakistanquake. [The information on this site about me is factually correct but misleading!] However, Justgiving take a small amount of your donation to cover adminstration costs. If you want all your money to go directly to the charity - either write me a cheque (though the lose the chance of claiming gift aid) or donate directly.

Self-organized Systems

2008-11-21T21:45:00.000-08:00

There is something magical in self-organized systems - systems where there is nobody in charge.

Examples include: flocking behaviour by birds, the origin of life and market economies. Hayek coined the term catallaxy, which means a 'self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation', to describe a market economy. One amazing thing about the market economy is that there is nobody in charge, no dictator or wise elite, and yet if left alone it works (reasonably well). [Which doesn't mean, of course, this means we should necessarily have a market economy.]

Milton Friedman recounted Leonard Read's story, 'I, Pencil' to illustrate this point (it can be found here, http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html):

"None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil.

It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given. These people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice different religions, may even hate one another—yet none of these differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil."

Thinking, Feeling and Wanting

2008-11-14T08:17:00.000-08:00

I want to postulate a certain relationship between thoughts, emotions and desires. I hold that there is a dynamic relationship between all three components of the mind: each is continually influencing the other two.

For example, if I think I am being threatened then I feel fear and I want to flee from or attack whatever I think is threatening me.

I hold that you cannot have less than all three components at the same time. In other words, without thinking there are no desires or feelings, without desires there are no thinking or feelings and without feelings there are no thinking or desires. [The wanting or feeling may at times, however, be weak, making them difficult to notice.]

I want to go further and say that only thinking and desires can affect feelings, only thinking and feelings can affect desires and only desires and feelings can affect thinking. [Desires and emotions only affect each other through thinking, however, and not directly.] This is a rather bold claim because some of us behave as if this is not true.

Some people blame external events or agents for their feelings; I would argue that it is the conjunction of their thinking and desires which are causing their feelings. For example, if I hit you and you get upset you may think that I am responsible for you getting upset. I think that it is your thinking ('David shouldn't hit me') and your desires ('to not be hit') which is making you upset. I can illustrate this quite clearly: Tony, for example, would feel happy if I hit him, for he wants to be hit because he thinks if I hit him his girlfriend will fuss over him. This means external actions or events are, at most, a stimulus for our thoughts, desires and emotions but they are never the cause. [I am using 'cause' here, as in x causes y, to mean that x necessarily entails y; in other words, if x causes y then if there is x then there must be y.]

Moreover, we can change our feelings and desires by controlling our thinking. [It does not follow, of course, that you would want to change your feelings and desires all the time, and nor that it would be easy.]

So the basic model I have got so far is this: the mind consists of thoughts, feelings and desires which are related in the way that I have outlined above. And our thoughts, feelings and desires and organized by either our egocentric tendencies or our rational capacities.

And what evidence do I offer for all this? Just personal self-reflection.

Why?

2008-11-13T05:30:00.000-08:00

If we accept that most humans think egocentrically and that we are not naturally logical thinkers some people may want to ask: why do we think egocentrically? why is our thinking frequently illogical?

One rather obvious way of attempting to explain this is to draw upon evolutionary theory. Steven Pinker, for example, declared that 'our brains are made for fitness not for truth'.

This reminds me of a story that the Buddha narrated to his disciples. A man was shot by an arrow, but he refused to allow his companions to address his wound until they answered all his questions. He asked them 'who shot the arrow?' 'Why was I shot?' 'What kind of wood is the arrow made out of'? 'What type of shaft does the arrow have'? 'Are the feathers of good quality?' And so the man dies because his companions were not allowed to treat him. The basic point of the story is that it is much more important to deal with the issue at hand or work out a way to address it than to speculate on unnecessary details such as why things are as they are.

There is some truth in this. However, my scientist friends will counter that the scientific explanation of thinking and the operations of the mind is necessary for really understanding how we think.

The Human mind: A Restatement

2008-11-12T11:12:00.000-08:00

Some people found my first post difficult to read. So for them (and myself) I have condensed my post 'The Human Mind' into three premises:

1) Most humans naturally think egocentrically, and by this I mean we attempt to validate our own beliefs and we try to satisfy our selfish interests at the expense of others.

2) Most humans have the potential to think rationally, which is to develop one's rational capacities and live a life respecting the interests of others.

3) It is possible and desirable for most humans to change from being egocentric to rational thinkers.

I hope that clarifies my view somewhat.

Modelling thinking

2008-11-11T08:34:00.000-08:00

A word of caution. The egocentric and rational thinking frameworks that I have outlined in 'The Human Mind' are models and not facts. The models are based on my/our self-reflections and observations (see ''Personal Examples of Egocentric Thinking'), and it is worth regularly asking whether these models:

a) are internally consistent, complete (fit all the relevant facts) and are plausible
b) is the best model for explaining our thinking goals and habits

In order to be fair minded, moreover, we need to seek out contradictory facts.

Personal Examples of Egocentric Thinking

2008-11-10T13:29:00.000-08:00

Over the last few days I have been reflecting on how my own egocentric thinking. The two main features of egocentric thinking are the pursuit of selfish interests at the expense of others and the attempt to validate one's own beliefs (see previous post 'The Human Mind'). I have begun to realise the extent to which I constantly self-validate my own beliefs. I would like to share some examples with you:

The essays I write are often polemics that support my original view that I held before I began the process of reading for and writing the essay. I seek out material that supports my position or undermines rival positions, without thinking critically about my own view. That is exactly what I did when I wrote an A Level History coursework on whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Two. I sought out material that supported my original position ('it should not have been dropped'). After some feedback from my History teacher, I then read some material supporting a different view which led me to qualify my conclusions somewhat. I think this is a case of innate wish-fulfillment: I believed that the atomic bomb should not be dropped because that is what I want to believe.
I believed that if a philosophical topic is difficult to understand then it is not useful, and hence not worth thinking about. Here I think I was rationalising away the need to think about difficult topics. [There are so many holes with the idea: should philosophy be practical? Just why is there a relationship between how difficult I find to understand an idea and it's usefulness?] I hide egocentric thinking from myself by rationalising. I do not want to think of myself as an egocentric thinker, so I provide myself with the illusion that I am being rational by coming up with reasons to justify my beliefs.
I overestimate my abilities (which is an another example of innate wish fulfilment.
I am guilty of egocentric myopia, oversimplification and righteousness with regards to my cherished political and spiritual beliefs. I have two sets of intellectual standards: high standards for views I disagree with, and low standards for my own views.

And that is just a few examples!

The Human Mind

2008-11-06T13:10:00.000-08:00

‘The mind is it’s own place
and in itself
can make a hell of heaven
or a heaven of hell’
John Milton

I have a few pamphlets (well 16) from The Foundation for Critical Thinking; one of them is about the human mind and it begins:

‘To live well is to live as a reasonable and ethical person. Yet humans are not by nature rational or ethical. Humans are predisposed to operate in the word in narrow terms of how it can serve them...They do not inherently consider the rights and needs of others.’

It continues that ‘the key to understanding human thought then, is to understand its essential duality’: our minds, which consist of our thoughts, feelings and desires, are, at any given moment, guided by either our egocentric tendencies or our potential reasonability.

The pamphlet goes on to provide a conceptual framework that outlines how egocentric and rational thinking differ. It states that the purpose of egocentrism is ‘to gain selfish interests at the expense of the rights, needs and desires of others, and to validate itself’. Egocentric thinkers use egocentric psychological standards, pathological dispositions and self defence mechanisms, which are all interrelated, so that they can see the world as they wish in order to get what they want and protect their belief system. Some of our egocentric psychological standards are:

Innate egocentrism [‘It’s true because I believe it’]
Innate sociocentrism [‘It’s true because we believe it’]
Innate wish fulfilment [‘It’s true because I want to believe it’]
Innate self-validation [‘It’s true because I have always believed it’]
Innate selfishness [‘It’s true because it is in my selfish interest to believe it’]

Some of our pathological dispositions are:

Egocentric righteousness [the natural tendency to see ourselves as in possession of ‘The Truth’]
Egocentric oversimplification [the natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world when consideration of those complexities would require us to modify our beliefs or values]
Egocentric myopia [the natural tendency to think in an absolutist way within an overly narrow point of view]

Some of our self-defence mechanisms are:

Rationalization [when a person gives reasons for his behaviour, but not the true reasons. The father who beats his child may rationalise that it is for the child’s benefit when the real reason was that he lost control over his behaviour]
Scapegoating [when a person attempts to avoid criticism of himself by blaming another person, group or thing for his own mistakes or faults]

In contrast, the purpose of rationality is ‘to develop one’s rational capacities and live a life respecting the rights and needs of others’. The pamphlet warns that egocentric thinking appears rational to the egocentric thinker. [This is a case of innate wish fulfilment as the egocentric thinker wants to believe that they are rational and reasonable.] Furthermore, a skilled egocentric thinker can use his intelligence to effectively rationalize gaining his selfish ends at the expense of others. He can skilfully hide his selfish core, covering his arguments for his own ends with altruistic language.

Going through the list of egocentric psychological standards, pathological dispositions and self defence mechanisms I can think of numerous personal examples of my own self-serving thinking: I don’t like criticism so I scapegoat; I don’t like thinking critically about my cherished beliefs, while I am happy to think critically about views I disagree with; I frequently think that my beliefs are ‘The Truth’ and so forth.

If we define freedom as conscious self-control then it follows that egocentric thinkers are unfree. One of the differences between the rational and the egocentric thinker is that the rational thinker is in control of their own thinking, and hence their own emotions and desires. So one reason to prefer being guided by our rational capacities to our egocentric tendencies could be that we intrinsically value freedom and we are only free when we think rationally. Another intrinsic argument would be that we value truth and that only rational thinking can reliably give us it.

Going back to the pamphlet, it claims that our thinking controls our emotions and desires. For example, Jan may be upset that Peter has divorced her because she (unconsciously) thinks that she needs to be in a relationship to be emotionally stable. Hence, we could make the instrumental suggestion that rational thinking enriches our lives by making us happier, or more fulfilled. Jan, for example, would be happier if she was able to use rational thinking to realise that she did not need Peter for emotional stability.

Even if I accept that there is sufficient reason for me to develop my rational capabilities, rationality does make the questionable assumption that ‘it is possible ... to live a life of continual self-improvement and moral integrity’. I think it suffices for now to merely state that the only way to determine whether this assumption is correct or not is to attempt to ‘live a life of continual self-improvement’. How to do this is a matter for a later post.

We live in our minds; hence, understanding how we think and how to change our thinking is pivotal. Karl Marx’s famous rallying call at the end the Communist Manifesto sums up this post appositely: ‘thinkers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains’. Let us free ourselves from mental slavery; this could be the greatest thing since psychedelic mushrooms.

And thus begins my critical Odyssey...