Transitions: education

I got that job. The job is a project with the goal of spreading awareness about the vast amount of money that is available to help kids pay for college. And my first day of class is tomorrow. I'm taking this class with the idea that it might put me on a path to going back to school full time next fall. So I'm at a transition point in my life and the theme is education.

Inspired by the moment, here is a list of things that everyone should learn in school that few people do.

1. How our federal, state, and local governments actually work. Why they are set up that way. How they are different than other current and past systems. What are strengths and weaknesses of those systems, and how different people and organizations contribute. I think this used to be covered in "civics" class. I had the option of taking Government as an Advanced Placement class my senior year but I picked economics instead.
   
2. That the human mind is a product of evolutionary biology. This would require that students have close to a decent understanding of evolution, which is clearly not the case in America. So once you somehow clear that biology education hurdle, you get to use it to answer the really interesting and very useful questions. Why do people act the way they act? Why do they think the way they think? Why do they believe what they believe, and why do they feel the things they feel? I last look a biology course my freshman year of high school. I didn't like dissecting things, and so I never took biology again. I don't think evolution was covered in any academic course I've taken since then, and I was certainly never exposed to ideas from evolutionary psychology. I'm very glad I stumbled upon it on my own. Learning to see human behavior through that lens has probably been the most satisfying intellectual experience of my first 25 years.
   
3. How to win friends and influence people. There's a playbook on how to interact with other people to get what you want from them. Everyone should read it. Social interaction is just one of those things we figure that everyone has to figure out for themselves. And to some extent, most of us do. But considering how important our social lives are to our emotional, financial, and ultimately our physical well-being, shouldn't we address this kind of subject matter in basic education? Absolutely everyone would benefit from reading this book.
4. That observation and sound reasoning are the source of knowledge. Basically we need to train people how to think skeptically. It is much much harder to write a single page of useful, accurate information than to write a volume full of bullshit. And it can take a volume full of accurate information to fully debunk a single page of bullshit. The information we all encounter in our daily lives is fully reflective of that imbalance, and people need to know how to tell the difference. My first semester at UMD I randomly signed up for an honors seminar called "Science and Pseudoscience." I had no idea what I was going to get, but that best I could figure was that we'd be like Dana Scully debunking Fox Mulder's crazy theories. The course was taught by a statistician named Chip Denman, and it was my favorite class I've ever taken. It introduced me to skepticism as a way of approaching the world and gave me some powerful bullshit-detection tools.
   

That's all for now. I listed those off the top of my head, but the thoughts have been building up for a while. I might expand on some of this if I have time in my newly busy schedule.

progress?

I still don't have a job, but now I'm officially a part-time graduate student. I'm registered to take this course at the University of Maryland College Park starting Thursday.

My schedule now looks like this,

TuTh......11:00am-12:15pm
F.........12:00pm- 1:45pm

which is going to make getting a "real" job impossible. I interviewed for an internship at a marketing company in Chevy Chase that looks interesting and would provide some desperately needed income and allow me flexibility to work 20~35 hours/week on my own schedule and often from home. I hope that works out, otherwise I might have to deliver pizzas or something.

Denver's strange ambitions

I saw these two stories at my new blog obsession, Orcinus.

Denver wants to host the 2018 winter Olympics.

A Denver geography teacher has been suspended for refusing to remove a classroom display that includes Chinese and Mexican flags, based on a state statute that says, "Any person who displays any flag other than the flag of the United States of America or the state of Colorado or any of its subdivisions, agencies or institutions upon any state, county, municipal or other public building or adjacent grounds within this state commits a class 1 petty offense."

In related news, I'll be visiting Denver in a few weeks.

Prison Break!

Whoa, the new season of Prison Break started and I didn't even realize it. I saw that my tivo recorded a show and I foolishly assumed it was a repeat and deleted it. Luckily the first 3 episodes of the season will be available for a week after their initial air dates, so I just got caught up here. Pure escapist joy.

I might be up to something else. More info later.

Snakes on a Man Beard

[copied from Man Beard Blog]

A Man Beard doesn't sneak around and try to be something he's not. He just comes right out and tells you what he is, usually by way of the visual spectacle adorning his face. After all, a beardless man can always wear a fake beard, but it is pretty damn hard for a Man Beard in full regalia to appear clean-shaven.

And a Man Beard doesn't apologize for what he is either. He doesn't give a shit if you like him or not. A Man Beard is comfortable in his own skin (unless his skin is surrounded by poisonous snakes). A Man Beard is always rated R, even when its production studio tries to make it into a PG beard, because a Man Beard will get all the beard blogs to rally for more T&A and profanity. Man Beards love T&A and profanity.

Snakes on a Plane is like the Man Beard of movies. Aside from its in-your-face beardesque title, SoaP has everything a Man Beard wants in a movie: snakes, planes, Samuel L. Jackson, as well as beardloads full of gratuitous nudity, violence and F-Bombs.

Plus at the end there's a music video featuring Sam Motherfuckin' Jackson with a sweet black and white beard. Oh and Julianna Margulies is on the plane too. She's ok I guess.

links adspar likes 6

Here is the 6th installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.

This is the Church-free and State-free edition of links adspar likes.



Felicia Lee
by Felicia Lee

adspar's quick summary:
Poker blog of Felicia Lee.

why you should read it:
This is a great poker blog for people who love poker but are sick of all Hold'em all the time.


Wearing blue-blocking eyeglasses a few hours before bedtime resets the internal clocks to an earlier hour.
by Coturnix

adspar's quick summary:
Article suggests the blue light causes suppression of melatonin, a chemical that is important in sleep regulation, and that blocking blue light in the evening might help you fall asleep earlier.

why you should read it:
I have a terrible time falling asleep, so this might be worth trying.


It's a nursing thing
by Intelinurse2B

adspar's quick summary:
Some blog by someone in nursing school.

why you should read it:
Because you're in nursing school too... aren't you?


Peanut butter concoction reverses malnutrition one spoonful at a time
by Science Blog

adspar's quick summary:
Meds and Food for Kids (MFK) uses a "a nutrient-rich mixture of peanuts, sugar, oil, vitamins, minerals and powdered milk" to help nurse chronically malnourished children back to health. "If we dig the children out of the deep immunologic and nutritional hole they are in, they are not very likely to fall back in," Wolff said. "We can't treat all of the congenital diseases they have, but we can treat malnutrition, which makes the kids healthier, smarter, taller and better able to contribute to society."

why you should read it:
A 6 week course of treatment with this stuff, which seems to be enough to get them back in shape to develop normally, costs less than $100. Interesting thought for the charitably inclined.

That's all for links adspar likes 6 (Church-free and State-free edition). This turned out pretty boring. Links for 6. Preview of 7.

I'll end with a video that is just very very cool. Messing with intuitive physics makes weird things happen.

Faith vs Reality: The Poison Challenge

In a sad but amusing rant, Alonzo Fyfe suggests that if his gut told him to, President Bush would drink a glass of liquid that scientists say probably contains poison.

In sad but amusing real life, thousands of people in India drink toxic seawater because it tastes unusually sweet and they believe it will cure illnesses.

I noticed this story here.

god's tree water

8/12/06 Woman finds "God's water" gurgling from tree:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- Is it an artesian spring, a broken water pipe or an abandoned well?

Lucille Pope's red oak tree has gurgled water for about three months, and experts can't seem to get to the root of the problem.

Pope, 65, has sought answers from the Texas Forest Service, the Edwards Aquifer Authority and nurseries.

They have taken pictures and conducted studies, but none have arrived at a firm answer.

"I got a mystery tree," Pope said in Friday editions of the San Antonio-Express News.

"What kind of mystery do I have where water comes out of a tree?"

Her son, Lloyd, 47, discovered water leaking from the tree in April. He said it was cool, like it came from the tap.

The only damp spot around the tree trunk is where the water lands.

Mark Peterson, a regional community forester from the Texas Forest Service said he believes it could be a spring, but pointed out that would be rare with the drought conditions this summer.

"If it is a burst pipe their monthly bill would be enormous," Peterson said.

Lucille Pope has started to wonder if the water has special properties.

Her insurance agent dabbed drops of the water on a spider bite and the welt went away, she said.

"I just want to know if it is a healing tree or blessed water," she said. "That's God's water. Nobody knows but God."

8/17/06 Tree's real miracle now can be seen:

Curiosity seekers flocking to water bubbling from the tree in Lucille Pope's East Side backyard are getting a warning from her son before they pass through the chain link fence.

San Antonio Water System workers turned off the water to his house at the street Wednesday morning, and when they did, the flow from the tree ceased, he tells them.

The tree tapped into an active water line that runs to a sink in a shed in their backyard, SAWS spokeswoman Anne Hayden said. The water also tested positive for chlorine residue.

"I tell them all how it is, and they still want it," Lloyd Pope said. "I figure if they are still that strong in their faith, knowing all that, then go on."

Despite the logical explanation of why the tree started spouting water three months ago, many visitors still hinge hopes on water they say touches their soul.

Linda Cortinas, 56, soaked her hands in the streaming water after hearing the disclaimer, hoping for a miracle. Cortinas is legally blind, a result of leukemia that damaged her optic nerve.

She hugged Velia Garza, 59, like a long lost sister in the driveway before her sister Trini Ramon, 55, drove her back to the Northwest Side of town. It was the first time that the women had met. They prayed side by side under the sprawling branches of the great red oak.

"I pray it's from God," Garza said. "And nothing will be false here. How can water go up a tree?"

The faith that Garza and other visitors displayed is an essential component of the human condition, said Oswald John Nira, an instructor of religious studies at Our Lady of the Lake University.

"Everybody hungers for something to believe in," Nira said. "They're looking for answers to ultimate questions. This is just one little aspect of it."

Nira said according to Catholic tradition, there's a push to stay away from trying to determine miraculous phenomena, placing more focus on the individual.

By midday Wednesday, the stream of people continued, undaunted by the scientific explanation. They arrived with grandchildren in tow. Some came on their lunch break and for others it was part of a private pilgrimage.

"Do Not Enter" was spray-painted in black on a piece of plywood and propped against the chain link fence to the Pope's driveway.

The Popes say the steady stream of visitors usually starts about 7:30 each morning, when the water flow is stronger. But first they have to pass Lloyd Pope and Bubba Younger, a hulking ex-Navy SEAL sitting in folding chairs at a white, plastic table. Younger, 59 and Pope, 47, read scripture as the faithful make their way to the back of the property.

Maria Martinez of San Antonio made her second visit to the tree, hugging it and filling small perfume vials with its water.

"I could feel it, that it's about ready to bust," Martinez said.

At last count, the names of 100 people coming to see the tree were logged on a yellow legal tablet.

People who did an Internet Google search for "gurgling tree" found 606,000 results ranging from China to New Zealand. Opinions on blogs have numbered in the thousands.

For the sake of the family's privacy, the San Antonio Express-News is not publishing the address.

But as the story of the weeping tree made the rounds across the country, in newspapers and online, more and more people are doing what it takes to find the Popes' home.

Pope doesn't mind the visitors, so long as they steer clear of the histrionics. He won't tolerate fainting, shrine building or keeping a vigil.

"It ain't happening," he said. "You give God's credit or honor to no other."

Lucille Pope, 65, said the tree has been credited with healing everything from heart disease to a bad neck to her own ankle.

"They had put me in an air cast, then in a brace, with a cane," she said. "Since I've been drinking from the tree I've been fine."

Gone are the cane and therapy sessions — in their place are three daily glasses of water, straight from the tree.

The phone rings from morning until 9 p.m. when she stops taking calls from nearly every state in the union.

The first person to taste the water was Mary Barbara Todd, a friend of the family. She told the Popes it was good and cool to the taste.

The Popes have been flooded with out-of-state calls to ship individual orders to people looking for hope in a bottle.

Lucille Pope said shipping is not an option because of recent anti-terrorism restrictions.

At dusk, Maria Castanon, 46, and her sister Oralia Sanchez, 41, led their 81-year-old mother down the driveway arm-in arm.

Maria Sanchez said she doesn't venture from her South Side home these days, bound by her arthritis. That was until her two daughters saw the mystery tree on television and told her about it. They held her thin arms as Sanchez tipped her head back to look the oak over.

"You live by faith, not by sight," Castanon said. "If they shut it down tomorrow, that's fine. But it's faith that moves you."

My favorite part is this:

"Everybody hungers for something to believe in," Nira said. "They're looking for answers to ultimate questions. This is just one little aspect of it."

Nira said according to Catholic tradition, there's a push to stay away from trying to determine miraculous phenomena, placing more focus on the individual.

What ultimate question is answered by a tree that spits water at you? This is an aspect of what? What exactly does this tree make you believe? And then apparently Catholics don't want you to investigate anything unusual, prefering to let individuals make up whatever insane conclusions they want.

Something weird happens, and people turn into religious retards. Praise god!

Random Quotations Meme

I saw this a few places, so here is mine. The rules: "Go here and look through random quotes until you find 5 that you think reflect who you are or what you believe."

I spent way too much time on this. I probably read 300 quotes before deciding on these 5.


A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
- William James (1842 - 1910)

One can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing.
- Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want.
- Ben Stein

I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
- Leo Rosten (1908 - )

Poker on a resume

As I've pursued gainful employment the last few months, I've mostly used a resume that includes poker as work experience. As far as I'm concerned I was running an internet small business out of my home. I had to make instant high-pressure strategic decisions, perform in-depth statistical analysis, and make capital allocation decisions based on trending and forecasting. These are experiences and skills that I think a smart employer should value.

However according to a recruiter specializing in Montgomery county finance positions, a gaping hole in my resume is much better than mentioning poker. Poker, he claims, evokes images of "gambling, cocaine, and tattoos. Maryland is still in the Bible Belt you know." The Bible fucks me yet again.

The job search process has taught me that appearances are more important than honesty, so I'll be downplaying my poker career in all proceedings henceforth.

I am unfit for service in my home state.

Looks like I'm going to have to cancel my plans to run for office in Maryland. Apparently I am also incompetent to be a witness or a juror.

This is directly from the Maryland Constitution.

Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him ... nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

links adspar likes 5 (Church and State edition)

Here is the 5th installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.

My blog energy is being spread over a greater area these days, so I guess I'm slowing down a bit here. Man Beard Blog and Inertia Anonymous are occupying the bulk of my creative goofiness and self-loathing, respectively. My poker hiatus has limited my poker writing here and at Donk Bet, so that pretty much leaves politics and religion as the remaining focus here at See For Yourself. So, here is the Church and State edition of links adspar likes.



Non-Christians need not apply
by Robyn E. Blumner

adspar's quick summary:
The Bush administration is committed to reallocating social services funds from secular agencies to faith-based groups, including groups whose employment practices include discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

why you should read it:
I found this article filed under Theocracy Watch over at God is for Suckers. Forget separation of church and state, this is church and state working hand in hand. The last sentence really got me: "Just another example of how, under this president, I hardly recognize my country anymore." I want to move to Antarctica.


Jesus Portrait Case to Go to Court
by Ed Brayton

adspar's quick summary:
A West Virginia local school board is fighting the ACLU in a lawsuit over a portrait of Jesus in a public high school. The locals are outraged at the ACLU trying to take away their precious Jesus, and Brayton shows how they make ridiculous arguments in support of their ridiculous position.

why you should read it:
This once again exposes how little respect the Christian community has for the establishment clause, and Brayton brilliantly demonstrates their hypocrisy by imagining how the same people would feel if the portrait was of Muhammed instead. These assholes are probably in Antarctica too, huh?


Christian Critic Blasts Talladega Nights' Anti-Christian Content
by Jenni Parker

adspar's quick summary:
Parker reports that Christian movie reviewer Ted Baehr didn't like Ricky Bobby, equating satire of in a comedy to Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic rant.

why you should read it:
Baehr goes on to predict that the World Trade Center movie will overtake Ricky Bobby at the box office, and that movie will be "more meaningful and faith-affirming." Yeah, nothing like a story about a small group of terrorists killing thousands of people in the name of god to affirm my faith in god. Maybe in the movie, god comes down from heaven and cuts off the terrorists' heads before they hijack the planes. That would affirm my faith in god. Ok I'm not really going to move to Antarctica but can we send Ted Baehr there?


The moral imperative against intelligent design
by Ed Darrell

adspar's quick summary:
In response to a series of specific back and forth arguments, a Christian blogger writes why Creationist/ID arguments against evolution are dishonest.

why you should read it:
You don't need to read all the background to understand his point. Lies and deception don't help your cause. I wish more religious people were like this guy:

It's a sad day for the church when atheists are leading the way to ethical behavior, and Christians resist. We have a duty to other people to stick to the truth. We have a duty to the integrity of the church not to advocate untruth in the church'’s name. We have a duty to God to get the facts right. [his emphasis]

The Pinkoski files
by PZ Myers

adspar's quick summary:
A collection of scathing rebuttals of the astonishingly illogical creationist nonsense flowing from this Pinkoski character.

why you should read it:
Pure train-wreck value. For example, in this one Pinkoski claims that biblical Adam was 15 feet tall and that Noah was 12 feet tall, and notes that modern man is only 6 feet tall. He backs this up with:

NOTE: If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??

Viruses of the Mind
by Richard Dawkins

adspar's quick summary:
This essay examines the spread of faith by showing how religious ideas are very much like computer viruses infecting the computers between our ears.

why you should read it:
This was written in 1991, so the ideas here aren't new, but Dawkins is brilliant as usual. It is pretty long, but if you ever stop and wonder how religious delusion is so widespread, it is worth the 30 minutes to read this.


That's all for links adspar likes 5 (Church and State edition). Links here. Preview of 6 here. If anyone actually goes through the trouble of checking the preview, they'll note that I have like 4 or 5 links I've pushed from 3 to 4 to 5 and now to 6. I should get to them some day.

Analysis of religion, embracing reality

I've been thinking a lot about religion even more than usual lately as I read Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained. I'm not very far into the book yet, but an interesting approach the author seems to be using and that I've been contemplating is to break religion down into component concepts for more useful analysis.

Off the top of my head (the book might mention some or all of these, but these are my own thoughts here, not a summary of Boyer's approach), what we commonly call religion usually incorporates some or all of the following:

• superstitions - belief in supernatural forces or beings, like god(s), angels, voodoo, ghosts, ancestor spirits, reincarnation
• culture - ritual, literature, art, music, food
• ethics - a system of morals, right/wrong, laws, punishments
• explanation of the unknown - creation myths, afterlife (heaven and hell), cosmology, medicine, hygiene
• politics - social hierarchies, governments, taxes/tithes, compromises, wars
• sexuality - gender roles, rules about sexual behavior, marriage/reproductive practices
  

A religion that doesn't incorporate most of the major items on that list wouldn't really make much sense as a "religion." There's probably a few more categories I could list, but you get the point. "Religion" is a very complicated and muddled notion that combines most or any of a number of human interests and behaviors.

Looking at the religion I'm most familiar with, modern Catholicism, that framework might look a bit like this:

• superstitions - belief in an all-knowing and all-powerful deity who hears our thoughts and words, belief in a virgin birth and resurrection of a dead man
  
• culture - large cathedrals, stained glass, hymns, Sunday gatherings, Easter and Christmas holy days, self-loathing
  
• ethics - 10 commandments, "do unto others", anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research
  
• explanation of the unknown - Creation myth as allegory, Afterlife based on earthly merits, scattered belief in miracles and haunting, otherwise fairly extensive embrace of science
  
• politics - Vatican, rankings: pope/cardinals/bishops/priests/others, lots of money and political power, abuse of authority (sex scandals)
  
• sexuality -male priests, taboo on sex outside of marriage, anti-homosexuality, encourage reproduction, discourage birth control

Anyway it isn't any big deal to suggest that breaking something down into component parts can be a useful tool for analysis. Its kind of like how the accounting concept "Net Income" can be useful in some very general kinds of financial analysis, but to really understand how that number reflects on a company's financial health you have to look at all the other items that add up to "Net Income." I almost see "religion" as totally devoid of meaning in and of itself. It is just a sum of much more meaningful parts, at least when it comes to understanding human behavior. Understanding people's religious behavior requires understanding the right combination of psychology, sociology, ethics, political behavior, and sexual biology.

But someone deeply indoctrinated in their religion could never see it that way, because for them their religion is actually their understanding of reality. They don't see their belief in a god as a superstition, a cute anthropological oddity. To them, their god is reality. He exists just as much as you or I do. There is no attempt to explain the unknown in their religion, because the Bible explains how the earth was made, so it isn't an unknown. They haven't made decisions about sexual behavior in any strategic way (to make more baby Catholics, for example), they're living the only appropriate way and anyone who does it another way is just wrong.

People operate as if reality is a subjective thing and anyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. What do I mean by "valid" in that context? Well, especially in America, we've got this attitude that basically says "I can believe whatever I want and that's my right, so screw you if you disagree." And if people think that way, there's probably nothing that could change their minds. But that doesn't mean their beliefs are reflective of reality. Reality isn't subjective, even if our perceptions of it are. Religious beliefs might be valid in the sense that people have a right to their own mind, but they aren't valid as an accurate understanding of how the world really is.

An example of this whole relativist approach, and something that annoys me is when a person of faith engages an atheist in debate and makes the claim that atheism is just another religion (like in the comments here). Aside from usually being irrelevant, it just doesn't make any sense to me. What would be the Atheist religion, broken down like I just did for Catholicism?

• superstitions - none, by definition atheists don't believe in god(s)
  
• culture - there is no atheist culture, they blend into their local cultures and just avoid the religious aspects
  
• ethics - there is no set of ethics that all atheists follow, but most have a strong sense of secular ethics
  
• explanation of the unknown - most would say to use the scientific methods to solve mysteries
  
• politics - no organization, just a strong support for the separation of church and state
  
• sexuality -no unified stance, although there is a tendency towards support individual sexual freedom and rights
  

Clearly its pretty stupid to call atheism a religion since most of those categories have no real answer, and it would be easy to fill them up with Hindu or Islam or any of thousands of other religions. Atheism just isn't a religion by any reasonable understanding of the terms.

After being rebuffed, they'll usually say something like the guy in that link:

Let me make it clear, that I did not mean that atheism is a religion by definition. Call it a belief, call it whatever you like, but don't ignore the fact that every time you relate to something, it is because of your personal belief system.

According to dictionary dot com, atheism is, a "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods". When you disbelieve something, that means you BELIEVE IN something ELSE.

YOU believe in atheism, you BELIEVE in the evidence againsts the existencence of God, how are people who believe IN God any different?

First of all there IS a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and saying "I believe there isn't a God." Atheists don't necessarily "BELIEVE in the evidence against the existence of God," rather they don't believe there is evidence for God. It is a burden of proof issue.

Regardless, even if we ignore all that and get to his question - what makes atheists and believers different? Evidence does. Logic does. Commitment to reality makes us different. We go out in the world and figure out what is real. Believers make up a story or read something in an old book and accept it without testing it against reality.

He goes on to answer his own question in his own way:

Well I can answer my own question. They differ because their views don't agree with yours. You can't accept the idea that people believe in something else. So what does it make people like YOU then?

No matter what you believe, there is somebody out there who would be considered an "atheist" to you, a non-believer.

He's basically saying that because people will always disagree, that means all views are equally valid, which is just relativistic nonsense. In some disagreements there is a wrong side.

Some people just literally don't understand reality. They are incapable of logical thinking, either because of limited cognitive ability, or because they've been so brainwashed by decades of relativistic and anti-science propaganda that they just aren't able to see reality.

I acknowledge that it is possible that it is I who can't understand reality and I've got the limited cognitive ability. Maybe the right way to understand truth is by ignoring what I swhollyd wholy embracing dogma. But I'll never believe that. I don't even have need of the concept of "belief" because I don't really form definite conclusions. I just have tentative ideas that seem to work well in predicting what is going to happen.

It is 3:30am and I've been writing for almost 2 hours now. I'm not sure if I made a coherent point overall, but I've touched on a lot of topics that I've been wanting to address. I'd welcome intelligent feedback on any of it. By the way if you click that book link and buy it, I get 4% of the price I think, which would feed me for an hour.

Americans are ignorant fundamentalists

"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."




Ugh.

go

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Beware the wrath of Cuban

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again, but I love Mark Cuban. His enthusiasm might sometimes cross the line into obnoxiousness, but so would yours if you were a billionaire. Mine does and I'm barely an $11,000aire. If I gave out high honors on this blog, Mark would be the See For Yourself equivalent of a Man Beard.

My latest source of Cuban-love is a project of his, Sharesleth.com. Basically he's trying to find a way to take down corporate crooks and make money while doing it.

This post tells you what they're all about:

• "independent Web-based reporting aimed at exposing securities fraud and corporate chicanery"
• "looking for companies that were built for fraud, for executives who are enriching themselves at shareholder expense, and for businesses whose behavior runs counter to their stated objectives or to the public interest"

and best of all:

Unlike mainstream media outlets, we'’re going to have a clear bias -– against deception and corruption. We'’re going to depart from the traditional "“he said, she said" model of journalism, with its false balance and toothless objectivity. We'’re going to name names and show our evidence, by linking to documents, photographs and other information. We think that approach provides greater transparency than most newspapers, broadcast outlets and Internet news sites currently offer.

Their first investigative piece is out. Check it out for yourself, but it sure looks to me like Xethanol Corporation is a huge scam.

If you ever invest money in the stock market, you really ought to take a glance at the story. There are tons of people out there trying to rip you off (and then after you pick your broker there are tons of companies like Xethanol).

15 Zs

Slept from 8pm to 11am last night.

MAN BEARD BLOG

MAN + BEARD + BLOG = MAN BEARD BLOG


I seriously get dozens of hits every week from people searching for "beard growing" on Google. So I might as well run with it.

links adspar likes 4

Here is the 4th installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.


The Ten Commandments of the Ethical Atheist
from The Ethical Atheist

adspar's quick summary:
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thou art told.
2. Thou SHALT seek knowledge and truth constantly.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.

why you should read it:
People associate atheism with immorality or amorality. But I can't imagine a more respectable and moral way to live than suggested by this list. Aside from explaining this list, there's a lot of other good stuff at this site.


Men Not Working, and Not Wanting Just Any Job
by Louis Uchitelle and David Leonhardt

adspar's quick summary:
Some dudes don't want to work.

why you should read it:
I guess I'm not the only one! If you ever thought maybe you'd be happier not working and just being poor, check it out.
The link requires a login, but you can use bugmenot.


Two Plus Two Internet Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 8
by Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky

adspar's quick summary:
Ed Miller unexpectedly quit as editor, so Mason had to throw together an issue with a bunch of essays from him and David.

why you should read it:
Lots of good essays. I liked "Why (Some) Morons Do Better Than You" because all the morons did better than me. I suck.


The Self-Perpetuating Cycle of Smoking and Drinking
by Emily Anthes

adspar's quick summary:
Cigarettes may dull you to the effects of alcohol. Also, there is some evidence that smoking is more rewarding when you've had alcohol.

why you should read it:
Its funny to read about research that confirms what everyone who's ever been in a bar already knows.


Ramen, Pastor Boyd!
by Raindogzilla

adspar's quick summary:
The God is for Suckers blogger gives props to a evangelical reverend who said that "the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a 'Christian nation' and stop glorifying American military campaigns."

why you should read it:
Crazy religions are a whole lot more tolerable when they don't try to force their crazy beliefs on others. (Still crazy though.)


Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise
by Stacy Schiff

adspar's quick summary:
The New Yorker on Wikipedia.

why you should read it:
I'm just including this because I'm fascinated by Wikipedia. I like the anecdote about Congressmen being blocked from the site because they keep altering their own entries.


Inanity Squared
by PZ Myers

adspar's quick summary:
PZ looks up a bible passage and finds that god says that loving nature is evil and gay.

why you should read it:
PZ: "You know, I really don't need to compose arguments against religion: just quoting scripture is damning enough."


Phony Outrage and Senator Schumer
by Jason Rosenhouse

adspar's quick summary:
Jason documents how the religious right-wing is "frothing at the mouth" in response to statements made on the Senate floor by Senator Chuck Schumer.

why you should read it:
I'm shocked at how flagrantly the Catholic website Fidelis misrepresented Schumer's remarks, describing them as a "hate filled attack on religious Americans." You can read them for yourself, and if ANYONE thinks his remarks can be reasonably interpreted that way, I'd like to hear how. I don't know why I'm so surprised that these people are so willing to lie to cast their political opponents in a negative light. I guess I just expect better from the Catholic community I grew up in.



Thats all for links adspar likes 4, which is fast becoming all I do.

Today's links saved here. Preview of 5 here.

original content

I haven't felt much urge to write anything lately. I've been reading a lot online, hence all the links.

• Monday I went to the Legg Mason Tennis Classic and watched Agassi tank his match. We actually showed up without tickets only to find the event unexpectedly sold out, but Cliff Donkey used his mad tennis connections to somehow hook up 2 free passes. Deus ex machina!
  

• On the job front, I've had 3 interviews but none of them have gotten back to me, not even to say no thanks, which I find rather strange. I would think most companies would have some common courtesy. I guess it is possible that they're taking a long time to make hiring decisions. Maybe there's a typo on my resume and they've been trying to call me at the wrong number. Anyway, I'll have to step up my job search efforts, or lower my standards, because this isn't progressing at the pace I had imagined it would.

• In a couple weeks I'm seeing Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, which I'm pretty excited about.

links adspar likes 3

Here is the third installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.

I feel like if I was more ambitious I could form some grand thesis with all of these. Maybe someday it will turn into that. But for now I'm just linking up some cool shit for anyone who cares. On to it...


Freedom to choose won't make you happier
from Science Blog

adspar's quick summary:
Research shows that there is often no difference in how happy people are when they choose between options versus when the option is chosen for them.

why you should read it:
This is an idea I encountered recently in Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. He actually takes it a step further and cites studies that indicate in many situations people are less happy when they have a choice than when a choice is made for them. This has important implications for the standard idea that an option is valuable by definition. Anyway, maybe next time you go out to dinner, just have someone else pick your meal for you.


How Cooperation Can Evolve in a Cheater's World
from Terradaily

adspar's quick summary:
Evolutionary biologists have developed a model that can theoretically explain how cooperation behavior can evolve.

why you should read it:
I'm not really sure that this is anything new. It reminds me a lot of the iterated prisoner's dilemma games that game theorists have played with for decades. But this study is applying it to biology instead of economics, which is useful to reference the next time I hear someone suggest that human altruism/cooperation is a challenge to the theory of evolution, which people often mistakenly see only as a "dog eat dog" kind of system. While eating your neighbor can be a good evolutionary strategy, teaming up with him can sometimes be better.



Government funding of studies you don't agree with
by Tara C. Smith

adspar's quick summary:
This is a good conversation about a general problem raised by the stem cell research debate. Should the government be conducting research that some people find objectionable?

why you should read it:
Some have made the point that people shouldn't have to see their tax dollars spend on something they find objectionable, excluding cases necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society (like military action). That sounds reasonable at first, until you consider that almost ALL scientific research is bound to piss off some tax-payer. How then should the government make its scientific funding decisions? Great discussion in the comments here.



Not cool: a brief rant
by Hume's Ghost

adspar's quick summary:
MTV's show My Super Sweet 16 is the most offensive show on television.

why you should read it:
I completely agree.



The Example of Fairness & Equality Being Exhibited by Representing Them at All Is, Of Course, Completely Lost of Them
from Godless Wonder

adspar's quick summary:
There is a church group that protests at military funerals. They say that God hates America because we're tolerant of homosexuality, and that death of troops is God's revenge on us. But there are laws that prevent picketing or protesting near funerals or cemeteries. The ACLU is representing this group in a lawsuit, claiming that such protest is protected free speech.

why you should read it:
First of all, those church people are scumbag bigotard assholes. I wish impotence upon them all. However I don't know what to think about the ACLU's position here. I'm generally supportive of the Voltaire (mis)quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But shouting hateful insults at funerals crosses some line of decency that I just can't agree deserves free speech protection. One of them had a sign that said "THANK GOD FOR 9/11." How do people become so twisted?



They make me feel like this angry German kid. Seriously, you need to watch that video, which contains insane displays of profanity.




Thus ends links adspar likes 3. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I actually had a lot more content, but I'm tired so I'll just push that all into link4.



RIP: APA

Quotes I like

I came across these quotes recently.

When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.

-Stephen Jay Gould

Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.

-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

a poker thought

One of the hardest things I think that there is about playing poker successfully is being able to balance not fretting over the uncontrollable aspects of the game with also being able to succinctly and swiftly hold yourself accountable for the aspects of your game that are controllable, and being able to recognize the difference between the two.

That quote is from Mike Schneider's blog, and it really hit home for me. I think a huge factor in my poor results that last few months was that I really lost sight of what is and isn't in my control, and because of it I let my emotions get the best of me way too much. Even once I realized that on some level, I felt unable to fix it when I played. I'm hoping that taking a long break from the game will give me a chance to "clean out" the bad habits that developed and rebuild my game almost from scratch, instead of just picking up where I left off.

links adspar likes 2

Here is another installment of a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.


Finch Beaks Change Size, Evolutionists Ejaculate Spontaneously, "“Darwin Definitively Proven Right"”
by Emperor Darth Misha I

adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated religious conservative blogger makes fun of evolution, generating hundreds of comments, many of which are among the more ignorant writing samples I've ever encountered.

why you should read it:
The original blog post is pretty damn stupid, but the comments are truly astonishing. It really seems like a gag where each commenter tries to say something stupider than the last. But what is sad and scary is that these people are completely serious. Somewhere in the mid-100s some people start defending evolution seriously, and the responses to them are truly amazing too. Basically this post has pissed me off for weeks now, so I'm sharing it with you. These are the people who vote in America.


IOKIYAC
by PZ Myers

adspar's quick summary:
A highly-opinionated godless liberal blogger discusses the role of atheism in the ongoing investigation of Pat Tillman's death. I have no idea what the letters in the title mean.

why you should read it:
Well PZ is pretty fired up about anti-atheist bigotry here, but I'm not quite sure I'd take it as far as he does. You can read the original story from ESPN to decide for yourself. I do agree that the officer sounds like he has no clue how to deal with someone who isn't a Christian. I've just always been touched by the Tillman story, and I think this was a guy who deserves to be remembered and celebrated as a true hero. And his death certainly deserves an investigator whose squeamishness about Tillman's atheism isn't so pathetically obvious.


Am I partisan? When I'’m forced to be.
by the BABlogger

adspar's quick summary:
An astronomer reluctantly embraces anti-Republican partisanship when faced with that party's seeming determination to destroy science.

why you should read it:
He shows that the South Dakota Republican party explicitly endorses creationism. The comments point out that the Texas Republican Party explicitly advocates teaching Intelligent Design as science (page 20) in schools. Are you kidding me? How can this be real? What the hell happened to our country?


"Snakes" Deplanes Critics
by Joal Ryan

adspar's quick summary:
New Line Cinema has decided not to host advance screenings of its new movie, "Snakes on a Plane," effectively keeping critics away from it.

why you should read it:
After all the rest of the heavy stuff in these links you need something light, and there is nothing lighter than a plane full of snakes. Brilliant!



The tortured "logic" of the House GOP
by Hume's Ghost

adspar's quick summary:
Discussing a bill in the House regarding the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, the blogger shows the terrible reasoning skills of some of our elected (Republican) leaders, not to mention their fundamental lack of respect fseparationion of church and state.

why you should read it:

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., said America was a nation of God-given inalienable rights and that's why the country is in a war against "radical Islamists." Democrats wouldn't want to "cut and run" in Iraq, he said, "if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God and that's why the pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial."

Unfuckingbelievable. Apparently American values don't work without magical invisibdeitiesies, and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist. UUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGH.


Question Skepticism
by Joseph j7uy5

adspar's quick summary:
A science blogger weighs in on church/state, specifically about the idea that we're a Christian nation because our founders were Christian. He also urges us not to over-simplify ideas into our impression of what someone's political agenda might be: "In the interest of clear thinking, let's keep the issues separate from the ideologies."

why you should read it:
I often hear political debates about issues of morality include something like "America is founded on Judeo-Christian values." I guess there is some truth to that. I'm no historical scholar. But I also thought that our founders were heavily influenced by the age of enlightenment, valuing reason and liberty. To go as far as to claim that "America is a Christian nation" because our founders were Christians is ridiculous. Was evolution a Christian theory because of Darwin's religious beliefs? Hilter was a Christian, does that make the Holocaust a Christian genocide? Religions have some good values, but our founders seems to have made their intentions about which values were appropriate for government pretty clear when they intentionalseparatedted church and state. So to make government decisions based on a majority population's religious values seems like a violation of our founders' intentions. Those are my thoughts anyway. This guy has some good ones too.


Free Speech or Fraud?
by The Two Percent Company

adspar's quick summary:
An interesting angle on an abortion issue. The argument is that evangelical groups that run abortion alternatives centers are committing fraud when they often advertise their centers as providing "abortion services."

why you should read it:
I just thought the argument, that free speech protection shouldn't extend into this kind of situation, was interesting.




Thus ends the second edition of links adspar likes. All of the links for it are neatly available here. I'll end with this YouTube clip that kind of ties everything together for you.




movie link

If you want a preview of my next edition, here's what I've gathered so far.

Later.

inevitable

I just cashed all the money out of my online poker accounts. I need a long break from poker.

I also need a job.

In honor of this moment, here's a picture that might express the exact opposite of my current emotional state:

links adspar likes 1

Reaction to my new template was lukewarm at best, so that change won't be happening any time soon. But since I want something new, I'm hereby starting a recurring feature, creatively titled links adspar likes. These should keep you busy with good reading material while you're bored at work, and it makes me feel productive because most of the links are educational and/or thought-provoking.



The Political Brain
by Michael Shermer

adspar's quick summary:
An Emory University study using MRI brain scans shows that people with strong political leanings automatically turn off the parts of their brains used for reasoning when they take in political information. Basically, we have built-in mechanisms that make us really really biased. Luckily, the scientific method has devised ways to help correct these biases.

why you should read it:
I'm pretty sure I've referenced this study before, but it is worth another mention. The unreason exposed by this study is a big part of the reason why everything about politics is so fucked up. Learn how to recognize and overcome your own biases.


Restoring Nature's Backbone
by Henry Nicholls

adspar's quick summary:
This Public Library of Science journal article explores the idea of large-scale "rewilding," suggesting that rather than simply attempting to preserve existing wildlife, that we attempt to restore "whole ecologies to something of their former glory." An example mentioned is seeding North America with elephants to replace extinct species of mammoths.

why you should read it:
We all know that we've been ravaging our environment with car exhaust and deforestation and greenhouse gases and whatnot, but maybe killing every large mammal in our path for the last 30,000 years has caused some problems too. I had never really thought about that, and had never heard of the idea of using close substitute species to replace the destroyed ones. The ecological argument and information in the article is fascinating.


The End of Marriage
by oneman on the Savage Minds blog

adspar's quick summary:
An anthropologist says that "...if the institution of marriage is going to survive, it does need defending. Not because marriage is the only or best source of truly moral living, but precisely the opposite: marriage is increasingly irrelevant in modern society."

why you should read it:
Traditions can be nice, but we need to know when to let go. If you've ever thought that marriage is a goofy idea, read this.


Rockstars' Ramblings
specifically the Doggerel Index

adspar's quick summary:
The Doggerel series is where the author of this blog "rambles on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless."

why you should read it:
This blog is fun and right-on-the-money.



The fraud of primitive authenticity
by Spengler

adspar's quick summary:
This sprawling commentary in the Asia Times Online is presumably inspired by Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn. Spengler wonders why it is that popular culture typically portrays primitive people as "peace-loving folk living in harmony with nature" and not the nasty, violent savages they really were. He concludes that as Americans move beyond Christianity, we're left without inspiration, so we'll take whatever we can get.

why you should read it:
The 2nd to last paragraph ends with one of the most incisive comments I've ever read. I truly felt shocked when I read it. You need to read the rest of the article to understand the quote properly, so I don't want to post it here yet. (Now I've built it up too much and you'll be disappointed. Sorry.) There's also a criticism of Jared Diamond that I don't really agree with, but I'll admit that could be my politically biased brain at work. Maybe I'll write more about that later.


Making Money in Basketball...
by Mark Cuban

adspar's quick summary:
Mark thinks that minor-league basketball teams should be signing high school kids and build around a business model of developing basketball players in a way that AAU, high school, and NCAA basketball can't do.

why you should read it:
A self-made billionaire freely sharing his business thoughts is a pretty sweet deal. Interesting especially for fans of basketball on any level.


That's all for the first formal edition of links adspar likes. In case you care, I've taken to using del.icio.us to organize my links, so you can find all the stuff for this under my link1 tag. Links I gather for the 2nd edition of links adspar likes will be under link2, etc.

New look?

I've been working on a new template for this blog. Messing with HTML is fun.

Here's how it would look.

Thoughts?

Why hasn't this story had more media attention?

When I put together my 9000 awesome words, I included a map of America, but I felt weird about it. My enthusiasm is more about the abstract idea of America than its current manifestation.

Nothing better illustrates my conflicting feelings about America than the story of Chester Smalkowski.

My synopsis:

His daughter refused to join her school basketball team in prayer, so they kicked her off the squad. After finding out that she refused because she is an atheist like her father, school officials made up lies about her to justify her removal from the team. Upset at about the events, Mr. Smalkowski went to speak to the school principal. The principal physically attacked Mr. Smalkowski, and then filed misdemeanor assault charges against him. He offered to remove the charges if they moved their family out of the state (Oklahoma), and when Smalkowski refused, he added felony assault to the charges. A string of defense lawyers refused to use atheism as part of the defense strategy, but finally the American Atheists got involved and found him a lawyer who was willing to talk about atheism in the heart of the Bible Belt. Eventually a jury found Smalkowski not-guilty.

Smalkowski's account of the ordeal is a must-read: Just Another Salem.

On the one hand you have a community full of people who blindly attack (physically, verbally, emotionally) anyone who challenges their beliefs. But on the other hand, the courts finally did the right thing in the criminal proceeding, and hopefully will in civil as well. I'm fairly surprised that they were able to find a jury of 12 people who were willing to consider the facts of the case without prejudice.

I love the idea of government by consent of the people, a government that serves to protect its citizens' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is inspiring to imagine a bunch of farmers banding together to overthrow a deeply entrenched and oppressive regime and form their own nation, adopting Enlightenment ideals. I also love the protection of freedom of speech and the separation of church and state.

But I don't see the USA as a country committed to any of those ideas any more. America is a mass of people with little respect for anything but their (mostly religious) belief systems. A teacher told Smalkowski's daughter "This is a Christian country and if you don't like it get out!" It seems to me that more American's would agree with that teacher than would agree with our Founding Father's ideals.

get it?

alas

the smart guys think i'm wrong

I had this exact same thought about AI

From the SportsGuy's NBA trade value column:

By the way, I've been watching the World Cup for four weeks trying to decide which NBA players could have been dominant soccer players, eventually coming to three conclusions. First, Allen Iverson would have been the greatest soccer player ever -- better than Pele, better than Ronaldo, better than everyone. I think this is indisputable, actually. Second, it's a shame that someone like Chris Andersen couldn't have been pushed toward soccer, because he would have been absolutely unstoppable soaring above the middle of the pack on corner kicks. And third, can you imagine anyone being a better goalie than Shawn Marion? It would be like having a 6-foot-9 human octopus in the net. How could anyone score on him? He'd have every inch of the goal covered. Just as a sports experiment, couldn't we have someone teach Marion the rudimentary aspects of playing goal, then throw him in a couple of MLS games? Like you would turn the channel if this happened?

Tommy Angelo

Just about everything Tommy Angelo posts on 2+2 is pure gold. He writes as if he has a secret that nobody knows. Here's his latest:

Artichoke Joe's NLHE. Folding is extra easy in this game for me because it is so much fun to watch.

The cast:

Player A, a regular who exerts Olympian discipline when he is ahead, sitting for hours without changing mood or stack size. If he takes a big beat that sets off his sense of injustice, he routinely flairs up his chips at the next reasonable opportunity. All regulars know that he does this.

Player B, not a regular. He is a poker player who rarely frowns and who enjoys full gambling pleasure as he routinely and enthusiastically accepts long odds allin headsup as bettor/raiser or caller.

Player C, a regular who doesn't do very well in this story.

Player C took a break. When Player C left the table, Player A was into the game for $2,000 and he had $3,000 on the table, and player B was into the game for $6,000 and he had $3,000 on the table. Player B had given indications of quitting soon, but Player A had not seen them. Player B was playing tight, but wound tight. He was ready to accept his current status of -$3,000 as his final tally for the day, but he was also ready to get even, or even stucker.

While Player C was gone, Players A and B played an allin pot. The money went in on the turn, when Player A had the best hand. Player B had five outs and he got there on the river. So now Player A had no money on the table and no faith in justice. Player B had $6,000 on the table and he was looking around for empty racks. Player A, pissed, bought $6,000 in chips. (Cash does not play.) Two hands later, Player C quit. Player A was exploding inside. He folded the next couple hands and I watched his bits fall back to earth and collect themselves. By the time Player C came back to the table, Player A looked fine at first glance, sitting behind his 6K stack, arranged in his usual way. But he was still plenty scattered inside.

Player C sat down and he saw that Player B was gone, and the usual question came to his mind which is, What happened? Did Player B leave with chips? The answer can usually be found without asking, by looking at stack sizes, and listening to the occasional after-murmurs that take place anytime anyone quits. This time there were no murmurs for him to go on, but he didn't need any. Because Player A’s stack had gone from $3000 to $6,000, Player C drew the obvious yet wrong conclusion that Player A had busted Player B, when actually it was the other way around. The next obvious yet wrong conclusion that Player C drew was that Player A would be locked down extra tight, when actually Player A was likely to head into one his little furies if the cards gave him a nudge.

Player C was into the game for $5,000 and he had $5,000 on the table. He took the big blind and he got pocket twos. One player limped UTG for $20. All the others folded to Player A on the button. Player A made it $200. To Player C, this meant Player A had a big pair. Not ace-king, not a medium or small pair, and not suited connectors. It isn’t merely decent poker for Player C to put Player A on a big pair here and not budge from that read. It would be impossible poker for him to do otherwise. It would be like you going all-in UTG on the first hand of the WSOP, and everyone at the table thinking to themselves, yeah, he must have 7-2 offsuit. That’s how wrong it would be for Player C to put Player A on anything but a big pair here, not because of this raise he made on this hand, but because of a dozen years of other raises just like it, never without a big pair, except maybe just maybe during one of his little tilt spasms, which this obviously wasn’t one.

Player C called the preflop raise, and the limper folded.

The flop came 3-4-5 rainbow.

Player C checked and Player A bet $300. Player C called.

The turn was an ace.

Player C checked and player A bet $500. Player C made it $1000. Player A moved allin, a raise of $3000 more. Player C called instantly and turned over his low straight, expecting Player A to show pocket aces. Player C might have even been thinking that he had tilt odds on this hand all the way from before the flop, that if he could crack Player A real good on a hand, that Player A might steam off some chips in the afterbath. Just one problem. Player A’s tilt was not starting. It was ending. He rolled 67 for the unbeatable untieable.


Tommy

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale

We've got the potential to make a little magic here. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Just sit back and relax and see where the night takes us.

I'm fascinated with Wikipedia. Completely fascinated. People just built this whole thing in some weird collaborative effort. Anyone can jump in and edit something, and nobody knows who has done that to anything they've read. But everyone uses it, except maybe this guy who is scared of it. He's got some good points. I don't know what to believe. I think my fascination with Wikipedia is because it combines free information and voyeurism and free-association.

Anyway, after cruising through the Wikipedia article about Mitch Hedberg, I decided to check out Fight Club (the movie not the novel). Some things that struck me:

• I had no idea that it wasn't a huge blockbuster. The article says it opened hot, but then it didn't do very well in the theatres, but eventually did pretty well on DVD.
  
• I didn't know, but I'm not surprised that it received wildly mixed reviews from critics. The comment that interested me the most is that some critic compared it favorably to American Beauty, which was the other movie that year that really "moved" me (and I still call my favorite movie). I loved both of those movies and remember vividly feeling like they reached me in opposite ways. I was in my freshman or sophomore year of college, but I must have been home on some break because I remember coming home to my parents' house after seeing Fight Club. I was so full of ideas that I couldn't sleep, and foreshadowing my blogging efforts, I wrote this long letter by hand on notebook paper ostensibly to my college girlfriend but it probably was really just throwing down all my thoughts. I don't remember what I wrote except to compare and contrast Fight Club with American Beauty. Yeah, whatever.
• "In the scene where Brad Pitt and Edward Norton are seemingly drunk and striking balls into neighboring factories, the two actually are drunk and hitting balls at catering trucks." Quite a life these actors have.

High Stakes Poker on GSN is by far the greatest poker TV program ever. If you've ever watched any poker and thought it was good television, you need to tivo this shit immediately. Tournament poker is just a bunch of donkey amateurs occasionally tangling with pros. This show is a table full of the best in the world going to war against each other. Fascinating shit. Maybe more fascinating that its wikipedia entry. All players are paid $1250/hr by the producers to sit and play with their own money (minimum buy in is $100,000).

Why does everything have to flow evenly? She don't know, so she chases them away.

Just when I'm about to give up hope... regardless of how you feel about my atheism, this is some interesting shit:

"Attorneys and jurors in the Smalkowski case did a remarkable thing,"” added Kagin. "They checked their opinions about religion at the front door of the court house and looked only at the evidence."”

Good stuff. On that subject, dead pope JP2 told scientists not to study the origin of the universe. Luckily, those that defy him probably won't be burned alive.

Fine. That's it. I can't live up to the hype tonight. Butter.

Mitch

When you go to a restaurant on the weekends and it's busy they start a waiting list. They start calling out names, they say "Dufrene, party of two. Dufrene, party of two." And if no one answers they'll say their name again. "Dufrene, party of two, Dufrene, party of two." But then if no one answers they'll just go right on to the next name. "Bush, party of three." Yeah, but what happened to the Dufrenes? No one seems to give a shit. Who can eat at a time like this - people are missing. You fuckers are selfish... the Dufrenes are in someone's trunk right now, with duct tape over their mouths. And they're hungry! That's a double whammy. We need help. Bush, search party of three! You can eat when you find the Dufrenes.

RIP Hedberg

Faith is bad

Inspired in part by reading the first half of Sam Harris's The End of Faith, here are some more thoughts about religious faith.

1. Backwards

In almost any area of human discourse that concerns itself with attempting to understand reality, our society accepts that using logic and evidence is the preferred way to form conclusions upon which to base our actions.

• If a scientist were to offer an illogical theory with insufficient supporting evidence, that theory would be rejected by the scientific community.
• If a businessman invests in a project that makes no sense and has no research to suggest it would be profitable, he's being irresponsible with time and money. He might be fired by his boss, or sued by his shareholders.
• If our legal system were to convict a woman of a crime without any evidence against her, we'd condemn the court's actions as a travesty of justice.
• If a doctor urged an untested course of treatment for a diseased patient without presenting an available and highly successful conventional treatment method, he'd be guilty of medical malpractice.
• If a newspaper regularly published stories without any facts to back them up because the writers just felt that they were the truth, that paper would be ridiculed for its lack of journalistic integrity and would end up on the tabloid rack if it even managed to stay in business.

And yet somehow religion manages to completely evade this standard that works so well in science, business, law, medicine, and journalism. Not only does a vast majority of our population accept illogical religious claims without a shred of evidence, their unfounded belief is exalted as a virtue called "faith."

This backwardness never ceases to astonish me.

---

2. Grouping

With that idea in mind I'd group people of faith into these categories -

1. The (Functionally) Insane Fundamentalists - those that absolutely refuse to consider the merits of any idea that contradicts their religious beliefs in any way. These people simply have closed their minds to reason entirely, and live their lives on blind faith. Not only do they shun basic values that most of the free world has embraced, they often endorse the use of violence to advance their Insane Fundamentalist beliefs. In fact, many of them believe that being killed while fighting for their beliefs will win them eternal rewards in their afterlife. Harris argues convincingly that such people being armed with weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to the entire world.
   
2. The Misguided - those that generally appreciate the value of empiricism but don't see how faith runs contrary to that way of thinking. Basically they don't know how to properly evaluate evidence and apply logic, and consequently they're easily duped by junk like Intelligent Design that is couched in the language of science but without any genuine scientific content. They also tend to invoke Pascal's Wager.
   
3. The Inconsistents - those that generally appreciate the value of empiricism but think of it as just one way of seeing the world, but not necessarily the best or most effective. They realize that their faith isn't rational, but they think of that irrationality as part of a reasonable overall worldview. You hear them say things like "the methods of science do not apply to matters of faith," but usually only after someone has pointed out the failing in their attempts to defend faith with reason. For them, it seems like reason is the #1 way to explain something, but you can fall back on faith as #2 if reason fails. So they basically pick what they want to believe, regardless of evidence, and if they can then find evidence to support it, they use it. But if they can't find evidence, they invoke faith . The Inconsistents cling to the "god of the gaps," claiming that any area that science hasn't (yet) reached is the domain of faith. Is that the best way to decide which ideas are best viewed through the lens of science and which are to use faith? If science makes an advancement into those gaps, doesn't that show that science was the best way to look at those ideas all along?

None of that should suggest that believers are necessarily unintelligent. All 3 of those groups can and do contain smart people. Insane Fundamentalists simply refuse to apply their intelligence to be critical of themselves, but I don't think anyone would doubt that Osama must be a pretty smart guy to have organized his terrorist network. The Misguided often just haven't been trained in logic or the methods of science, which can be counter-intuitive even to a very intelligent person. And The Inconsistent are often very intelligent and college educated, but they combine a lack of self-critical thought and incomplete understanding of science. They actually tend to use their education to create more elaborate (but still illogical) arguments to support their beliefs, and are more adept at picking out (often legitimate) problems with the arguments of their opposition.

---

3. Hidden Threat

Obviously a well-armed and martyr-minded Insane Fundamentalist poses a threat to anyone within his blast radius. The Misguided and The Inconsistent seem harmless by comparison. But Harris shows an indirect but powerful way that these groups are dangerous as well.

Consider what would happen if you were to tell everyone you know that Zeus has chosen you for a divine quest to defeat the forces of Poseidon. After the first few dozen people look at you funny and slowly back away, you might start to feel insane. Maybe you'd even question your belief in the divine quest.

But if you did that in Rome 3000 years ago you might be able to recruit a whole anti-Poseidon team. Most people are strongly influenced by those around them. Its hard to stand up and say something that nobody around you will support, and it is easy to get swept up into something that everyone else supports.

If you truly accept that martyrs and their families hold a higher place in the eternal afterlife, you'd want to strap a bomb to your chest and get on the nearest bus. You'd be crazy not to blow yourself up. But if nobody else believed it, maybe you'd think twice before taking your own life along with the rest of the bus.

By making it seems normal for people to accept irrational religious claims without supporting evidence, Misguideds and Inconsistents contribute to the warped views of the Functionally Insane Fundamentalists. I call them "functionally" insane because unless their brains are literally damaged in some way, they might start to question the insanity of their beliefs if they were the only group in the world that embraced irrational faith.

In this way, the liberal philosophy of tolerance and respect for religious beliefs is dangerous.

---

4. How to Fight Back?

A common trait that I mentioned about both the Misguided and the Inconsistent is a poor understanding of logic and science. Combine that with the hidden threat of more benign faith, and that's why I think it is so important to improve the quality of our science education. The conflict between science and religious faith is pretty obvious though, as I mentioned recently, and religious people fight pretty hard against science education (evolution vs ID being a popular battleground of that fight).

A specific area of education I'd like to see improved is teaching people about how their own minds work. People should be educated about our brains' built-in cognitive biases, the distortions in the way our minds perceive reality. We should teach people about the logical fallacies we're all prone to committing.

Most students wouldn't be introduced to those topics until college-level courses in psychology and logic. I think they should be built into curriculum as early as possible. If we expose people to the idea that their minds don't always work as well as we'd like, and if we teach them to identify ways to compensate, we'd start closing the cognitive and logical loopholes that the bad ideas of faith tend to exploit.