Thomas Sowell has written: Most people on the right have no problem understanding people on the left because many, if not most, were on the left themselves when they were younger. But many, if not most, people on the left find it inexplicable how any decent and intelligent person could be on the right.
I really enjoy having conversations with those who have a different view point than me. It challenges me to look at my own beliefs from another viewpoint and see if they will continue to hold up to scrutiny. I also love poking at the beliefs of others to see exactly where someone stands and for what reasons they have that stand. In my experience, liberals want to feel good about their decisions, but rarely will they go through to thinking about the ramifications of a certain course of action. I am more than willing to say that I am wrong, but you had better have all of your ducks in a row if you think my beliefs make me a bad person.
One of the most entertaining episodes involved a trip to Australia in which I was caught smack dab in the middle of a close-knit group of liberals who had never been challenged before.
Discussion I had in Australia with two young-ish (25-29) deer-eyed liberals, of course I bring up politics.
Australian Liberal 1: I can't believe what America is doing now (it's Fall of 2005, just a couple of years into Iraq). How is it possible that it's being supported. I've never even met a republican!
Me: You have now.
Aus. Lib. 1: Oh, my God. What? This is so weird.
Me: This whole day our group has been talking as you show us around Sydney, have I done anything to make you think I'm a bad person? Do I seem like a person who feeds the carcasses of the homeless to my pets? Republicans are people too, they don't rape and pillage people or third world countries for fun... often...
Aus. Lib. 2: Whatever! That's ridiculous. Republicans are cold hearted, they don't care about anything. They just think about business and don't even think about the homeless for instance.
Me: I would argue that I care more about the homeless than your typical Democrat. More than anything I want homeless people to get off of the street. I want them to sustain themselves with a job though, if at all possible. I don't want them to feel like they have to rely on handouts to survive in the long-term.
Hear me out. How do you most help a poor person on the street? Do you give them money for a meal, or do you help them out of their situation by encouraging them to be self sufficient. Which method keep the person from being poor a day, a week, or a year from now. Plus, if republicans care so much about money, who's going to buy our stuff, people with money or people living on the street? A person concerned about selling things is better off it more of the population can buy their crap. There is no benefit to keeping poor people poor. Plus, how do you do that? How do influence a person to not go to work every day? How do you influence them to not develope their skills? The conspiracy to keep poor people poor makes no sense, and it's impossible to even try to implement. Plus, who has enough power or influence to be able to do that?
Aus. Lib. 2: That's a cold hearted thing to do, just leaving someone in the street to fend for themselves. You're just blaming the victim.
Me: I'm not saying you let them go hungry, just make sure that you don't give it to them without some semblance of responsibility attached to it. Make them feel like they've earned it. For you to make money, you have to do something productive. For you to be self sustaining, you must be productive at some level. But remember there will always be the case of the truly downtrodden which must be helped. We can't let the truly handi-capped or infirm rot on the steet, republicans are in fact human in that regard.
Aus. Lib. 1: I've never thought about it that way.
Me: So am I still evil?
Reluctantly, these people conceded that I was, in fact, not entirely evil. They thought this at least until later that night when I started breaking out the "Dead Baby Jokes" (prepare to be seriously, seriously, offended/disgusted).
My overall point is this: from my perspective some major points for someone to feel content they need to feel secure, needed, and productive. Working hard at a job will almost always contribute to all of those points. There is so much more to life than just work (like epileptic, nursing home G-G-MILF porn). From this point of view giving a no-strings-attached handuot will not make someone better off in the long term. If you can attach a bit of self development with that handout, however, everyone wins.
How about mandating certain levels of work in exchange for government assistance? What would happen if college students with government subsidized loans had to put in 15-20 hours of work a month? What if anyone receiving food stamps or welfare had to work 10-20 hours a month? This work could be cleaning up ditches, maintaining government property, stuffing envelopes for the county, answering phones for a state/government agency, building/maintaining low income housing, or churning butter. Mmmmmm, socialist butter......
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Bias, and My Incredibly Closed Minded Take On It
There's an article recently posted on Scientific American online "Buried Prejudice: The Bigot in Your Brain". This seems like pretty disturbing stuff, but at the same time I feel like I've kind of already known this.
People, it seems, are very judgemental and categorize things simplistically. This is necessary, however, for people to easily interact and predict reactions in the world they live in. One of the steps in the development of a childs mind which make the leap from arbitrary shapes to existence of "things". The child then quickly rationalizes cause and effect with everything they can do and experience. According to psychologists at Harvard and UC Merced, children commonly develop their racial biases around 4-6 years of age. The extent of their biases are influenced, it seems, by parents. Though simplistic categorization is an entirely natural developmental process, the irrational race based assumptions may very well be galvanized in someone's mind by the time they enter kindergarten.
Now, I have to raise my hand and ask, is this bias thing something that is inherent in humans as a whole, or are we seeing some social construct which is imparted on someone. To this question, it seems the article's answer is "Both".
There is something fundamental in the understanding of 'we' and 'them'. There is an obvious pro 'us' bias and a negative 'them' bias. If a person identifies themself very solidly in a racial or ethnic community, there is certainly a chance for them having this arbitrary group bias. You can see something similar by looking at any rabid (*insert local sports team here*) fan and tell them that their favorite star player can go eat shit. Go up to a French person, and tell them to stick their stinky cheese where the sun doesn't shine. The reaction you'd get to this line of discussion is a pretty clear indication that people, generally like, associate with, and will defend many of their arbitrary associations.
Florida Spring break trip many moons ago (roughly 4am):
College Age Mississippi Douchebag (MSDB): Woooooooooooo! Ain't no party like a Mississippi party!
Me (DB): Why won't these bastards go to sleep! I need to get up early tomorrow to drink.
MSDB: Woooooooooooo! Who wants to fight a Mississippi boy! Who wants to?!
(*5 minutes later police arrive*)
It's obviously stupid, but had this kid been born in Tennessee he'd probably be saying the same stupid shit just about Tennessee instead of Mississippi.
This desire to associate with a like group, and to ascribe positive attributes to this group, I would argue, must be nature based because of its obvious benefits to tribal, nomadic, and BDSM societies. Believing that people have a desire to group does not mean we have to live with racist bias forever. Eventually we could get to a point, due to inter-racial marriage, we'll slowly bring society to a middle ground in which race is less of an issue. This could be due in no small part to the fact that the idea of race will become more muddled and less cut and dry. I think people will be less able to judge based on appearance alone because there will be too much middle ground. Any perceived differentiations of race will soften and overlap.
So, if we as human beings have this fundamental desire to experience, divide, and judge based on our simplistic distinctions, is that a bad thing? In my opinion it is bad in that negative stereotypes can be perpetuated, they're more difficult to overcome if it's what's expected of you. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that positive stereotypes are a benefit. There are immigrant societies in America that seem to have a culture of hard work because that is who they are, and they won't accept anything less from themselves or their children. From what I see, communities that parent well, expect the best from their kids, and delineate good/bad repercussions to those kids' actions, in general beat the shit out of the statistical "rest of society".
So what's the freakin' point. What am I trying to get at? Stereotypes in and of themselves are what they are: (many times) irrational impulses which must be subverted and overcome based on rational judgement and what is expected of polite society today (sorry Nazis). These impulses can be seen in the same context as sexual urges after commiting yourself to a monogamous relationship; they'll exist, but you can conciously decide against them. To be a respected member of society today, judgements and actions must be based on moral and rational grounds, not irrational emotions and biases.
This brings me to an even bigger point to which I confuse myself on. So, let's say that media as a whole is a giant circle-jerk perpetuating and encouraging these arbitrary distinctions on what it means to be cool, connected, loved, a part of society, or what it means to be a true (*insert ethniticy/community here*) person. On one side of the coin I say we should never put down ridiculous media like hip-hop or death metal, because I love it for the ridiculousness of it. Anyone wanting to ban Eminem or Rammstein will have to pry it out of my cold dead fingers. It's just too entertaining to me. But it's truly disturbing when people take their social cues from this stuff. When people decide and interact based on their interpretations of these media caricatures, those people have a problem.
We need to look in the mirror and realize that, like this article in Scientific American states, we each have our own irrational biases. We must face these biases for what they are, and push everyone to be the best they can be regardless of arbitrary skin tone, distinctions. We cannot hold back constructive criticism for fear we will offend someone, we must push, help, celebrate people for what is out there for anyone to achieve.
We, as a people, need to cock-punch in the face those who are acting based on bias, but at the same time renounce anyone who holds themselves back based on bias. In America, in 2008, there is no racial, ethnic, or socio-economic reason for laziness, apathy, or rotting your brain behind a TV for hours every day.
People should rot their brain like me, by looking at engadget.com, fark.com, monster-a-day, digg.com, reason.com/blog, and a million other things that make me just as bad as the laziest of lazies. Well, I better go grab the windex, it looks like my glass house needs some cleaning.
People, it seems, are very judgemental and categorize things simplistically. This is necessary, however, for people to easily interact and predict reactions in the world they live in. One of the steps in the development of a childs mind which make the leap from arbitrary shapes to existence of "things". The child then quickly rationalizes cause and effect with everything they can do and experience. According to psychologists at Harvard and UC Merced, children commonly develop their racial biases around 4-6 years of age. The extent of their biases are influenced, it seems, by parents. Though simplistic categorization is an entirely natural developmental process, the irrational race based assumptions may very well be galvanized in someone's mind by the time they enter kindergarten.
Now, I have to raise my hand and ask, is this bias thing something that is inherent in humans as a whole, or are we seeing some social construct which is imparted on someone. To this question, it seems the article's answer is "Both".
There is something fundamental in the understanding of 'we' and 'them'. There is an obvious pro 'us' bias and a negative 'them' bias. If a person identifies themself very solidly in a racial or ethnic community, there is certainly a chance for them having this arbitrary group bias. You can see something similar by looking at any rabid (*insert local sports team here*) fan and tell them that their favorite star player can go eat shit. Go up to a French person, and tell them to stick their stinky cheese where the sun doesn't shine. The reaction you'd get to this line of discussion is a pretty clear indication that people, generally like, associate with, and will defend many of their arbitrary associations.
Florida Spring break trip many moons ago (roughly 4am):
College Age Mississippi Douchebag (MSDB): Woooooooooooo! Ain't no party like a Mississippi party!
Me (DB): Why won't these bastards go to sleep! I need to get up early tomorrow to drink.
MSDB: Woooooooooooo! Who wants to fight a Mississippi boy! Who wants to?!
(*5 minutes later police arrive*)
It's obviously stupid, but had this kid been born in Tennessee he'd probably be saying the same stupid shit just about Tennessee instead of Mississippi.
This desire to associate with a like group, and to ascribe positive attributes to this group, I would argue, must be nature based because of its obvious benefits to tribal, nomadic, and BDSM societies. Believing that people have a desire to group does not mean we have to live with racist bias forever. Eventually we could get to a point, due to inter-racial marriage, we'll slowly bring society to a middle ground in which race is less of an issue. This could be due in no small part to the fact that the idea of race will become more muddled and less cut and dry. I think people will be less able to judge based on appearance alone because there will be too much middle ground. Any perceived differentiations of race will soften and overlap.
So, if we as human beings have this fundamental desire to experience, divide, and judge based on our simplistic distinctions, is that a bad thing? In my opinion it is bad in that negative stereotypes can be perpetuated, they're more difficult to overcome if it's what's expected of you. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that positive stereotypes are a benefit. There are immigrant societies in America that seem to have a culture of hard work because that is who they are, and they won't accept anything less from themselves or their children. From what I see, communities that parent well, expect the best from their kids, and delineate good/bad repercussions to those kids' actions, in general beat the shit out of the statistical "rest of society".
So what's the freakin' point. What am I trying to get at? Stereotypes in and of themselves are what they are: (many times) irrational impulses which must be subverted and overcome based on rational judgement and what is expected of polite society today (sorry Nazis). These impulses can be seen in the same context as sexual urges after commiting yourself to a monogamous relationship; they'll exist, but you can conciously decide against them. To be a respected member of society today, judgements and actions must be based on moral and rational grounds, not irrational emotions and biases.
This brings me to an even bigger point to which I confuse myself on. So, let's say that media as a whole is a giant circle-jerk perpetuating and encouraging these arbitrary distinctions on what it means to be cool, connected, loved, a part of society, or what it means to be a true (*insert ethniticy/community here*) person. On one side of the coin I say we should never put down ridiculous media like hip-hop or death metal, because I love it for the ridiculousness of it. Anyone wanting to ban Eminem or Rammstein will have to pry it out of my cold dead fingers. It's just too entertaining to me. But it's truly disturbing when people take their social cues from this stuff. When people decide and interact based on their interpretations of these media caricatures, those people have a problem.
We need to look in the mirror and realize that, like this article in Scientific American states, we each have our own irrational biases. We must face these biases for what they are, and push everyone to be the best they can be regardless of arbitrary skin tone, distinctions. We cannot hold back constructive criticism for fear we will offend someone, we must push, help, celebrate people for what is out there for anyone to achieve.
We, as a people, need to cock-punch in the face those who are acting based on bias, but at the same time renounce anyone who holds themselves back based on bias. In America, in 2008, there is no racial, ethnic, or socio-economic reason for laziness, apathy, or rotting your brain behind a TV for hours every day.
People should rot their brain like me, by looking at engadget.com, fark.com, monster-a-day, digg.com, reason.com/blog, and a million other things that make me just as bad as the laziest of lazies. Well, I better go grab the windex, it looks like my glass house needs some cleaning.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunshine, Lollipops, Rainbows, and Oh, yeah, Fuck Religion
Alright everyone. It's time. I apologize in advance. I'm going to use poo-poo words to talk about religion. If you give a shit, please don't read this. I'm pretty surprised I stayed away from this topic for this long. Let's talk religion (sorry Jeebus).
To get a good feel for what religion is, we need to talk about what people are and what people need. Many people need to feel like there's order in their life. People need to feel continuity in things that they don't understand and at the same time people need to feel important and unique. Ratinoally, it's tough to square this desire of uniqueness with the thought that you're just one of untold billions of pieces of crap, circling space, waiting to be flushed down the toilet of eternity. In revealing that cosmic truth to someone, many people think you're insulting them. A child can look into the night and imagine, even viscerally feel, a world full of unseen and unimaginable horrors, that is unless a spiderman nightlight gives them a bit of reassurance. Lots of people shit their pants because of the always present spectre of bad things happening, that is unless they have the adult nightlight "religion". If we just say that bad things like Dave Coullier, Dancing with the stars, and puppies getting explosive diarrhea is all part of God's plan, well people feel better because at least we're not being tortured by these awful things arbitrarily.
Why do we think that in the year 2008 we are any more intelligent that all the golden calf worshiping heathens 2000 years ago.
Present Day Religious Person: "Worshiping Thor is stupid and unintelligent, but let me tell you about Scientology and how Xenu imprisoned billions of souls via a giant electro-magnetic cage."
Sure, it's incredible what we have at hand with technology now-a-days, but you have to remember that individual intellect is no more advanced than those living a thousand years ago. Scientific advances have brought society light-years ahead of where we were, but we're still reverting to that desire to say that someone in the clouds is pulling the strings. Many say this invisible cop is why the sun comes up every morning, and why I don't murder people for fun.
Why, though, did God get off his lazy-ass 2000 years ago, and not 3000 years ago? He could have "saved" untolds millions more people. Why weren't Asians, or African cultures in on this little secret called salvation? Why does God love Jews so much?
Why didn't God start saving people in pre-historic times? What happened to cavemen souls after they got done selling auto insurance? It's no fault of their own that God hated them, and forced them to live in a world of sleeping on rocks and eating wooly-mammoth turds to stay alive. Why the hell are certain people chosen to receive the word of God? I thought He loved everyone equally. What about other religions/people? Is their form of worship kosher just as long as they're mono-theistic? Saying only mono-theism is alright pretty much fucks native americans, tribal societies, Greeks, and environmentalists who simultaneously worship Al Gore and Obama.
For the sake of argument let's accept that it's perfectly fine for anyone to worship in their own way. Everyone should be able to get to heaven so long as they're a good person, right? That is, unless, you agree that God chose caucasians and says, "Fuck the yellows/darkies! I like BMW's and bratwursts. Europe! Fuck yeah!" Well what the fuck!
So just because my great-great-great-great-great grandparents received the story of Christ and his ressurection, and I can't claim ignorance, I have to live by a whole bunch of rules and self-loathe weekly to get into heaven? What about tribal people! It's not their fault they weren't taught that meat on Fridays during Lent, tattoos, and droopy-boobs are enough to relegate someone to pits of hell forever.
We had better decide that of all the religions out there in the world there is one right religion, or we must decide that they are all crocks of shit. If every religion is equally valid, every religion is equally invalid. If every maintstream religion is acceptable then there's nothing unique or correct about anyone's personal take on religion. Either every religion is wrong or there's one particular sect who's getting it just right, in which case 99% of the population had better get used the idea of spending a gajillion, bajillion years of having red hot coals shoved up their ass for eternity because we're all going to hell (me especially).
Which is it?
I do understand that religion encourages positive traits. I do understand that children need guidance and by telling them these biblical stories we seem to get the message through to them. People need a sense of community, and in the world today there are very few ways that people can connect with each other. Churches do contribute positively to society. Who else is going to do the dirty work of seriously reach out to the poor, give old people something to look forward to every morning, and rape little boys? NAMBLA only has one of those bases covered, so there is obviously a need.
It seems like society needs a way of connecting citizens together and feeling like they're part of something bigger than themselves. We need ways of teaching our children what is expected of them, and what society will not accept in terms of behavior. I just wish there was a less self-congratulatory, hypocritical, guilt-ridden, ivory-tower sitting, anal sex not having way of going about it.
Sorry for the ridiculousness of this post, but I would like to think I'm a very good person. I try to practice all of the virtues extolled in the bible (without quite so much Jew-violence though). Patience, virtue, humility, temperence, blah, blah, blah. It's all something to strive for and I am the first to admit that I fail every day in developing these virtues in myself. With all of this said, just please don't tell me to be something I'm not because some string-puller upstairs is watching me whenever I kick kittens.
To get a good feel for what religion is, we need to talk about what people are and what people need. Many people need to feel like there's order in their life. People need to feel continuity in things that they don't understand and at the same time people need to feel important and unique. Ratinoally, it's tough to square this desire of uniqueness with the thought that you're just one of untold billions of pieces of crap, circling space, waiting to be flushed down the toilet of eternity. In revealing that cosmic truth to someone, many people think you're insulting them. A child can look into the night and imagine, even viscerally feel, a world full of unseen and unimaginable horrors, that is unless a spiderman nightlight gives them a bit of reassurance. Lots of people shit their pants because of the always present spectre of bad things happening, that is unless they have the adult nightlight "religion". If we just say that bad things like Dave Coullier, Dancing with the stars, and puppies getting explosive diarrhea is all part of God's plan, well people feel better because at least we're not being tortured by these awful things arbitrarily.
Why do we think that in the year 2008 we are any more intelligent that all the golden calf worshiping heathens 2000 years ago.
Present Day Religious Person: "Worshiping Thor is stupid and unintelligent, but let me tell you about Scientology and how Xenu imprisoned billions of souls via a giant electro-magnetic cage."
Sure, it's incredible what we have at hand with technology now-a-days, but you have to remember that individual intellect is no more advanced than those living a thousand years ago. Scientific advances have brought society light-years ahead of where we were, but we're still reverting to that desire to say that someone in the clouds is pulling the strings. Many say this invisible cop is why the sun comes up every morning, and why I don't murder people for fun.
Why, though, did God get off his lazy-ass 2000 years ago, and not 3000 years ago? He could have "saved" untolds millions more people. Why weren't Asians, or African cultures in on this little secret called salvation? Why does God love Jews so much?
Why didn't God start saving people in pre-historic times? What happened to cavemen souls after they got done selling auto insurance? It's no fault of their own that God hated them, and forced them to live in a world of sleeping on rocks and eating wooly-mammoth turds to stay alive. Why the hell are certain people chosen to receive the word of God? I thought He loved everyone equally. What about other religions/people? Is their form of worship kosher just as long as they're mono-theistic? Saying only mono-theism is alright pretty much fucks native americans, tribal societies, Greeks, and environmentalists who simultaneously worship Al Gore and Obama.
For the sake of argument let's accept that it's perfectly fine for anyone to worship in their own way. Everyone should be able to get to heaven so long as they're a good person, right? That is, unless, you agree that God chose caucasians and says, "Fuck the yellows/darkies! I like BMW's and bratwursts. Europe! Fuck yeah!" Well what the fuck!
So just because my great-great-great-great-great grandparents received the story of Christ and his ressurection, and I can't claim ignorance, I have to live by a whole bunch of rules and self-loathe weekly to get into heaven? What about tribal people! It's not their fault they weren't taught that meat on Fridays during Lent, tattoos, and droopy-boobs are enough to relegate someone to pits of hell forever.
We had better decide that of all the religions out there in the world there is one right religion, or we must decide that they are all crocks of shit. If every religion is equally valid, every religion is equally invalid. If every maintstream religion is acceptable then there's nothing unique or correct about anyone's personal take on religion. Either every religion is wrong or there's one particular sect who's getting it just right, in which case 99% of the population had better get used the idea of spending a gajillion, bajillion years of having red hot coals shoved up their ass for eternity because we're all going to hell (me especially).
Which is it?
I do understand that religion encourages positive traits. I do understand that children need guidance and by telling them these biblical stories we seem to get the message through to them. People need a sense of community, and in the world today there are very few ways that people can connect with each other. Churches do contribute positively to society. Who else is going to do the dirty work of seriously reach out to the poor, give old people something to look forward to every morning, and rape little boys? NAMBLA only has one of those bases covered, so there is obviously a need.
It seems like society needs a way of connecting citizens together and feeling like they're part of something bigger than themselves. We need ways of teaching our children what is expected of them, and what society will not accept in terms of behavior. I just wish there was a less self-congratulatory, hypocritical, guilt-ridden, ivory-tower sitting, anal sex not having way of going about it.
Sorry for the ridiculousness of this post, but I would like to think I'm a very good person. I try to practice all of the virtues extolled in the bible (without quite so much Jew-violence though). Patience, virtue, humility, temperence, blah, blah, blah. It's all something to strive for and I am the first to admit that I fail every day in developing these virtues in myself. With all of this said, just please don't tell me to be something I'm not because some string-puller upstairs is watching me whenever I kick kittens.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Internets and It's Incredible Sensitivity
*Disclaimer* This entire post is about insensitive, vulgar, but mostly true internet babble that I get a kick out of. Feel free to skip this post if you like catching weiners with your mouth...
This applies to government just as much as it does to people.
I know I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, but Neal Boortz wrote a terrific commencement speech that has not been used yet. By his speaking style you will see why he is not looked to for inspiration by any typical teacher/professor.
As long as we're being cynical and insensitive, let's take a look at a blog I found recently; notdirtywriter.net
I have no idea why I love this stuff so much, but I do. Despite the fact that there are posts which blatantly contradict themselves (i.e. What Being Certain Says About You, and The Nature of Opinions, and They are Always Wrong). Getting beyond a few of those though, you get terrific nuggets like:
- Things Blacks/Whites/Hispanics/Asians Need to Know
- Why People Need Cuteness
- 10 Substitutes for Religeon
- How the Masses Are Manipulated
- How and Why People Flock
- Why You Should Hate the Fearful
- 10 Signs That Your Society Has Too Much Money
In case you haven't noticed my sense of humor is incredibly sophisticated.
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Smartest / Dumbest Bouncer in the World
Christopher Langan
It's claimed that this guy has a testable IQ of between 190-210, which puts him in the running for highest testable IQ in the world. He seems reasonable enough, until the points of his thoughts on the world come up. I like to say crazy things sometimes, and I definitely enjoy pushing the limits or reasonable debate, but this guy in crazy talking and in fighting could beat the shit out of me.
Check out the three part video series on him at the bottom. If you have 1/2 hour to burn, it's worth it. It gives you the distinct understanding that a high IQ does not mean you have to be a reasonable person. His views just don't seem to fit with our values and mores as a society. In the video series he's asked how he would change the world. Just to give you a taste it could involve such fun as forced sterilization for members of society deemed unfit for procreation, freedom being earned not considered inherent, and if he could he would be perfectly willing to train everyone on how to use their freedom properly (these points are mostly from the third video aroun 1:20 in).
This series is incredible to watch, but terribly distressing that someone can be so competent in cognitive ability, but so lacking in humanistic consideration. Maybe that's just my incredibly inadequate mind not comprehending his genius though.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Multi-Tasking and It's Effect on Decision Making
Via digg.com, I found this article from Newsweek about multi-tasking, over-stimulation and the problems it could cause you mentally.
When you get down to brass tacks, effortful thinking requires energy (blood glucose). Your brain is essentially an energy user much like a muscle. If you are exercising and begin to run low on blood glucose you will not be able to exert yourself as much and exercise will become less efficient. If you were to correlate this to cognition, it's easy to make the leap that over-extending yourself mentally will result in poorer performance and decision making (confirmed in part in the article above). So if you're constantly running your concentration down by mentally taxing exercises (reading a bazillion blogs, inundating yourself with media, trying to multi-task as much as possible) you're likely to be doing yourself a disservice by making concentration and decision making more difficult than it should be.
There is a lot to be said about simplifying one's life. I am very guilty of trying to do everything at all times, but I am starting to see the the other side of the coin. I've said to myself after reading fark.com or digg.com for an hour or more, "Am I any smarter for having read this stuff? Am I really going to remember any of this in a day? What benefit has this given me?" I'm usually pretty disgusted with my answers to those questions.
Here is one suggestion that I feel is pretty helpful.
Isolate yourself from distractions while working. Turn the cell-phone to vibrate, turn off e-mail notification, turn off all instant messaging, shut down your internet browser and work uninterrupted for xx minutes. It could be 10 for those who are terribly frazzled, it could be an hour and a half for those who are more disciplined. But the big kick here, is celebrate a job well done and take a few minute break. Relaxe, recharge, check out what those distractions were (check e-mail or phone) and then refocus on the job at hand. If you find your mind wandering, notice the distraction for what it is and let it pass. You will have time to deal with whatever it is later.
In a real job this is difficult to do as there are floor problems that need addressed immediately, in the hospital there are codes which need addressed now, and in the porn industry there's always a midget just waiting around the corner ready to throw a wrench (sometimes literally throw a wrench) into your well crafted S&M scene.
It always feels like I need more time for things. I don't need more time. I need more simplification. I need more discipline. I need to go read digg for another half an hour before I get back to work...
Pretentious quote of the day:
Dost thou love life? Then do not waste time, for that is the stuff life is made of.
- Benjamin Franklin -
When you get down to brass tacks, effortful thinking requires energy (blood glucose). Your brain is essentially an energy user much like a muscle. If you are exercising and begin to run low on blood glucose you will not be able to exert yourself as much and exercise will become less efficient. If you were to correlate this to cognition, it's easy to make the leap that over-extending yourself mentally will result in poorer performance and decision making (confirmed in part in the article above). So if you're constantly running your concentration down by mentally taxing exercises (reading a bazillion blogs, inundating yourself with media, trying to multi-task as much as possible) you're likely to be doing yourself a disservice by making concentration and decision making more difficult than it should be.
There is a lot to be said about simplifying one's life. I am very guilty of trying to do everything at all times, but I am starting to see the the other side of the coin. I've said to myself after reading fark.com or digg.com for an hour or more, "Am I any smarter for having read this stuff? Am I really going to remember any of this in a day? What benefit has this given me?" I'm usually pretty disgusted with my answers to those questions.
Here is one suggestion that I feel is pretty helpful.
Isolate yourself from distractions while working. Turn the cell-phone to vibrate, turn off e-mail notification, turn off all instant messaging, shut down your internet browser and work uninterrupted for xx minutes. It could be 10 for those who are terribly frazzled, it could be an hour and a half for those who are more disciplined. But the big kick here, is celebrate a job well done and take a few minute break. Relaxe, recharge, check out what those distractions were (check e-mail or phone) and then refocus on the job at hand. If you find your mind wandering, notice the distraction for what it is and let it pass. You will have time to deal with whatever it is later.
In a real job this is difficult to do as there are floor problems that need addressed immediately, in the hospital there are codes which need addressed now, and in the porn industry there's always a midget just waiting around the corner ready to throw a wrench (sometimes literally throw a wrench) into your well crafted S&M scene.
It always feels like I need more time for things. I don't need more time. I need more simplification. I need more discipline. I need to go read digg for another half an hour before I get back to work...
Pretentious quote of the day:
Dost thou love life? Then do not waste time, for that is the stuff life is made of.
- Benjamin Franklin -
Friday, April 4, 2008
Maybe Everyone Isn't a Helicopter Parent
How is this kind of a story worthy of news? I love the moral of the story, and Lenore Skenazy is right on, but what the fuck! Is it that amazing that a 9 year old can understand what a train map is, what a bus map is and then successfully not fall off the face of the Earth?!
Here is a Daily Mail (British newspaper) article contrasting the area a great-grandfather, grandfather, mother, and son were allowed to roam unattended in their hometown growing up. When this type of anecdotal information is mapped out, it seems quite disturbing. There is something fundamentally wrong with saying "The newest generation is going to hell because of:
There's someone close to me that doesn't do well with driving or directions by himself because, "What if I get lost?" Something tells me his parents didn't encourage experiences like Leonore Skenazy does.
Our media saturation of tragedies has skewed our understanding of reasonable risk. Individually my future children are no more likely to be abducted / molested than to be mauled by a opera singing, hairlipped, eskimo. I know that's not entirely true, but we have to understand that our world today is very nearly as safe as it was in the "good old days".
Well, on second thought, there may be good reason for at least a little paranoia...
Here is a Daily Mail (British newspaper) article contrasting the area a great-grandfather, grandfather, mother, and son were allowed to roam unattended in their hometown growing up. When this type of anecdotal information is mapped out, it seems quite disturbing. There is something fundamentally wrong with saying "The newest generation is going to hell because of:
- overprotective parents
- internet (myspace / facebook)
- violent video games
- grunge music
- crack cocaine
- disco
- drugs
- free-love
- rock and roll
- women wearing pants
- the horseless carriage
There's someone close to me that doesn't do well with driving or directions by himself because, "What if I get lost?" Something tells me his parents didn't encourage experiences like Leonore Skenazy does.
Our media saturation of tragedies has skewed our understanding of reasonable risk. Individually my future children are no more likely to be abducted / molested than to be mauled by a opera singing, hairlipped, eskimo. I know that's not entirely true, but we have to understand that our world today is very nearly as safe as it was in the "good old days".
Well, on second thought, there may be good reason for at least a little paranoia...
Stuff White People Like: Free Healthcare
It seems like I've been on a binge of healthcare related articles recently and I couldn't help but notice this article from Stuff White People Like.
Personally I think they overlooked a large part of what the allure of Free Healthcare is: Knowing What's Best for Poor People.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Anti Government Hippies, and Government Healthcare
If you read Reason's Hit and Run blog you will see the vast majority of what gets me hot and bothered. It's a libertarian think tank that has a similar distaste for statists (read: socialists) and paternalists (read staunch conservatives). They never fail to please, especially with this.
What is it with anti-war protester's and thinking that government as an entity can do nothing right. Hippies should not be saying this, because they're making me agree with them! That cannot be right. At the same time though, before dreadlocks come to rest from their epileptic description of genocide for oil, if asked about universal healthcare, you'll hear about a bunch of mindless drivel about how awesome the government could be if only it had the power to regulate everything healthcare related!
I say government, by the simple fact that they have to manage over 300 million people are incapable of developing, let alone maintaining, a system that is fair (by my standards) and doesn't cause more problems than already exist. The US government is not inherently evil; I would have the same reservations if this system were to be managed by the most benevolent and competent organization in the world.
What is great though, is that the one girl is willing to say that she doesn't fully understand how she hate's government because of war, but looks to the government for all the answers regarding healthcare. She's willing to say she isn't entirely informed. That's awesome! If we are reasonable creatures we have to be willing to acknowledge our lack of knowledge sometimes. I like to think I'd be willing to say I'm wrong (if it ever ends up happening).
What is it with anti-war protester's and thinking that government as an entity can do nothing right. Hippies should not be saying this, because they're making me agree with them! That cannot be right. At the same time though, before dreadlocks come to rest from their epileptic description of genocide for oil, if asked about universal healthcare, you'll hear about a bunch of mindless drivel about how awesome the government could be if only it had the power to regulate everything healthcare related!
I say government, by the simple fact that they have to manage over 300 million people are incapable of developing, let alone maintaining, a system that is fair (by my standards) and doesn't cause more problems than already exist. The US government is not inherently evil; I would have the same reservations if this system were to be managed by the most benevolent and competent organization in the world.
What is great though, is that the one girl is willing to say that she doesn't fully understand how she hate's government because of war, but looks to the government for all the answers regarding healthcare. She's willing to say she isn't entirely informed. That's awesome! If we are reasonable creatures we have to be willing to acknowledge our lack of knowledge sometimes. I like to think I'd be willing to say I'm wrong (if it ever ends up happening).
Government Managed Healthcare: How Do You Decide What's Covered?
What kind of system needs to be in place to determine what is and what is not covered by Universal Health Care Dollars: British style.
Article by Maggie Mahar on the NICE system in Brittain. NICE is used to evaluate technologies and procedures based on the effectiveness per dollar. Basically if there is a technology out there which is A-OK but there is one that comes out which is twice as expensive, but a little better, the NICE system publishes this and basically decides that the new technology will not be covered by the national system's dollars. This is all well and good, but it brings forth a question of what people are allowed to pay for. This makes very reasonable sense if you have a large, over-arching system which is in charge of everyone's care (and the associated cost there-of).
Reason does a terrific job of bringing to light some problems with this type of system:
Reason:
"
Debbie Hirst, a woman with metastasized breast cancer, wanted to take Avastin, a drug that, per The New York Times, is "widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay." The NHS refused to pay for it, saying it was too expensive. That much is par for the course in a system that holds down costs by rationing care according to standards set by a single central authority. But then Hirst, with the support of her oncologist, decided to raise the $120,000 she'd need to pay for the drug on her own, mainly by selling her house. The NHS said she was perfectly free to do that, but then she would have to pay for all of her care out of pocket, a financial burden that was far beyond her means.
"
NY Times article on the woman will breast cancer in Brittain:
"
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones. Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs," the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament. "That way lies the end of the founding principles of the N.H.S.," Mr. Johnson said.
"
There are many moral hurdles which must be crossed when we start down this path. Having an independent agency which reviews technologies for effectiveness for dollar is perfectly reasonable for a universal coverage system. There must, however, be the option of utilizing your own money for getting the best possible treatment at any cost. We must realize the following:
Article by Maggie Mahar on the NICE system in Brittain. NICE is used to evaluate technologies and procedures based on the effectiveness per dollar. Basically if there is a technology out there which is A-OK but there is one that comes out which is twice as expensive, but a little better, the NICE system publishes this and basically decides that the new technology will not be covered by the national system's dollars. This is all well and good, but it brings forth a question of what people are allowed to pay for. This makes very reasonable sense if you have a large, over-arching system which is in charge of everyone's care (and the associated cost there-of).
Reason does a terrific job of bringing to light some problems with this type of system:
Reason:
"
Debbie Hirst, a woman with metastasized breast cancer, wanted to take Avastin, a drug that, per The New York Times, is "widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay." The NHS refused to pay for it, saying it was too expensive. That much is par for the course in a system that holds down costs by rationing care according to standards set by a single central authority. But then Hirst, with the support of her oncologist, decided to raise the $120,000 she'd need to pay for the drug on her own, mainly by selling her house. The NHS said she was perfectly free to do that, but then she would have to pay for all of her care out of pocket, a financial burden that was far beyond her means.
"
NY Times article on the woman will breast cancer in Brittain:
"
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones. Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs," the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament. "That way lies the end of the founding principles of the N.H.S.," Mr. Johnson said.
"
There are many moral hurdles which must be crossed when we start down this path. Having an independent agency which reviews technologies for effectiveness for dollar is perfectly reasonable for a universal coverage system. There must, however, be the option of utilizing your own money for getting the best possible treatment at any cost. We must realize the following:
- There will (and should) be a two-tiered system
- People should be arguing for universal coverage, not equality in all things healthcare
- There will be points at which a bureaucrat says, "Nope, you've spent too much, you can't get that surgery" Or, "Well, it may extend your life, but there's only a 10% chance, we're not willing to spend $xxx,xxx of tax-payer dollars for this" Or, "Well, since you've smoked your life away, we will not pay for a lung transplant".
- We need to seriously look at the incentives currently in place for primary care doctors
- Right now, there is a bias towards specialization that very well may cause a shortage of primary care docs. Just generalizing here, but specialists (orthopaedics, cardiologists, and the like) get paid 3+ times more than a primary care doc. Since the baby-boomers will be needing more consistent care here soon, and if there is a flood of millions upon millions of newly insured individuals, there will be a massive shortage of primary care docs to understand and manage a patient's health situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)