Bill_Clinton_visit_to_Los_Alamos.jpgFrom perusing Reddit this morning, I learned that President Clinton gave a substantive speech last night during the Democratic convention. I didn’t see it, but from the comments, it looks like it was an objective refutation of some of the compelling speeches last week (like Paul Ryan’s) during the Republican convention.

That alone would be enough for many Redditors. But Clinton is known for being compelling and persuasive and, from the comments, it looks like he managed to sway some voters, too.

After I read some of the comments there, I caught up on some of my RSS feeds and came across this gem by Oliver: “Emotive Data and Baby Teeth”.

I’ll quote a bit that makes the point that I’m trying to — facts are great, but facts don’t persuade people to do anything — and shows why Clinton’s speech was (evidently) so great. But you should go read the whole post.

A good example of this is found in the campaign for nuclear disarmament and reduction in the United States. During the 1950s it became clear, academically, that the testing of nuclear weapons was causing problems…but nobody really talked about it, because academic data wasn’t something that led people in the know to emote, and it wasn’t sexy enough for the media to pick it up and carry it to people not in the know.

What changed that was Eric and Louise Reiss’s Baby Tooth Survey. Tens of thousands of baby teeth from various time periods were taken and tested for radioactive isotopes – fallout from nuclear testing. The results, published first in 1961 and then more conclusively in 1963, showed that Strontium-90 levels in baby teeth had gone up by over 5000 percent since the start of nuclear weapons testing. It was this study that finally pushed JFK over the edge to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the first nuclear weapons treaty.

It didn’t succeed at this because the data was new. The idea that nuclear weapons testing might have an impact on health was already known. It succeeded because it was emotional – it was dealing with childrens’ teeth. Every parent who ran into it could suddenly imagine those teeth belonging to their child.

A_stunned_public_in_Washington,_D.C.,_were_grave_and_thoughtful_the_morning_after_they_had_been_informed_of_the_death..._-_NARA_-_520710.jpgOne thing to take away from the book “You are not so smart” (besides the fact that we humans are very good at fooling ourselves) is inspiration. For any unpublished writer, David McRaney’s story is inspirational. As he relates in the acknowledgments, he and his wife moved from Mississippi to Europe (seemingly on a whim) without a college education. By the time they returned to the States, they both realized how much they lacked in education and, six years after high school, when some in their cohort would be getting a graduate degree, they started college as freshmen.

The introduction to psychology professor was so compelling that he started his weblog and, from that, eventually the book was born.

Like many other books-from-blogs, this book is a series of essays. It differs from them in that it includes an extensive form of hyperlinks, in the more traditional form of a references for each chapter.

For instance, in the chapter on self-handicapping — creating situations for your own failure so that you can blame something else if you don’t succeed, or feel extra good about surmounting the odds if you succeed — David says that studies show men are more likely to self handicap than women, which made me wonder if this was different for different cultures, or if part of this was gender inequality at play: that the obstacles women face made it unnecessary for them to create artificial handicaps. Now I get to read the relevant studies and find out more information.

Overall though, my takeaway from this book was just to reinforce my prejudice against those people who are confident that their intelligence is a guard against stupidity. As he shows through study after study, no matter how much of a rational an actor we think we are, the situations we find ourselves in and the choices we make tend not to be well thought out, let alone rational.

Thank goodness economics is moving beyond this tautology.

B&W Happiness.jpgAdherents of the modern cult of reason see facts as much more valuable and useful than stories. “We are influenced only by reality, by the facts.” This tends to be the way they separate themselves in their narrative from those they refer to as “religionists”.

But this ignores what modern psychology has discovered and what ancient religions have capitalized on: No matter how rational we think we are, no matter how well thought out and considered we try to ensure our decisions are, we use emotion as the basis for most of our decisions. And emotional decisions are based on the story that plays out in our mind every day.

The book You Are Not So Smart ends its chapter about the Affect Heuristic, with the story of Elliot, a successful businessman who, as the result of the removal of a brain tumor, lost any ability to make decisions influenced by emotion.

He appeared normal and continued to score well on IQ tests, but after the surgery, his life fell apart. His wife left him and he lost his job. He went to live with his parents who were evidently the only people who could tolerate him.

We are often told not to make decisions based only on emotion — to be rational. But Elliot’s case shows us what would happen if we made decisions based only on facts: we would fall apart.

Our emotional self responds better to stories. For the past few hundred years, we’ve had tremendous success as a society building on the advances we’ve gained through science and a more rational approach to life. This has led some of us to think that stories aren’t useful for anything more than entertainment — certainly we shouldn’t let them guide our decision-making!

But in jettisoning religions and the stories that come with them, we’ll just end up creating new stories. The stories will be less mature, less developed, less well thought out and we’ll all suffer as a result.

I’ve been slowly coming to the conclusion that the stories that religions offer us are a deeper and more valuable form of truth. The affect heuristic and Elliot show us that the influence stories have on our decision making is far more important to us than any collection of mere facts.

Philly Thinker.JPGThe Introspection chapter of You are Not so Smart tells of a study where researchers asked people to rate five types of jam. They five jams the picked had already been rated by Consumer Reports as the 1st, 11th, 24th, 32nd, and 44th in terms of quality.

The asked the first group to provide a list of their preferences by rank without explaining why they ranked each one where they ranked them.

They requested an explanation for the rankings from the second group.

The group just gave a gut reaction came close to matching the rankings given by Consumer Reports. The group that was asked to rationalize their choice ended up being all over the map without any correlation to the ranking from Consumer Reports.

The appropriately-named study (“Thinking too much”) shows why it is dangerous to put too much trust in the power of reason to help us make decisions.

The very act of explaining why we make a choice will cause our decisions to degrade in quality.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that having a reason for our choices is a bad thing. People in the study were measured against those with experience in judging food quality, after all, so it is possible to be rationale about our decisions and still make good ones.

And it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t trust the ability of untrained professionals. The people in the first group came to the same conclusion as the professional food testers.

Instead, I would suggest that this study tells us that the act of making rational, well-reasoned decisions is harder than we think.

Just because someone is able to explain their reasoning for their decision doesn’t mean that decision is any better than someone who is just going with their gut.

(Of course, the chapter just before the one on introspection was about normalcy bias and how it causes many people to not to act to save their own lives in emergency situations, so this shows us that just going with your gut doesn’t always work, either.)

Armored-car-Manila.jpgDerren Brown has produced a number of British TV Shows about priming that are really fascinating to watch. Even though he is a public figure, he is able to use priming to get people to do things they wouldn’t normally do, including, in one show, robbing an armed car.

I just started reading You are Not so Smart, and the first chapter was on priming, appropriately enough.

Priming is all about the subconscious — the extra-rational — something that, over the millennial, religions have adapted to. In the West, though, we don’t really seem to value things we can’t reason our way towards. You can see this in Christianity before the Enlightenment and even before the Protestant Reformation — even before the advent of Thomism — in the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation.

The Church saw “This is my body” and dogmatized the premise that made that statement literally true. Eastern Christians, who have been more comfortable with a mystical understanding of truth, simply accepted the statement as true without the need for philosophical and dogmatic exercises.

Over time, I’ve come to the opinion that the different directions the Eastern and Western churches took on the idea of what has come to be known as the “real presence” are reflected in a lot of other areas — including what I have been calling the modern Cult of Reason.

So, what does all this have to do with psychological priming?

Priming is what happens when you act in a way that is largely influenced by your extra-rational mind. Priming is dependent upon cues that come from your environment. Derren Brown is adept at creating these sorts of cues for people, but you can also see these cues in the Liturgy of any Eastern Church. The smells, sights and sounds (which have all been developed over the centuries) all prime the person and provoke an extra-rational response.

In the West, many protestant denominations explicitly shy away from creating this sort of “heavenly” environment. Many Mennonite churches, for example, explicitly shy away from any environmental cues. While they certainly are not as explicit in their rationalism as others – Presbyterians, for example — they’re like so many in the West who don’t seem to see any use in anything that cannot be rationally explained.

But, as You are Not so Smart makes clear, even in the first chapter on Priming, we are not the rational, thoughtful creatures we imagine ourselves to be.

Jasmine_Revolution_in_China_-_Beijing_11_02_20_police.jpgI’ve been reading a book The Fat Years, a book by a Chinese author that seems to posit a transition from Orwellian control to Huxlean control.

I just finished reading the following bit and had to share:

Lao Chen then considered a new concept: “90 percent freedom.” We are already very free now: 90 percent, or even more, of subjects can be freely discussed, and 90 percent, or even more, of all activities are no longer subject to government control. Isn’t that enough? The vast majority of the population cannot even handle 90 percent freedom, they think it’s too much. Aren’t they complaining about information overload and being entertained too much?

And furthermore, when the national situation permits, the state can always relax its restrictions and permit up to 95 percent freedom. Maybe we already have 95 percent? This would be very little less than in the West. Western nations also have some restrictions on freedom of speech and action. The German government restricts neo-Nazi organisations, and many states in the United States deny homosexuals the freedom to marry. The only disparity is that, theoretically, the power of Western governments is given to them by the people, while in China the people’s freedom is given to them by the government. Is this distinction really that important?

The more time goes by, the closer China and the U.S. become. China is on track to pass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy in 2020. When that time comes, what is the real difference between our democratic free market capitalism and their state-controlled economy? I’m hopeful that we can still claim “rule of law” as a distinctive feature, but even that is disappearing. We can still watch the trial of Bo Xilai’s wife smugly, but how long will our smugness last?

Alter_of_reason.jpgI recently read When Atheism Becomes Religion under its more provocative original title: I Don’t Believe in Atheists.

The author, Chris Hedges is becoming one of my favorite authors. The first book that I read of his, The Death of the Liberal Class was a great history of classical liberalism — something that all political ideologies today could learn from.

Chris Hedges is a fascinating writer and the perfect author for a book that offers a critique of the modern Cult of Reason. (It is important to note that the use of the word “cult” here reflects the thinking in this footnote of that article: The word “cult” in French means “a form of worship”, without any of its negative or exclusivist implications in English; its proponents intended it to be a universal congregation.)

In fact, although I had this blog post in mind, it wasn’t till I started looking for a picture to accompany it (the Alter of Reason was perfect) that I learned about the Cult of Reason from the time of the French revolution.

That period of time is a great precedent for what happened since September 11, 2001 in the New Atheist movement.

Some people saw religion itself as the cause for the violence inherent in the terrorist attacks. If religion didn’t exist, the movement seems to say, no one would have an excuse to slaughter any group of people.

Chris Hedges’ book is a powerful antidote to this fantasy. Not only does he remind us that the greatest genocides of the 20th century were secular in nature, but he also asks us to consider human limitations in any solutions we propose: No ethical stance, no matter how pure it appears, is moral if it is not based on the reality of human limitations.

Humans — whether created by God 6000 years ago, or just some random chance of the universe — have some very stark limitations. Making religion a demon while deifying reason will not solve anything.

I came across another book today while browsing the bookstore, You Are Not So Smart, that really began to drive home the point of our limitations. As the book points out, Even when we think we’re being rational and thinking things through carefully, our emotional brain, our subconscious, is the one really running the show. (I’ve requested a copy of the book from my local library, so I’ll post more about it after I’ve read more.)

Amusingly, Penn Jillette’s God, No! was nearby and I had time to read the introduction where he talks about the humility of Atheism. He’s right: we should all be able to say “I don’t know”.

But he says that saying “I don’t know” makes you an atheist and here I disagree. I know we haven’t done a great job of celebrating doubt, but even as great a Christian as Mother Teresa had doubts. That didn’t make her less of a Christian — it was simply part of her humanity. You have the chance to say — like Christopher Hitchen’s did — that this makes her a fraud, but I prefer the title “human.” Not knowing, doubting is a fully human thing to do.

It is fine to celebrate everything that reason gives us — and we’ve been able to accomplish a lot through the use of the rational mind — but, as Hedges rightly points out in When Atheism Becomes Religion, as much as reason has helped us reach new heights, it has empowered evil to new depravity.

There is no scientific utopia and efforts to create one only end in destruction. Achieving Utopia must mean destroying everyone that you can’t convince to join you. St Isaac the Syrian put it this way: “If zeal [using passion to convince others of the truth] had been appropriate for putting humanity right, why did Jesus use gentleness and humility?”

Lost_and_found,_Český_Krumlov.JPGToday, on the walk down JFK from 30th Street Station for my weekly appearance at the office, I discovered I didn’t have my badge. I had it on the train, but when I was about a block from where I needed it, I saw it was gone.

I debated just going on and getting a new one, but then I figured that people who saw a badge laying on the ground would leave it, thinking that the owner would come looking for it.

This is just a small example of my naive faith in the goodness of people. This time it paid huge dividends.

As I walked back to the train station, scanning the ground for my badge, a man walked up to me and asked “Is this you?” as he handed me my badge.

No, it isn’t that big of a deal, but it shows that my faith in people isn’t entirely misplaced.

Carter Reagan Debate 10-28-80.pngThis morning, my mother told me she had gotten a call from a pollster asking “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

That this question can be used to predict (or so I hear) presidential elections seems like such a selfish way to look at things, but I do understand that is how we are motivated.

Still, I am more concerned about the things the president actually does like killing or imprisoning U.S. citizen’s without a trial.

Evidently many pople see that and think “Well, that doesn’t affect me, I have bills to pay” and vote accordingly.

Neither of the major party candidates is going to be any better on these issues.  And, since Ross Perot, they’ve made it very hard for third party candidates to get on presidential debates, so issues aren’t even discussed.

Ross Perot’s candidacy and appearance in debates made a dramatic difference in Clinton’s presidency.  Because a kooky third party candidate was able to talk directly to the mainstream candidates in a televised debate, the president who ended up getting elected had to act differently.

The Libertarian Party has what sounds like a reasonable way to get the bigger issues like civil liberties discussed without sacrificing your vote.  They’ve got their candidate on the ballot in all 50 states and if he can reach 15% in certain polls, he’ll be on the televised debates.

So, next time a pollster asks you who you are voting for, say “Gary Johnson”.  When your time in the polling booth comes, no one is going to force you to vote for him, so if he gets in a presidential debate and you think he is completely unrealistic, you can change your mind.  But lets get him on the stage.

Today I got my copy of “Fr Alexander Men; Martyr of Atheism”.

Since I like to read this sort of book with my kids, I sat down with them and we read the first chapter.

The book starts out with a broad overview of the history of the Church in Russia to provide a context for Fr Men’s birth and life. This is good for those, like me, who are mostly ignorant of history. As I’m sure many of you know, the Church in Russia did not have an easy time.

As is clear from the first chapter, the Church became dependent upon the State and then had to cope when the States protection disappeared.

My curiosity was piqued, though, by mention of the aborted Council of Moscow in 1918. The author says it had potential to be Russia’s Vatican II but, instead, became a dead letter. Research is needed!