Monday, February 28, 2011
This well-written collection of mostly auto-biographical essays by Raikoff was thought provoking (and slightly amusing) but also not too uplifting (as warned). Raikoff’s content does seem to belie the stereotype of the New York lefty intellectual that engages in meta-analysis and critique of daily living. He is a better word smith than Sedaris but less funny (not that that was his intent).
His tale of cancerous woe is quite touching and his examination of Rent quite devastating.
Give it a try.
Djibouti by Elmore Leonard
(Unfinished ~ 28%)
I hadn’t read any of Leonard work but I did enjoy Get Shorty, so I had been meaning to check out a book. When I learned that his recent novel, Djibouti, examined the world of Somali pirates by using the premise of documentarians getting into hijinks, it seemed like a good selection. I had been interested to learn more about piracy in that region and surrounding issues. Additionally, I thought it would be engaging to explore film-making. Seemed like a win-win… and yet I couldn’t finish it. It did not captivate nor delight in wordplay. Perhaps it would make a better movie, but the book is likely not worth your time unless you are a huge fan.
What a disappointing experience.
I hadn’t read any of Leonard work but I did enjoy Get Shorty, so I had been meaning to check out a book. When I learned that his recent novel, Djibouti, examined the world of Somali pirates by using the premise of documentarians getting into hijinks, it seemed like a good selection. I had been interested to learn more about piracy in that region and surrounding issues. Additionally, I thought it would be engaging to explore film-making. Seemed like a win-win… and yet I couldn’t finish it. It did not captivate nor delight in wordplay. Perhaps it would make a better movie, but the book is likely not worth your time unless you are a huge fan.
What a disappointing experience.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Taboo Topics and Empirical Inquiry
A Facebook 'friend' (that I have never met in real life) recently posted a story about how a police officer said "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this... however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
I had read about this last week and I thought it interesting that the police officer was in full retraction mode and was being reprimanded and the like. I found it interesting because there was never any discussion about whether it was true or not. While I do believe women should be able to dress however they like and that does give a man a right to assault or harass them, I do(did) think that their manner of dress might matter in terms of who becomes victimized.
Consequently, when I commented on the story that is the approach I took. A fruitful discussion did not happen. Even though I clearly stated "I don't believe X, can we discuss Y?" I was vilified for believing X. It appears to me to be such a clear case of confusing explanation with exculpation (to quote Pinker).
I have cut and pasted the entire exchange below so you can form your own opinion of the situation. (Note: the FB thumbnail pictures didn't paste but I have kept the boxes there for ease of demarcation.)
I believe I made one, possibly two, errors. My primary error was that I presented an intuitive belief as a fact instead of more clearing stating it as a hypothesis subject to revision based on useful evidence and information. This error is visible in my first comment which is about 16 comments in.
My second potential error would be that I tried to engage people and seek evidence on a topic that is highly sensitive and that is already the subject of many misunderstandings and prejudices.
This second one is more just a saddening and frustrating fact about our world. If I had the chance to do it over, I probably would still engage but try to be even clearer in my reasons for seeking evidence and the fact I do not support blaming the victim.
Tactically (and actually to be honest), I think a good framing is "What can I tell my daughter, sister or mother?" If the person says, "Absolutely nothing, they can do nothing" I would debate this point as it seems unlikely, but I am willing to be convinced there is little that can be done (go where the evidence and logical rigour leads).
Looking back I can't help but think this::
My perception of my actions (at the time): Concerned and curious, seeking information.
Other perception of my actions: Apologist for sexual assaulters, may suffer from mental health issues. (ouch!)
Yes, "Someone on the Internet was Irrational" is not news, but when YOU become the target of attacks based on misunderstanding, mob mentality or willful ignorance, it is certainly a noteworthy event in the day.
Note: I am currently looking into the topic and it seems the data indicates that provocative dress has little impact on a the likelihood of a woman being assaulted.
The following post was a story linked by Mia on her page.
I had read about this last week and I thought it interesting that the police officer was in full retraction mode and was being reprimanded and the like. I found it interesting because there was never any discussion about whether it was true or not. While I do believe women should be able to dress however they like and that does give a man a right to assault or harass them, I do(did) think that their manner of dress might matter in terms of who becomes victimized.
Consequently, when I commented on the story that is the approach I took. A fruitful discussion did not happen. Even though I clearly stated "I don't believe X, can we discuss Y?" I was vilified for believing X. It appears to me to be such a clear case of confusing explanation with exculpation (to quote Pinker).
I have cut and pasted the entire exchange below so you can form your own opinion of the situation. (Note: the FB thumbnail pictures didn't paste but I have kept the boxes there for ease of demarcation.)
I believe I made one, possibly two, errors. My primary error was that I presented an intuitive belief as a fact instead of more clearing stating it as a hypothesis subject to revision based on useful evidence and information. This error is visible in my first comment which is about 16 comments in.
My second potential error would be that I tried to engage people and seek evidence on a topic that is highly sensitive and that is already the subject of many misunderstandings and prejudices.
This second one is more just a saddening and frustrating fact about our world. If I had the chance to do it over, I probably would still engage but try to be even clearer in my reasons for seeking evidence and the fact I do not support blaming the victim.
Tactically (and actually to be honest), I think a good framing is "What can I tell my daughter, sister or mother?" If the person says, "Absolutely nothing, they can do nothing" I would debate this point as it seems unlikely, but I am willing to be convinced there is little that can be done (go where the evidence and logical rigour leads).
Looking back I can't help but think this::
My perception of my actions (at the time): Concerned and curious, seeking information.
Other perception of my actions: Apologist for sexual assaulters, may suffer from mental health issues. (ouch!)
Yes, "Someone on the Internet was Irrational" is not news, but when YOU become the target of attacks based on misunderstanding, mob mentality or willful ignorance, it is certainly a noteworthy event in the day.
Note: I am currently looking into the topic and it seems the data indicates that provocative dress has little impact on a the likelihood of a woman being assaulted.
The following post was a story linked by Mia on her page.
Mia via Danny
At a campus safety information session at York University in Canada, a Toronto Police Service officer suggested women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like a "slut."
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Marx for Beginners by Rius
What a great little book! This introductory work explores both the ideas of Karl Marx as well as their historical development. The presentation is atypical in that cartoon drawings are used frequently, mixed in with copies of print images or objects or people, so that it reads as a somewhat illustrated introduction. It is half-graphic novel, half basic text. I thought this was a very useful book because I now think I understand the basic tenets of Marxism and how it came to be. It is certainly one of those books that one wishes they could have the content stored in their brain as it is hard to remember the details going from Thales and Heraclitus to Bruno, Descartes and Spinoza to Hegal and…etc.
The main ideas that stuck out were:
1. The notion that labour is what increases the worth of a product and the misalignment is when this increase is not divided between worker and owner. Obviously this is a complex topic and I wasn’t fully convinced but there are many persuasive parts to the argument. To be further considered…
2. There does seem to be an increasing liberation of various social classes. A rough guide of various states of human organization being: a) Primitive; b) Slave; c) Feudal; d) Capitalist; and e) Socialist. Poor people just seem to change masters.
3. The abolition of private property. Not entirely of course, just for rich people. Of course this issue is usually dismissed by the ‘tragedy of the commons’ argument whereby if something isn’t privitized it will be overused and be ruined. This is not entirely true either… but not much is in this domain.
4. Alienation. That work itself alienates the worker. I can see this making sense for many labourers in industrial factories in the 19th century, but it seems less broadly applicable now. Those in the middle-upper class often enjoy their work or prefer to do some work compared to nothing. That comparison is important, because if you don't work and don't farm your own food, you have to survive somehow. Survival is alienating?
5. That many of the changes Marx called for have actually been implemented in modern democracies: graduated income tax, free childhood education, end to child labour, a national bank, national standards for various sectors, unions, welfare programs. Yes, the revolution hasn’t happened, but certainly things are objectively better for a poor person in many countries today than it was in those countries in Marx’s time.
I found it interesting that Marx was poor and that his family suffered because of it. Additionally, I was once again confronted by my ignorance and felt like that there is much more to learn, like just how Lenin was influenced by Marx, and then Trotsky and Stalin and Mao and… hmmmm, this might take awhile.
I found it interesting that Marx was poor and that his family suffered because of it. Additionally, I was once again confronted by my ignorance and felt like that there is much more to learn, like just how Lenin was influenced by Marx, and then Trotsky and Stalin and Mao and… hmmmm, this might take awhile.
For all its valid points, Marxism does seem to get human nature wrong. We generally compete with each other and have trouble embracing fully egalitarian systems in society.
Marxism is not the same as Communism, but John Kenneth Galbraith’s quotation is germane: Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
Go read it.
Go read it.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Our Inner Ape by Frans De Waal
An excellent exploration of primatological findings on chimpanzees and bonobos to provide a greater understanding of human nature.
Among the many interesting facts, De Waal cogently presents his broader thesis: human nature involves compassion as much as aggression, but we have focused too much on the latter and not enough on the former. When describing war we say that people act like animals but when we are do something nice we say it is ‘humane.’ The improper emphasis (obviously complex in origin) might be partly because the bonobo was discovered relatively recently (compared to chimps), so despite having a similar to degree of genetic relatedness to humans as chimps and humans, we have usually only looked for comparisons to chimps. This being problematic because chimpanzees are more violent and hierarchical, while bonobos are egalitarian, matriarchal and hypersexual. Understandably, looking only to chimps may lead to unwise justifications for behaviour (as any naturalistic comparison might).
Although much was review, most of the details about bonobo communities (and the extent of their sexuality) was new.
A great book.