Topic Tuesday #66 2013/10/22 - "Cognitive Dissonance"

Topic Tuesday #66 2013/10/22 - "Cognitive Dissonance"

I am running late today on my Topic. It happens, but I dare say it was a slow news day for things that I have not already touched on. I have in recent days been having some heated yet civil discussions on beliefs. You can guess what the topic was, but I'll give you a hint, facts vs. myths.
Now that that simple statement has potentially ruffled your feathers, let me elaborate as why this may have had that effect.
Cognitive Dissonance, From the Concises Encyclopedia
Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. Cognitive dissonance is nonetheless considered an explanation for attitude change.
For some human explanation, Frantz Fanon

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
And Dr. Philip Zimbardo and some footage from the 1950's. http://youtu.be/korGK0yGIDo

I explain it in simple geek terms. "Conflicting orders, make our brains go a little coo-coo. Just like how the HAL-9000 on the Discovery in 2001 a Space Odyssey (spoiler alert) tried to kill everyone."
http://youtu.be/c8N72t7aScY  HAL"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Today we encounter this almost everyday in politics, science and yes, religion. Especially where they meet at crossroads. I will just look at some politicians, frankly because they are easy targets, have large opinions and even bigger mouths that they just don't know when to keep shut.
Rep. Dr. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology drew outrage from the scientific community last year when he declared that "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," Broun said at a banquet for a church sporting club. "And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.... I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old," 
And he's a doctor... 
BTW, he's announced that he's running for Senate. With any luck Charles Darwin will run against him again. One unnamed Republican told The Washington Post that an effort to counter Broun wouldn't be necessary because he's "going to say things that are going to make him unelectable, even in an ultraconservative GOP primary in Georgia." We can hope.
Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill.), According to Shimkus, pointing to biblical verses in Genesis and Matthew, "The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) Although Barton may be most famous for apologizing to the CEO of BP after the company spilled almost five million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico He is also known for his uneducated approach to science, due to faith. Barton characterized wind as "God's way of balancing heat" in 2009 and thus questioned whether wind turbines "slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up." He also described the biblical Great Flood as proof that climate change is not anthropomorphic: “I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.” (Face Palm) He has some interesting ideas about oil and how it got to Alaska... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/04/22/174314/barton-oil-science/ (Double Face Palm)
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) What can I say that she has not already said? I'll just let her speak for herself.
"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, who believe in intelligent design," she remarked in 2006 without providing names.
She characterized HPV vaccinations as having "dangerous consequences" in a 2011 presidential debate and insinuated that they can cause mental retardation. Thankfully she has given us an out, and told us not to listen to her on matters of science. "I just take the Bible for what it is ... and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this." But alas, she continues to speak. OH! and she is on the House Intelligence Committee. The HPSCI is charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community, which includes the intelligence and intelligence related activities of 17 elements of the US Government, and the Military Intelligence Program.
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), has suggested that climate change is the product of a mass global conspiracy of scientists -- the overwhelming majority of whom have concluded that burning fossil fuels cause warming -- to obtain grant money. In 2011, he told National Journal he didn't believe climate change was man-made because "I don't think we can control what God controls."

I have said it before, I'll say it again. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Science, contains the facts as best as we know them. They are subject to change as we learn more. But when your belief contradicts the facts, somethings has to give - and it turns out, most of the time, it's the facts.  Unless you are his holiness, the Dalai Lama.  "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." 

Topic Tuesday #60 2013/09/10 - "Red Pill Blue Pill or Suicide is Painless"

Topic Tuesday #60 2013/09/10 - "Red Pill Blue Pill or Suicide is Painless"

An idea has crept into my mind. Freedom. We have an interesting culture. We value life almost universally as a species, our own species. Let me cut to the chase or I will dawdle for a while waxing poetic on this deep thought.
When someone is on death row or serving enough multiple life sentences that they will die in prison, why not offer them the Blue Pill, and let them choose to drift off to la la land and pass away peacefully?
Harsh? I don't think so. Analytically it would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. The inmate would not have to languish wasting their potential. The state and the taxpayer would not have to spend the nearly $50,000 a year to keep an inmate "safe" and healthy. The taxpayer and the inmate continue to benefit as an aging prison population starts to rack up the medical bills. The prisoner suffers. The tax payer pays, sometimes over $100,000 a year per aging inmate.
There is a question that has always rattled around in my head. Why does a prisoner, sentenced to death, must be deemed healthy before being executed?
Anyone sentenced to death, automatically (almost always) sits in a special cell block for about 20 years before being executed. The current financials on this have it as an average of almost $90,000 a year MORE to house and litigate these inmates. That's $140,000 a year, for 20 years. $2,800,000 for an average death sentence.
Average "lifer" let's say they made it to 30 (roughly median age of the average prison population across the United States) before having the book thrown at them and tossed away to rot.
Based on demographics, major medical problems begin to escalate around the age of 55. It has been estimated this can triple the cost of care for an inmate until they pass away. If they live to the average North American lifespan of 79 years (both men and women averaged) and they were good girls and boys and were put in medium security AND they were of average health throughout their life. carry the 2....
49 years in prison. 49 * $50,000=$2,450,000 Plus the extended health care cost for the ages over 55. 24
years * $100,000=$2,400,000 + the healthy baseline = $4,850,000 We can go ahead and average this down to $4.5 mil based on the following health factors lowing the life expectancy of any inmate:
     Prison populations exhibit an elevated prevalence of communicable disease. High levels of violence, including sexual violence, have been reported among imprisoned populations. Consensual sex without condoms as well as drug injection and tattooing without sterile equipment are reported to occur at dangerous levels and to result in transmission of diseases, such as HIV.

For a well cared for lifer, $4,500,000 to support them to death do they part. nearly 5 decades behind razor wire.
For the average death row candidate;  $2,800,000 to support them until we execute them after about 20 years.


So. What do you think?
Red Pill, face the grime reality of being put to death or dying in prison, possibly old and enfeebled.
OR...
Blue Pill. Die on your own terms, without pain or decades of suffering.

I think we should offer it as a choice. What do you think?

Topic Tuesday #48 2013/06/18 - "The Advocate"

Topic Tuesday #48 2013/06/18 - "The Advocate"


In this world there are uncountable things to be concerned with. Everything from how your laces are tied to what was served at the last White House dinner, that you weren't invited to, could flow across your mind. There are people out there that get really passionate about a few things. These folks raise money, awareness, and a ruckus in the name of their "cause". Sometimes the cause is relatively small, but nonetheless daunting. Other times, the cause is massive. Something so enormous in complexity and nuance you just have to be a little in awe of it. It takes a special person to devote themselves to a cause and rally for its support. Among other things, we call these individuals, Advocates. And we need their voices. When the message is clear and the personality is strong enough, one person can make a difference in anything. They often have stalwart opponents and detractors. Lies and slander are often the tools of the trade. Mudslinging as often as not is used as part and parlance to fundraising and handshaking. Sounds a little like politics doesn't it? It's because it is a lot like politics, and has to be since politicians are just the kinds of people that advocates are up against. Fighting fire with fire and so on.
You know all this already, or at least I hope you do. My point is to raise your awareness to the advocates around the world. take a second look at what they are doing, and why. These people are running full tilt with a plan. Some want to save a small nesting bird, and others want to save the planet. Some want to educate everyone, others just want to make sure no one goes to bed hungry or sick.
Almost universally Advocates for a cause are trying to change something. They see a problem and want to fix it. They advocate to have anyone who will listen help them in their cause.

So, my dear readers; What are you an advocate for? This is where you get to plug your cause and get just a little more exposure. 
Can we fix it?
We can try!


Topic Tuesday #42 2013/05/07 - "Disruptive Tech"

Topic Tuesday #42 2013/05/07 - "Disruptive Tech"

I love technology. I love history. I love science and science fiction (the inspiration for more of the former). The last few days have seen a turn in the direction of what was thought of just at the top of the year as pure science fiction. Well, when I say thought of, I mean all but those with their eyes on a gun manufacturer here in the United States. Defence Distributed, and its front man Cody Wilson, have dreamt up a cottage industry in disruption. Cody, over the last year, has designed and now succeeded in building a fully 3D printed firearm called the Liberator. It's designed as a homage to the single shot weapons that were air dropped over France during WWII. Besides that, the weapon is all plastic save the nail used as a firing pin. The plans have been released to the wild. Anyone can make one of these if they so desired.
And that is outstanding.
Don't think so? Let me explain my stance.
Freedom.
Oh... You probably want more of a platform than that. OK, look at it this way, this is a technology that cannot be stopped. It cannot be regulated to the governments liking and never will be without massive outrage. This is manufacturing in your garage. Dream it one day, make it the next. You don't need permission. You just need the know how, the raw materials and the tools to put them together. Cody made a gun. Will this gun be used to hurt someone? Almost certainly. This is a logical progression to this kind of device (3D printer). Think for a moment as I stroll down technology of years past lane. When Gutenberg and his movable type printing press came on the scene the scribes were out of a job, and it was revolution in the streets (Martin Luther ring a bell?). When the cassette tape was released and you could record onto it easily, the Recording Industry lost their minds. When the VCR came out the Motion Picture Industry went nuts. CD Burners, DVD Burners, BlueRay burners MP3, MP4, JPEG things that can make a copy of something without the originator getting their due, will always be disruptive. I recall that digital copiers were so good at color reproduction that they were used in counterfeiting operations. The Liberator is a statement and a loud extension of this phenomenon. This says, "You can't stop the future. This is the information age, and now we can make use of that information - whatever form it takes."
It is a shake up. It is a wake up call. What that call sounds like changes depending on who hears it, but really it's about freedom.

Personally, I knew this was coming, and making my own gun if just not my cup of tea. Personally, I would rather be the toy maker or make replacement parts and mockups for my own projects. But that is what most people will do. Again, take the internet as a case in point. When it was started, there was no security, no anti virus, no pictures... It was innocent, with innocent ideals. None of those early engineers considered that it would be used for terrorism, free speech, porn, dating, and social networking, or even voice and video. It proved to be disruptive. In a very short time, look how far it has come! Now, where will 3D printing go as the technology becomes less and less expensive?  In less than 10 years, I can see the personal 3D printer all over. Remember inkjet printers were very expensive when they first came on the scene; now they are practically disposable. The printer they used for the gun, was $10,000 on ebay second hand. You can get a MakerBot for considerably less. http://store.makerbot.com/ And I encourage you to go make something.

What will your imagination make next? Will regulation over these devices stifle creativity and rapid prototyping with red tape? Will it just be impossible to regulate, like desktop printing and copy machines?
What do you think?