tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45661627824679184022024-03-19T03:31:47.504-07:00Wrestling with Philosophy In this blog I present, in an informal way, core ideas in philosophy and their application to current events and everyday life. For critical thinking lessons and resources, please check out my free online course reasoningforthedigitalage.comAmitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comBlogger259125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-29446793911416437652020-02-07T19:55:00.002-08:002020-02-07T19:55:31.999-08:00This Blog Has Moved to Wrestling-With-Philosophy[dot]ComAfter years of procrastinating, I have (finally) moved my blog to a proper website. You can find it here: <a href="https://wrestling-with-philosophy.com/">https://wrestling-with-philosophy.com/</a> All posts from this blog have been migrated over.<br />
<br />
Also for my critical thinking course, go here: <a href="http://reasoningforthedigitalage.com/">reasoningforthedigitalage.com</a><br />
And for my (under continuous development) website on science denialism and anti-science propaganda please go here: <a href="http://the-propaganda-playbook.com/">propaganda-play-book.com</a><br />
<br />
Thank you to everyone who has followed me so far in this journey...Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com581tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-75673348968955808282019-10-08T18:11:00.000-07:002019-10-09T09:30:11.597-07:00How Not to Argue for Animal Rights Online: What Proponents of Animal Rights Should Learn from the Revised Dietary Guidelines on Meat-Eating<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNwYPo0KAK7gykMP_URPiK8BHfoYKsCg_EZfp_l9m_zzGOsF3Ep6rTLErCqVbiwZSHxzRm80vSbl_wiSNGD9CYiH_-mrf82zCafqQFdVlxmnl91fSHczExZao5Hle4A_1PhJq-MdaBlj4/s1600/yelling+on+computer.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNwYPo0KAK7gykMP_URPiK8BHfoYKsCg_EZfp_l9m_zzGOsF3Ep6rTLErCqVbiwZSHxzRm80vSbl_wiSNGD9CYiH_-mrf82zCafqQFdVlxmnl91fSHczExZao5Hle4A_1PhJq-MdaBlj4/s320/yelling+on+computer.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last week, you have seen the <a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from" target="_blank">new systematic review</a> of the existing evidence concerning the health effects and dietary guidelines surrounding red meat and processed meats. Without getting into the gory details, the review evaluates of the quality of the evidence that had guided previous dietary recommendations to reduce or eliminate red and processed meats. It turns out that most of the evidence is of low quality; i.e., they are primarily observational studies which, by design, cannot show causation and are replete with confounding variables. The authors conclude that the evidence isn’t strong enough to make recommendations either way and so people should just continue eating however they’re eating. (For a good review of the review <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-red-meat-controversy/" target="_blank">go here</a>).<br />
<br />
When a review, meta-analysis, or study contradicts the main trend in the literature, the correct attitude is skepticism. However, after reading the review and several reviews of the reviews by credible scientists, I think the conclusions are worth taking seriously. The quality of the evidence that supported past guidelines was weak and doesn't offer a firm foundation for recommendations one way or the other.<br />
<br />
If there<i> is</i> an uncontroversial conclusion in nutritional science it’s that the greater the proportion of fruits and vegetables in one’s diet, the better. If there’s any downside to eating meat it probably comes from the trade-offs that occur with fruits and vegetables. High meat consumption usually means that fruits and veggies are a smaller proportion of your diet (you can only stuff so much food in your face). An implication of the review is that a healthful diet can contain meat as a side-dish but probably not as the main dish.<br />
<br />
The online reception to the review was as predictable as someone commenting “BACON” on a vegan thread. Meat-eaters predictably gleefully reposted it, taking this review to be the One True Scientific Paper (while having completely ignored previous studies and reviews that had concluded the opposite). Animal rights proponents filled the internet’s comment section, desperately searching for flaws in the methodology and conflicts of interests.<br />
<br />
Animal rights proponents have been going about this all wrong. Let me qualify that last statement. I’m referring to the current general public-facing online reaction of the animal rights community—not the philosophical literature. Among other things, they hung their moral case on contentious empirical facts. This is a losing strategy. As we should all know by now, empirical conclusions get overturned all the time in science, and especially in nutritional science.<br />
<br />
It’s odd to see so many animal rights proponents combing through the review, grasping at straws in hopes of undermining the review. What if yet another high quality review comes out and concludes the same thing as this one? Then what? We all know that moral arguments demand moral premises. So, who cares whether there are mild health effects either way?<br />
<br />
But it’s actually worse than that. We undermine the credibility of the animal rights cause when we cling to weak science to make our case. Let the science fall where it may. Our position shouldn’t depend on it (I’ll qualify this later). And it certainly shouldn’t depend on weak science.<br />
<br />
This brings me to my next point. Why do animal rights proponents <i>really</i> cling to the hope that the empirical literature shows ill health effects for eating meat? Because we (I include myself here) want to make the prudential argument. We want to say, “you shouldn’t eat meat because it’s bad for you.” The not-too-unreasonable assumption is that many people care a lot more about themselves than anything else, especially out-of-sight farm animal welfare. We can avoid the hard work of the moral argument (and yes, it<i> is</i> hard work when engaging online) by offering the prudential argument instead.<br />
<br />
But again this is a losing strategy. The moment the science flips, so does the prudential argument. And even if that weren’t the case, although people care about themselves a lot, they aren't purely rarely rational agents. They gladly trade their long-term health for a hamburger or [insert your favorite self-destructive habit] today.<br />
<br />
Finally, the other problem with the prudential argument is that we’re being disingenuous. None of us really think it’s the prudential argument that matters for animal welfare and rights. That’s not why any of us care about animal welfare and rights.<br />
<br />
So here’s my suggestion. In public discourse, we animal rights proponents need to return to our roots. Concern for animal welfare and rights is grounded in a moral argument—it’s not empirical and it’s not prudential. To be sure, there are some necessary empirical premises such as the fact that certain practices cause unnecessary suffering and harm to animals. However, these empirical premises are not nearly as controversial or ephemeral as the shifting nutritional science we’re trying to cling to. And as for the moral premises? Most people already accept them. Our job is to help people see their true implications through the fog of personal advantage, culture, and socialization. Our animal friends are depending on us.Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-52808481707808460092019-09-14T22:33:00.000-07:002019-09-14T22:33:06.073-07:00Surviving and Thriving in Grad SchoolHere's an article I wrote on how to survive and thrive in grad school. It was published in the American Philosophical Association (APA) blog: <a href="http://blog.apaonline.org/2019/09/09/thriving-and-surviving-grad-school/">http://blog.apaonline.org/2019/09/09/thriving-and-surviving-grad-school/</a><br />
<br />
An excerpt:<br />
One of the biggest traps you can fall into is to fail to be grateful for the extreme privilege of going to grad school. You begin to complain about how hard your life is. We all do it. But take a look around at how the majority of the world lives. Most people struggle just to survive. And if they aren’t struggling, they go to work at a job they probably wouldn’t choose if not for purely pragmatic reasons.<br />
<br />
But you get paid to study and write about the things you love under the tutelage of experts. Think about it. Like just about every PhD student, you have a scholarship and stipend. Your education is free and–depending on the institution–you have somewhere between just enough for a simple life or a little more.<br />
<br />
Most importantly, you chose this life. Unlike so many in this world, this life was not a choice forced upon you. Of all the possible choices you could have made after completing undergrad, you chose grad school. Nay, you had the privilege of making a choice.<br />
<br />
Don’t let these thoughts stray far from your mind. It’s vital that you keep this attitude of gratitude throughout your studies. You chose pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. What made you think it would be easy? Or that you wouldn’t have to struggle? Isn’t that part of the reason you chose it in the first place?<br />
<br />
When things get tough, remind yourself of the extreme privilege you have; that this was your choice; that you had a choice; that society pays you to do what you purport to love.<br />
<br />
You are privileged beyond most of humanity for all of human history.<br />
<br />
Be grateful.Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-84481207287684262262019-07-03T19:38:00.000-07:002019-07-10T19:32:48.244-07:00The Next Big Misinformation Campaign: Plant-Based and Clean Meats Are Dangerous!!!<b><u>I. Introduction</u></b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGMEsIPiA4EfTduAeOqR2O_GmQ5t-yimNBWxBBu8DuOHVYVyBDm7jUVmHecK2zoGnqOpK8jWE-yfwMwGRQXglNHwgU-2h5HZOKjLRttNS65lh15XeQi6gd8GKH4_9x0Xz24skZebKa8U/s1600/next+gen+meat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="701" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGMEsIPiA4EfTduAeOqR2O_GmQ5t-yimNBWxBBu8DuOHVYVyBDm7jUVmHecK2zoGnqOpK8jWE-yfwMwGRQXglNHwgU-2h5HZOKjLRttNS65lh15XeQi6gd8GKH4_9x0Xz24skZebKa8U/s400/next+gen+meat.jpg" width="285" /></a>Plant-based meats and clean (aka lab-grown) meats will be the next targets of a well-financed major misinformation campaign. In the long run, the traditional meat industry is not going to be able to compete on price or quality. An <i>informed</i> consumer will rarely pay more for an inferior or similar product. The meat industry can only survive in the long run if consumers are misinformed. The main strategy will be to confuse the public about the healthfulness and safety of next-gen meats.<br />
<br />
There are no simple solutions to curtailing misinformation and widespread science denialism but one of the most important strategies is to get out in front of it. Decades of psychological literature tell us that once a belief is embedded in someone's mind it's <i>extremely</i> difficult to get them to change their view--no matter how strong the contravening argument or evidence. Science denialism, conspiracism, and misinformation spread like viruses, so it's critical to inoculate people against them <i>before</i> they spread.<br />
<br />
In this post I'm going to reveal parts of the misinformation playbook so you'll be able to spot the tactics and avoid succumbing to them in advance. First, I'll introduce these core tactics through a historical lens: You'll learn how misinformation campaigns functioned in the past. Then I will explain why the next big misinformation campaign will be against plant-based and clean (lab-grown) meats. Finally, I'll explain how the core misinformation strategies will be applied to next-gen meats.<br />
<br />
Skip Part II. if you just want to read about the upcoming campaign against next-gen meats...although, something about those who ignore history and repeating it.<br />
<br />
<b><u>II. The Misinformation and Science Denialism Playbook: A Quick Romp Through History </u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqabMgEhjjfTRoWJHwIaReyeOrpgYCRqOZcu__yaWMFwcdz2Wm6pbs1ND-1bvHoY5UYcfsdnZgvcPTHpndXDUd9HqImeaN0wschc7n4Ff0-aCMTCUbZ6WEy9d8cjQDCcMtVM1sHzlHzuI/s1600/matrix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="577" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqabMgEhjjfTRoWJHwIaReyeOrpgYCRqOZcu__yaWMFwcdz2Wm6pbs1ND-1bvHoY5UYcfsdnZgvcPTHpndXDUd9HqImeaN0wschc7n4Ff0-aCMTCUbZ6WEy9d8cjQDCcMtVM1sHzlHzuI/s320/matrix.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Most of us are broadly familiar with the most famous historical case of science denialism and misinformation carried out by the tobacco industry. As early as the 50s there was good evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. In order to protect its industry, tobacco companies engaged in a conspiracy (yes, there are real ones!) to spread doubt and misinformation about this connection. The strategies developed by the tobacco industry have become the playbook for later misinformation, denialist, and conspiracist campaigns.<br />
<br />
Here are a few of the core strategies and sub-strategies to look out for (This is NOT a comprehensive list):<br />
<br />
<b>A. Strategy: Create Doubt About the Science</b><br />
<i>Refuting a consensus is difficult. Sowing doubt is easy. </i>This is the most fundamental strategy of all misinformation and denialist campaigns. There are two main interconnected ways to do this: (a) Sow doubt about the trustworthiness of people and institutions producing the science and (b) sow doubt about the science itself. Let's look at (b). <br />
<br />
Refuting a trend in scientific literature is difficult but all that's really needed is to sow doubt about it in the public consciousness. Sowing doubt is fairly easy since it is the nature of science that almost no conclusion is absolutely certain. Scientific conclusion are always expressed <i>probabilistically</i>. This leaves open the ability to sow doubt by claiming that scientists still aren't 100% sure about something. Bad actors exploit this by calling undue attention to the intrinsic uncertainty of scientific conclusions regardless of the <i>relative</i> probabilities. For example, a conclusion might be 80% certain. Does the 20% uncertainty mean we throw up our hands as though there's no reasonable position to take? If you only produce headlines about uncertainty (and not relative uncertainty), this is how segments of the public will react. The tobacco industry leaned on this strategy for decades. Here are a couple other ways it's often done:<br />
<ol>
<li><i>Ignore large trends in the literature by focusing on single studies or parts of single studies</i>: Different studies are designed to demonstrate and investigate different kinds of conclusions: some focus on mechanisms, some on effect, some on correlation, some are retroactive, some are prospective, some seek to establish causation. No single study can do all things. That's why it's important to focus on<i> trends</i> in scientific literature rather than on single studies. There was a clear trend in research on the relation between lung cancer and smoking tobacco. Tobacco companies exploited the necessary incompleteness of individual studies to sow doubt. For example, an epidemiological study shows that 90% of lung cancer patients in the US were smokers. However, by design, observational studies cannot establish causation (on their own). It's not what they're for. There could be other confounding variables that explain the relation. Tobacco companies exploit this by claiming this study is bad science because it doesn't show causation. The reader's attention is diverted to a single correlational study and away from the larger trend in <i>multiple lines of converging evidence</i>--the hallmark of a strong scientific finding. This method should sound familiar if you follow current denialist strategies...</li>
<li><i>Conflate disagreement over mechanism with disagreement over effects:</i> By the 70s, there was widespread agreement in the scientific community that smoking tobacco <i>caused</i> lung cancer. However, there was disagreement and uncertainty with respect to the precise <i>mechanism</i> by which smoking caused lung cancer. The tobacco strategy was to sow doubt in the public by promoting the idea that "scientists disagree." The message (which should sound familiar) goes something like this: "People claim that there's a scientific consensus but even among the scientists we find disagreement and uncertainty. This study says tobacco causes cancer through mechanism X, this other study says it's caused through mechanism Y. So much for scientific consensus! The scientists don't even agree among themselves. People who claim otherwise are misleading you and alarmist" The public is non-culpably mislead. The industry has pulled the ol' switcher-oo between consensus on causal relation and on mechanism! Again, this should sound familiar.</li>
<li><i>Use strategic omissions and framing to mislead and sow doubt</i>: This is just a general statement of which the above are particular strategies. Consider your reaction to the following headline:</li>
</ol>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Only 10-15% of smokers get lung cancer! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That sounds pretty low. The tobacco companies sowed doubt by arguing that the link in tenuous because 85-90% of smokers don't get lung cancer. There's probably some other variable other than tobacco that might explain the lung cancer in smokers. Smoking causing lung cancer is hoax! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The denialist argument might seem compelling until we situate it in its correct context; i.e., we don't pluck it from all the other data surrounding the issue. First, of people who get lung cancer,<i> 90% are smokers</i>. Also, most smokers die of other smoking related conditions <i>before</i> they show signs of lung cancer. When we situate the initial lung cancer statistic in a more complete context, the case against tobacco is much more compelling. But, unlike the tobacco industry, the scientific community doesn't have billion-dollar advertising campaigns and PR firms to get inside the public's head. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The general public rarely hears the contextualized message and if they do, they've been "skepticized" in advance. Recall, it's extremely difficult to change someone's mind once they've taken a position--especially when their identity or habit are involved (e.g., being a smoker/enjoying smoking). This is (in part) how the tobacco industry was able to forestall large-scale public opposition for half a century. It is hands down one of the most difficult deceptions to catch because it requires non-experts to have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the relevant background literature. Many people are non-culpably fooled with this tactic--which makes it a favorite among denialist campaigns.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
4. <i>Link to Studies that Don't Show What the Author Thinks They Show:</i> This strategy is related to the above strategies but pertains to the internet age. To mislead the public, organizations can give articles the veneer of legitimate science by linking to scientific studies that don't actually support the author's point. As one study suggests, <a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/retro-thumbs-up-XreQmk7ETCak0" target="_blank">fewer than 1% of people actually click on those links anyway</a>. They reasonably assume that the author isn't misleading them and/or actually understands the study they're linking to. </blockquote>
<b>B. Strategy: Create Doubt Regarding who the Legitimate Experts and Institutions are, and their Trustworthiness and Credibility.</b><br />
This strategy is absolutely critical. People are only likely to fall for misleading information if they disregard what the genuine experts say and/or are confused about who the genuine experts are. We can't all be experts in all things and no one has time to deeply research every single claim we hear. We <i>have to </i>rely on and trust experts and institutions of knowledge. For most of contemporary human history, it wasn't difficult to identify the legitimate scientific experts and institutions. They all worked at universities.<br />
<ol>
<li><i>Reduce trust in legitimate institutions and experts:</i> The first prong of the strategy is to discredit or at least sow doubt about the credibility, trustworthiness, and identity of the legitimate experts and institutions for an issue. The general public becomes skeptical of genuine experts opening them to misinformation.</li>
<li><i>Create and Fund parallel institutions:</i> The other part of the strategy involves creating and funding parallel pseudo-experts and institutions that have the <i>appearance</i> of legitimacy, credibility, and impartiality in order to further confuse the public. In the 70s and 80s ideological think tanks and "consumer advocacy" groups blossomed. These institutions often select names straight out of Orwell. For example, the tobacco industry hired several prominent cold war physicists to head their newly created institution, "The Council for Tobacco Research." From the point of view of the public, they now hear news reports that scientists' from legitimate and impartial-sounding Council for Tobacco Research found no link between tobacco and lung cancer. Never mind that the scientists are physicists, not cancer researchers, and that the legitimate-sounding Council for Tobacco Research is an industry-funded organization with a mission to publish misleading and biased research and to discredit legitimate research. This strategy, once again, should sound familiar.</li>
<li><i>Find and/or Create Ideological or Interest-Based Allies:</i> This one's straight forward enough. Arguments and talking points are much more credible if they come from a group or person not directly affiliated with the interest group. For example, one prong of the tobacco industry's strategy in the 80s was to form alliances with libertarian groups such as the Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, and Freedomworks to "organically" oppose smoke-free zones and tobacco taxes. The plan was to "create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy [...]."<a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322" target="_blank">Link</a> The veneer of authentic citizen engagement lends legitimacy to the position.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b>C. Invoke fear and anger: </b><br />
Involving emotions applies to every aspect of misinformation. Understanding the role of emotions is critical to understanding how misinformation, denialism, and conspiracism spread so quickly today. Fear and anger have important effects on our cognitive functioning and our online behavior.<br />
<ol>
<li>Fear makes us risk averse and so we are more likely to oppose changes to the <i>status quo</i>. Although fear also motivates information-seeking, it causes us to process information in a biased way--giving more weight to the fear-inducing information. This is why fear is commonly used in misinformation against new technologies and proposed government regulation. Fear can be used by both sides. Propagators of misinformation understand this so they make sure fear is directed at their target.<br /><br />For example, people have reason to be fearful of the effects of smoking but--especially in the US--there's a culture of fear surrounding government shaping individuals' decisions. What follows are political fear-based campaigns about governments banning tobacco or prohibiting smoking in--<i>gasp</i>--public spaces like restaurants and airplanes. (Yes, young readers, people used to smoke in restaurants and airplanes). All the while, the fact that we should be fearful of lung and mouth cancer and cardiovascular disease is pushed out of the discussion in the name of individual rights and freedoms. A word to the wise: When you hear an industry arguing for freedom of choice, be skeptical. What they usually mean is freedom from accountability and civic responsibility.</li>
<li>Anger reduces our cognitive capacities and exacerbates motivated reasoning. When we're angry, we'll passionately defend false views so long as they align with our prior convictions. Anger is particularly useful in spreading conspiracism and denialism. Who wouldn't be angry to "discover" that some company, the government, or an industry is trying to do evil things to us? Once you're worked up, you're going to share the bejesus out of that article to warn everyone.</li>
<li>Finally, emotions are important for spreading misinformation because emotionally charged messages are much more likely to be shared than posts and articles that are emotionally neutral.</li>
</ol>
I could go on.<br />
<br />
The playbook has become long and sophisticated. Learning all the techniques would require taking a course which, as your luck would have it, <a href="https://reasoningforthedigitalage.com/" target="_blank">I have built and offer online free of charge</a>!<br />
<br />
In what follows, I want to talk about the next big misinformation campaign. Until now, it's only been a trickle, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will be in full force within 2 years (I'm calling it here!). So you and others don't fall prey, I'm going to administer your vaccine.<br />
<br />
<b><u>III. The Next Big Misinformation Campaign: Plant-Based and Clean (i.e., Lab Grown) Meats</u></b><br />
<b>A. Who and Why?</b><br />
The old adage in journalism is "follow the money." To be sure, this is a good rule of thumb but on its own it doesn't show guilt or malevolence. However, we can make a reasonable inference based on past experiences. Very rarely has an industry ever taken an existential threat lying down. And plant-based/clean meats ARE an existential threat to meat producers.<br />
<br />
The success of next-gen meats has caught just about everyone by surprise. But to those familiar with this new industry's strategy, their wide-spread success should be less surprising. The long-term term goal is to offer a better product (than traditional meat) at a lower price with a smaller environmental footprint and with no animal suffering.<br />
<br />
Think about it.<br />
<br />
Someone presents you with a cow and a plant-based or lab-grown meat. They say to you that the plant-based/clean meat<br />
<ul>
<li>tastes just as good or better than the cow; </li>
<li>has a <a href="https://medium.com/@chanapdavis/the-skinny-and-fat-on-wall-street-darling-beyond-meat-902b7ea85492" target="_blank">similar nutritional profile</a>, </li>
<li>creates almost no environmental footprint relative to beef (<a href="http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf" target="_blank">Beyond Burgers required 99% less water, 93% less land use, 90% fewer greenhouse gasses, and 46% less energy</a>); and</li>
<li>and it's <i>cheaper</i>. </li>
</ul>
Then they tell you:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(a) I can sell you this plant-based/clean burger or </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(b) you can pay a little more and I can drive a bolt through this baby cow's skull, slice up its carcass, and give you a slab. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Which do you prefer?</blockquote>
That essentially the choice consumers will have within about 5 years. (They almost have it now except they have to pay an extra dollar for the next-gen meat instead.)<br />
<br />
As a percentage of the population, very few--<i>with full information</i>--will ask you to slaughter the baby cow. Who's going to say, "No, I want to pay more for the same product that causes more environmental damage and animal suffering." Humans are irrational, but not all of them all of the time. Most of us, to some degree and on some occasions, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia" target="_blank">act contrary to our own beliefs and values</a>. The genius behind the next-gen strategy is that it doesn't rely on ethics but on economics. You can completely ignore environmental and animal welfare considerations and still get everything you want <i>for less</i>. Most humans will choose the cheaper product, especially if its superior <i>assuming full information</i>.<br />
<br />
The traditional meat industry has 3 ways of responding to this existential threat:<br />
<ol>
<li>Make a superior product, </li>
<li>Drop the price or </li>
<li>Ensure that consumers don't have full information. </li>
</ol>
The first strategy is only a short-term solution because next-gen meat technology is only in its infancy. The products will only get better, more diverse, and cheaper. And whatever can be cut from an animal's carcass can also be replicated and improved in a lab.<br />
<br />
The second strategy isn't sustainable either. The traditional meat industry is already massively subsidized directly and indirectly. Dropping prices means further socializing the cost of meat and the meat industry. At some point, tax-payers will wonder whether it's worth continuing to artificially prop up an obsolete industry.<br />
<br />
That leaves strategy #3. Ensure consumers aren't fully informed. AKA, make sure they're misinformed.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqe3J9ISkFDoQACt0q9lj74AutBAjBqAsIY6GoZm9oha1MpSp8YmHFaICGA0j7kLwmF_A2q_-RKwNaA236nm5QdZMtLGtGDjGqNM8FuKKwuxinTYZM7NSch6KKg_dVfS_H5fKWFCwMfpQ/s1600/false+beliefs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="702" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqe3J9ISkFDoQACt0q9lj74AutBAjBqAsIY6GoZm9oha1MpSp8YmHFaICGA0j7kLwmF_A2q_-RKwNaA236nm5QdZMtLGtGDjGqNM8FuKKwuxinTYZM7NSch6KKg_dVfS_H5fKWFCwMfpQ/s320/false+beliefs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>B. But How?</b><br />
Here is where it's helpful to become familiar with some of the tried-and-true strategies for misinformation. Let me tell you how the meat industry is going undertake its misinformation campaign by taking you through the strategies I mentioned in the introduction.<br />
<br />
1. <i>They are going to sow doubt about the relative safety of the new products.</i> Never mind that all such products undergo rigorous safety testing. Here's how they're going to do it:<br />
<i style="text-align: center;"><br /></i>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPYq91EcvEd2rj-S5tn-GFzqi_ocBxssW2WayegUztjf64JMx1MWN_jqY2vb2y_4SyJPJJgaQqMi0C6LvMIiqcylrvyEzupl2MhtgFxFF8_qUPHGv63Q07ZevuiVQHfZOfr7sh1EtlcbU/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-07-02+at+12.57.48+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="1456" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPYq91EcvEd2rj-S5tn-GFzqi_ocBxssW2WayegUztjf64JMx1MWN_jqY2vb2y_4SyJPJJgaQqMi0C6LvMIiqcylrvyEzupl2MhtgFxFF8_qUPHGv63Q07ZevuiVQHfZOfr7sh1EtlcbU/s400/Screen+Shot+2019-07-02+at+12.57.48+AM.png" width="400" /></a><i style="text-align: center;">a. Appeal to scientific ignorance/chemophobia:</i><span style="text-align: center;"> They will list scary sounding chemicals that constitute or are used in the production of next-gen meat. Next to it, they'll put a chunk of traditional meat and write, "Ingredients: just meat." You'll see memes and articles bravely proclaiming, "I'm not putting a bunch of chemicals in my body." (Ok, stop breathing then...) This is a common strategy employed already by the organic lobby. But as you can see from the picture to the right, you can make any food sound scary to many people if you simply list its chemical make-up. You could do the same for the traditional meat.</span><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>b. Link to animal studies that don't show what they purport to show:</i> There are a few ways to do this. But let me first point out what is widely understood in the scientific community: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746847/" target="_blank">that even well-conducted animal studies are poor predictors for effects on humans</a>.<br />
<ol><ol>
<li><i>Publish studies that use a dose/body weight ratio on lab animals that massively exceeds what a human would ever reasonably consume.</i> This allows you to write headlines that say, "Lab rats that consumed X found in next-gen meat Y got cancer/became obese/[insert any health problem]. <a href="https://tenor.com/view/borat-high-five-gif-10944050" target="_blank">People don't click past the headline</a> so no need to worry about people actually reading the study.</li>
<li><i>Statistical fishing/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging" target="_blank">p-hacking</a>.</i> If you test for enough variables, statistical laws imply you will<i> always</i> find some statistical correlation between two of the many variables. Of course, using this method makes it impossible to distinguish between statistical correlation and genuine causation. No matter. All you need is the headline or link saying that "chemical X in next-gen meat possibly linked to [insert negative health outcome]." Gee, better avoid that product just in case--and completely ignore that consuming <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279" target="_blank">traditional meat has well-established correlations to poor health outcomes</a>...</li>
<li><i>Sow Doubt/Confusion about the Nutritional Differences.</i> They will apply statistical fishing to compare every possible nutrient between traditional meat and the target next-gen meat. Obviously the results will be mixed but they will select the few nutrients where traditional meat is superior. They will not advertise the metrics where traditional is inferior. Then they will present the information is a misleading context. <br /><br />For example, traditional meat has 4.8 mg of zinc/serving. Next-gen meat, let's stipulate, has 1mg/serving. What does this mean for overall health? What percentage is this of the recommended daily allowance? These answers will be buried deep in the article. And how relevant is it anyway? No one is going to eat next-gen meat as their one and only food just like no one does with traditional meat. But the headline you'll read is: TRADITIONAL MEAT CONTAINS 500% MORE ZINC THAN [INSERT NEXT GEN-MEAT]!!! <br /><br />And just like that, all of a sudden everyone is oh-so-concerned about maximizing their zinc intake...and the only way to get it is through <i>lots</i> and <i>lots</i> of traditional meat. No other foods contain zinc. </li>
</ol>
</ol>
2. <i>Find Natural Allies and/or Create Them:</i> Finding natural allies isn't that hard. Here's one thing we know about humans. If you provide them with evidence (no matter how weak) that confirms what they already believe they will drink that kool aid like an unsupervised 7 seven-year-old at a birthday party. This partly explained why so many smokers were so easily mislead by tobacco misinformation. <i>It confirmed what they already wanted to be true and it involved an activity or belief central to their identity</i>. Here are a few groups who will be naturally sympathetic to the meat industry where you should expect to find pro-traditional meat propaganda.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. Cross fit community.<br />
2. Paleo diet community.<br />
3. Anti-GMO crowd.<br />
4. The alt-right. </blockquote>
All of these groups, for various cultural, ideological, and doxastic reasons, are invested in traditional meat being superior (for any criterion) to whatever plant-based/clean meat companies come up with. There is no amount of evidence that will convince them to the contrary because their pro-traditional meat stance grows out of beliefs central to their identity. Challenging those beliefs challenges the foundations of their identity which means they will be very defensive.<br />
<br />
Cross-fitters and paleo diet adherents believe that if something is "natural" (whatever that means) or was part of our early evolutionary diet then health-wise it's automatically better for you. Anti-GMO groups believe the same<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/" target="_blank"> but also add a moral element</a> (<a href="https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/jmp_sydney-scott.pdf" target="_blank">here's another study</a>) tied to biological essentialism and teleological thinking: Food that is created in a lab is objectionably messing with nature. And it's doubly bad since GE foods are created by a profit-motivated corporations (which actually isn't true of many GE foods; e.g., GE plantains and cassava in Africa, Golden Rice, and Bt eggplant in Bangladesh and India). Of course, we all know that meat farmers and distributors are driven purely by altruism. They don't care one fig if they make a profit.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, for this group, safety research and standards can't be trusted because the FDA has been captured by industry. Even if this were entirely true, such groups ignore or trivialize <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/" target="_blank">high quality impartial research and major trends in the overall literature</a>. (I'll return to the anti-GMO/organic crowd later).<br />
<br />
Various groups on the political right define themselves in part as "not the left." And they don't mean just politically. The left disproportionately consumes plant-based diets, therefore identity politics logic dictates that <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-right-wingers-are-going-crazy-about-meat" target="_blank">people on the right have to eat a lot of meat</a>. Makes sense, right? For someone on the alt-right to consume a predominantly plant-based diet would mean they are the same as a global warming-believing liberal. That's simply not an <i>alt</i>ernative.<br />
<br />
It's important to note that it's much more convincing to the generally ambivalent public if there's (the appearance of) "grassroots" opposition and skepticism toward next-gen meats. We trust the people in our social networks and so our guard is down when these stories enter our newsfeeds via friends and trusted news outlets. Given this social dynamic, it's no surprise that<a href="https://healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health-articles-of-2018-a-scientific-credibility-review/" target="_blank"> in 2018, 7/10 of the top health articles shared on social media were false or misleading</a>.<br />
<br />
3. <i>Sow Confusion and Doubt Over Who Are Trustworthy Experts: </i><br />
<ol>
<li><i>Personal attacks on scientists working on next-gen meats in order to undermine their credibility in order to cast doubt on their science</i>. The easiest way to do this is through freedom of information requests. Muck-rakers comb through thousands of emails then use highly decontextualized excerpts from those emails in order to create an illusion of nefarious deeds or bad science.</li>
<li><i>Pseudo Institutions of Knowledge:</i> Following the tobacco playbook, watch for what look like neutral and legitimate consumer advocacy websites and research groups that have the trappings of legitimacy. Often googling "who funds [insert institution]" will reveal who's behind the curtain. You can frequently (but not always) find this information on wikipedia.</li>
<li><i>"Experts":</i> As I said, often the best way to sow doubt is to get people with natural alliances to do the work for you. It comes off as more authentic which avoids trigging our skeptical sensibilities. Despite the fact that the "wellness" and fitness industry is notorious for bad science millions of people take advice from self-professed gurus. <br /><br />For example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Lugavere" target="_blank">Max Lugavere</a>, a Hollywood "fitness guru" is already (probably non-culpably) supporting traditional meat. He is a regular on Dr. Oz for health and fitness segments. Must be a genuine expert. He's on TV, after all. Credentials? Not so much. He has an undergraduate degree in film and psychology yet bills himself as a health and science journalist. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Lugavere" target="_blank">Link</a>)<br />Here is from a recent Tweet. </li>
</ol>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0Xw26dgzHJYJMsn7-_rG_xp2Q5psbaqYb3WCpURJfsN006JGjNRv365BSpvM2nxJSqDvHhv_wTedr0Kj-paQk8v4VnkAh2_M-ce1R__ImiXVnCbMohtPWw_wFHihF5BwDIeJj8Jjf2Q/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-07-02+at+1.22.39+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1122" data-original-width="1140" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0Xw26dgzHJYJMsn7-_rG_xp2Q5psbaqYb3WCpURJfsN006JGjNRv365BSpvM2nxJSqDvHhv_wTedr0Kj-paQk8v4VnkAh2_M-ce1R__ImiXVnCbMohtPWw_wFHihF5BwDIeJj8Jjf2Q/s400/Screen+Shot+2019-07-02+at+1.22.39+AM.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Oh, Max...too predictable!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Max's followers might fall for that clap-trap, but not mine! Right, guys?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL4SU5YWuvbRjPl8ZnK2uly2uvdJpZidZAbMOuqQVrZDLo0NxcP3TkMIoA4cB9KeBXefL4IhiBzFgSLuKm0C5MAE6otMNhZk7rcrZwVmbG5JwOfTzJB3GjeF2wTHaGYcjew2PxJk7IqG8/s1600/chemikillzzz.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="751" data-original-width="501" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL4SU5YWuvbRjPl8ZnK2uly2uvdJpZidZAbMOuqQVrZDLo0NxcP3TkMIoA4cB9KeBXefL4IhiBzFgSLuKm0C5MAE6otMNhZk7rcrZwVmbG5JwOfTzJB3GjeF2wTHaGYcjew2PxJk7IqG8/s320/chemikillzzz.jpeg" width="213" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u><br />IV. Final Thoughts (and Prayers)</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here are a few random thoughts:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
1. My own view is that most people in the general public who fall for denialism and misinformation are non-culpable for two main reasons: </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
a) First, misinformation campaigns have risen to the level of a science. These campaigns are extremely well-resourced and well-executed by professionals who know exactly what they are doing and have the experiences of past campaigns to guide them. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
b) Second, knowledge <i>requires</i> social trust, and misinformation campaigns exploit this. For example, most of us know that food contains carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. But could you run the lab experiments to verify this first-hand? Most of us know that our cells contain DNA. But have <i>you</i> seen the DNA? How you conducted the lab experiments that identify it? Most of us know that electricity is the flow of elections. But could you construct the lab experiment to prove it? Etc... The point is, pretty much everything scientific we know about the world requires that we <i>trust</i> the authority of someone who studies that thing (or their indirect accounts in textbooks). If we trust the wrong people, we believe the wrong things. That's how you get flat-earthers.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Misinformation campaigns can only work by manipulating and exploiting social trust. They <i>must</i> sow doubt in the legitimacy of genuine experts and get you to place trust in their constructed experts and institutions. These pseudo-experts and pseudo institutions have all the outward appearances of genuine experts and institutions. From the point of view of the public, the legitimate and illegitimate institutions are outwardly indistinguishable. Most denialists are victims of misinformation campaigns that have cleverly manipulated the fact that we <i>must</i> trust others to learn about the world.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
2. The most interesting groups to watch in this issue will be the anti-GMO/pro-organic/animal rights groups since their allegiances will be split. Many anti-GMO and pro-organic groups espouse environmentalist values. Next-gen meats offer massive environmental improvements over traditional meats. The problem is that the anti-GMO and pro-organic groups subscribe to "natural is better" and <a href="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5948636/file/5948643" target="_blank">purity norms, biological essentialism, and teleological thinking with respect to nature</a>. On their view, nothing made in a lab could possibly be healthy or good for the environment--especially not something made by a corporation for profit. These groups are extremely weary of biotech. Many will sabotage their own ends by falling prey to the inevitable fear-mongering about lab-made foods.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIBtU2fKJIYFh6rx4CyYfHm2iQzgFxdZZpwHFaWe1ilbU2iiyBzv6oGwuAxih4HlBDSk83_YpUkZnHkGgpP9iLmwG4QQzFlaMd-U9YXCDvND7lETnWs_ZWYGV3UgWYtuLIQqY_FSiI1g/s1600/animal+test.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="756" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIBtU2fKJIYFh6rx4CyYfHm2iQzgFxdZZpwHFaWe1ilbU2iiyBzv6oGwuAxih4HlBDSk83_YpUkZnHkGgpP9iLmwG4QQzFlaMd-U9YXCDvND7lETnWs_ZWYGV3UgWYtuLIQqY_FSiI1g/s400/animal+test.jpg" width="263" /></a>A similar issue confronts animal rights/vegan groups. Their primary value (as a group) is to protect animal rights and reduce animal suffering. Sadly, many of people in these groups are also strongly anti-biotech. They'll have to choose between supporting biotech and massively reducing animal suffering. I anticipate some fierce in-group battles.<br />
<br />
Safety testing is another issue for these groups that will certainly lead to internal war. Members of these groups (and others) will demand impossibly high levels of safety testing given their general anti-biotech/anti-corporate dispositions. However, the safety standards they demand probably can't be accomplished without some animal testing. Do you test on some animals to save billions of future ones? On the one side you'll have absolutists--the end can never justify the means--and on the other are the pragmatists/utilitarians. Expect things to get nasty. I hope that the absolutists come to understand that sometimes future consequences matter more that mere principle or at least that the absolutists are small in number. </div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-32720266984633303642019-06-11T21:32:00.002-07:002019-06-13T12:57:50.127-07:00Gender, Sex, and Transgender Debates<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMPjN53NUE4EbmHf8ZtdW8g39OnvjonKZy-N-vAGElXtHCZCKUK09gRKUtwPeEUrRC0psxANamjlmpLT4DfW55UI0vwE0haBxkFVWlZXNZRZh2KpkEqcRYpRV_kLMcvWRNQGAjOTg4lHg/s1600/sex+and+gender.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="577" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMPjN53NUE4EbmHf8ZtdW8g39OnvjonKZy-N-vAGElXtHCZCKUK09gRKUtwPeEUrRC0psxANamjlmpLT4DfW55UI0vwE0haBxkFVWlZXNZRZh2KpkEqcRYpRV_kLMcvWRNQGAjOTg4lHg/s400/sex+and+gender.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
For a while, I've had the idea of writing short posts presenting right wing and conservative ideas as charitably as possible. There's a tendency on both sides of the culture wars to oversimplify and straw man (person?) the opposition. I fall prey to this just as much as the next person but in an effort to practice what I preach, here is the first is what I will try to make a regular feature of my blog. My first attempt is <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2019/05/theories-of-constitutional.html" target="_blank">here</a>. In this post, I'm going to enter the mine-field debate over sex, gender, and transgender identity.<br />
<br />
In these pieces, my aim isn't really to argue for a particular view. I'm mainly going to try to give an overview of some of the issues and trade-offs associated with various popular positions. The hope is that I'll accomplish what I aim for in my classroom: To get people to at least feel the intuitive pull of competing positions and understand why someone might adopt them. That said, where I think a position is particularly strong or weak, I'll suggest this.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Sex, Gender, and Transgender Debates</u></b><br />
In good philosophical fashion, let's begin by defining our terms. There is disagreement over the terms and we'll look at that later, but we need something to begin with. Here are how sex and gender are often defined.<br />
<br />
<b>Sex</b>: A biological category defined by some combination of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia. Edit: In an earlier draft I wrote that there are five sexes for humans, especially since it's not clear how to classify hermaphrodites. I'd read this several years ago in some now-forgotten articles. I've since learned from commenters that this is a contested claim. The two-sexes view holds that we can always identify the female because "she makes large gametes." For a fun twitter feed on this topic, <a href="https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1133120326844506112?fbclid=IwAR2s2pClkaORTdOtRRXU90eClb3777o5Wj88ek9a_c4LM8EEkUQ9A4ujbd4" target="_blank">go here</a>. For an overview of the biological possibilities for sex determination in humans, <a href="https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html" target="_blank">go here</a>. For scientific support for the two sex view, <a href="https://arcdigital.media/is-sex-binary-16bec97d161e?sk=37aadc314c28136c9290b27d612df2c8&fbclid=IwAR04520PeBwKWTkEIN0dWByaNLU0S8knYTMxm-NGv61tBNKPcaMg0bk6Tg8" target="_blank">go here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Gender:</b> The behavioral norms typically associated with a particular sex. Norms, in this case, are often understood to be both descriptive and prescriptive. That is to say, they can describe how members of a sex <i>do</i> act or how they <i>ought</i> to act. It's important to keep the descriptive and prescriptive elements separate since most people often equivocate between the two. The most common genders are man and woman or, as adjectives, masculine or feminine.<br />
<br />
Famously, gender is often referred to as the social meaning of sex. That is to say, when we think "female" or "male," gender represents the social roles and behaviors associated with the respective sexes.<br />
<br />
As far as I can tell, the standard conservative position is that sex=gender. This view is usually referred to as <b>gender essentialism</b>. By this I mean that biology and behavioral norms do not come apart. Sort of. On the <i>descriptive</i> account, being female means that you <i>will</i> behave in certain ways and perhaps be disposed to particular gendered preferences. That is, your biology determines your gendered behavior and dispositions.<br />
<br />
The <i>normative</i> account of gender usually follows: If you don't exhibit the appropriate biologically determined behaviors then you are deviating from how you <i>should</i> behave. This is what people mean when they say things like, "he's not a <i>real</i> man" or "act like a lady." These are admonitions to act according the norms appropriate to your biological sex.<br />
<br />
Critics of gender essentialism point to a potential problem. If gendered behavior is <i>determined</i> by biological sex then how is it possible that some people don't behave according to the biological sex? The reply usually has to do with the effects of decadent liberal culture corrupting the youth. In other words, culture is corrupting "natural" behaviors. A problem with the reply is that it concedes the very point that their opponents often make: gender is socially constructed and the "natural" gendered behaviors don't occur in a cultural vacuum either. They occur in a cultural environment that models and reinforces particular gender norms....<br />
<br />
This leads us to the other end of the spectrum where people argue that sex and gender can come apart. (The fact that it's possible to say "be a man" or "act like a lady" seems to tacitly support this in the descriptive sense...) We only believe that gender and sex are inextricably linked because biologically female humans are socialized to internalize the corresponding cultural gender norms just as biologically male humans are socialized to internalize their corresponding gender norms. If males and females were socialized differently, they would act differently than the gender norms typically encouraged and modeled in our society.<br />
<br />
So, to repeat, here are the two extreme ends of the continuum: Those who say that sex determines gender and those that say that gender is entirely the product of socialization--not biology. Those who argue that sex determines gender often move from the descriptive claim to the normative; i.e., that one ought to align one's behavior with the gender norms associated with one's biological sex. Failing to do this is, to varying degrees, morally bad.<br />
<br />
As you might guess, there's also everything in between: People argue that, in a population, some traits and dispositions are statistically correlated with one sex rather than another. Basically, some of our behaviors and dispositions are biologically determined by our sex while others are indeed the product of socialization. It's important to add that just like for every other species, most traits fall on a continuum: No one has all traits in the same amounts and so, <i>at the population level</i>, we should expect to find all traits in both male and female humans and in different degrees.<br />
<br />
Defending the conservative position: Across all species we observe statistical behavioral differences between males and females of that species. We also know that there is a biological foundation to many behavioral dispositions. It would be weird if humans were the only species in all of creation for which sex and biology didn't play any role in statistical distributions of behaviors.<br />
<br />
Here comes the tricky part: Humans are unique in that culture plays a huge role in determining behavior. This is why we observe different behaviors across cultures and time. So, while it's entirely reasonable to hold that many behaviors are grounded in biology, many behaviors are also a product of socialization in a particular culture. How do we distinguish behaviors that are biologically grounded from those that are socially grounded when behaviors occur in an environment where both determinants exist?<br />
<br />
For some, the solution is to abolish all gender norms and to "let the pieces fall where they may." That is, if we tear down gender norms, people--as unique individuals--will follow a path that conforms to their intrinsic dispositions. In this way, people who might have been pushed into roles that clash with their inner disposition are free to pursue a life congruent with their unique combination of drives and dispositions. Also, those who fit well in traditional gender roles still have that available to them with the important difference that they are genuinely choosing it.<br />
<br />
For others, gender norms offer a safe road map for harmonious family and community living. Destroying these norms provides people with no road map and eviscerates the institutions upon which family and society have historically been built.<br />
<br />
The gender abolitionist assumes that humans can handle all that freedom and new harmonious forms of social organization can emerge (Read: The Inquisitor from Dostoyevski's The Brother Karamazov for a great take on this). The gender conservative believes that society can't flourish without certain gender roles. They also assume previous forms of social organization grounded in gender norms were indeed harmonious or at least more harmonious than any other possible form of social organization.<br />
<br />
There's a lot more to say here but I'm trying to make this just an overview and get to the issue of transgender identity.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Transgender Identity</u></b><br />
Ok, if I end up in a re-education camp for this, please contact my mom. She's a professor in the Department of Education at UBC so she may be able to pull some strings.<br />
<br />
We can think of transgender identity as involving two distinct but related issues: One ontological and one ethical.<br />
<br />
<i>The Ontological Issue</i><br />
Ontology is a fancy way of talking about the philosophy of "being." In this area of philosophy we try to figure out what makes a thing what it is rather than something else. The ontological question regarding transgender identity asks "what is essential to gender?" In fancy philosophy talk we might ask, what are the necessary and sufficient properties that a human must have such that they are one gender rather than another?<br />
<br />
Here are the two simplified ends of the continuum. On one end, some people say that gender is fundamentally determined by how one conceives of oneself. This position is often straw personed(?) as someone merely self-declaring to be one gender rather than another. If I feel like a cat then I am a cat. Most proponents of self-declaring view hold that the self-declaring is a consequence of, amongst other things, a deep psychological self-conception as well as dispositions and behaviors that align with the gender not typically associated with their biological sex.<br />
<br />
On the other end of the continuum gender essentialists argue that because gender is biologically tied to sex, one cannot change their gender without changing one's chromosomes. Gender has nothing to do with self-identity and everything to do with biological sex.<br />
<br />
There are A LOT of positions in between.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the trans movement has created a division between some feminists. The historically dominant feminist view holds that gender is the product of socialization (often called gender critical feminism). If we accept this then self-identity in the absence of socialization cannot on its own confer gender status. This puts traditional feminism at odds with newer strains of trans-inclusive feminism. A male who is socialized as a man, on this view, cannot be a woman even if they undergo gender reassignment surgery because they have not been socialized as a woman.<br />
<br />
Notice that this view (you can't change genders) holds the same conclusion as conservatives but for different reasons. For essentialists you can't change genders because you can't change your chromosomes. For gender critical feminists you can't change genders because you can't change how you were socialized in the past.<br />
<br />
Notice also that, on the gender critical view, a trans person could over time potentially become their chosen gender if others treat them that way; i.e, they undergo gendered socialization. One's position here depends on how much socialization is required and at what stages in one's life it occurs.<br />
<br />
Most gender critical feminists also disagree with the idea implicit in transgenderism that there are these two neat boxes called "gender" that we can put ourselves or others in. "Gender is a construct, we're trying to deconstruct it, and now you're trying to preserve it just like the conservatives!"<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting twist in the debate. Some trans-inclusive views can sort of align with gender essentialists. Our psychology is grounded in our brain biology. We know that in a population, traits are distributed along a bell-curve--regardless of biological sex. This means that some humans with male chromosomes will have a "female" psychology. Gender identity becomes tricky here. What's more important to what we most fundamentally <i>are</i>? Our chromosomes or our psychology? Both are grounded in biology.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, you are you because of the psychology particular to you. For example, if you are a shy person it doesn't make sense for someone to call you an outgoing person. You both feel and behave like a shy person. Here, biology points in two directions: The (biologically grounded) brain structures underlying a person's psychology might be what our society associates with femininity while their XY chromosomes point in the other direction. If we weigh psychology and underlying brain structures more heavily, then gender is determined this way. The other position weighs chromosomes more heavily in determining gender identity.<br />
<br />
Both replies assume that one or the other is more fundamental to gender identity. Notice that both positions also sort of agree that there is something essential about gender: masculinity and femininity are identifiable clusters of properties grounded in biology. The disagreement is over which is fundamental.<br />
<br />
The deep psychological view of gender presents its critics with the following challenge. How do we explain the fact that despite socialization and despite chromosomal sex some people deeply and sincerely identify as the gender not typically associated with their sex? If gender is primarily the product of socialization, then how do we explain gender dysphoria in those who were never socialized for that gender? If gender is primarily chromosomal, how do we explain the existence of a psychology (grounded in brain structures) that can resist a life-time of conditioning in the other gender direction? On the essentialist view, chromosomes, by definition, code for brain structures that underlie the psychology of typical gender identity for that sex. But there exist people for whom this doesn't appear to be true.<br />
<br />
The central task for trans-inclusive feminists, with respect to the ontological question, is to show a disanalogy between race and gender. Almost no one thinks that self-identity can determine one's race. So, trans-inclusive feminists need to argue that gender and race differ in some important respect where gender can be determined by self-identity but race can't.<br />
<br />
These arguments exist but disagreement over their soundness still abounds--even in the neo-Marxist post-modernist universities (i.e., all of them, according to Jordan Peterson). Regardless of one's position on the issue, I think it's unfair to vilify conservatives and people on the right over the ontological issue when there isn't even consensus on the liberal left.<br />
<br />
<i>The Ethical Issue</i><br />
That said, the left generally agrees on the ethical question: Should I refer to someone according to their preferred gender pronoun? Regardless of whether someone actually believes a trans person is <i>really</i> the gender they believe themselves to be, most people on the left hold that basic norms of dignity and mutual respect imply we call people by their preferred pronoun.<br />
<br />
A loose analogue might be someone who self-identifies as a Christian but acts contrary to Jesus's teachings and has never read the Bible. If they want me to identify them a Christian, norms of basic dignity and mutual respect suggest that I do so if that's their preference. I gain nothing by insisting that they are not TRUE Christians. Of course, being a Christian isn't a biological category but it's the norms of dignity and mutual respect that ought govern behavior towards one another regardless of what my ontology tells me. That said, if I want to write a respectful philosophical paper on the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a Christian, I should be able to do this without Harris-Mint.<br />
<br />
Finally, the norms of dignity and mutual respect hold people should not be discriminated against based on their self-identity--even if we disagree with how they self-identify. This is the benefit and responsibility of living in a free society. We cannot escape interacting with people with whom we disagree but we can choose to treat them the way we would want to be treated. As an itinerant Jew from Israel once said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you:<br />
do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.</blockquote>
and<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself</blockquote>
Amen.<br />
<br />
One final point regards individual liberty. Americans luuuuuuuuvz them some freedom talk. Consider what a genuine commitment to freedom entails. Respecting individual freedom to do only the things one likes and agrees with is no commitment to freedom. It's thinly disguised prejudice. A genuine commitment to individual liberty and its real test implies imparting dignity and mutual respect to those who make choices and live in ways we strongly disagree with.<br />
<br />
USA! USA! USA!<br />
<br />
FREEDOM!!!!<br />
<br />
Pew! Pew! Pew! Pew!<br />
<br />
<b><u>Final Remarks</u></b><br />
There is no way to cover this entire debate in a single blog post. This topic is massive. The intent here is simply to give people an overview of some of the major positions and what they entail. If you have something you'd like to add, feel free to write me something in the comments.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-56697507589284835502019-05-13T10:11:00.001-07:002019-05-17T14:38:07.794-07:00Theories of Constitutional Interpretation and How to Think About Upcoming Constitutional Cases<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE2f6-hzY38OOC3LMCZ3AxnDXoEofBVxTsTvOQkQxtG1OvfDeTNM6ncgpQILI4tz7-nFyDEqIUY7H1N59OXieCxHRfGa0RRQvWa6dom8fYAYY9S-zjDecCswWxmeQHixdzNgDu2h8Ld2k/s1600/constitutional+ruling.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="750" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE2f6-hzY38OOC3LMCZ3AxnDXoEofBVxTsTvOQkQxtG1OvfDeTNM6ncgpQILI4tz7-nFyDEqIUY7H1N59OXieCxHRfGa0RRQvWa6dom8fYAYY9S-zjDecCswWxmeQHixdzNgDu2h8Ld2k/s320/constitutional+ruling.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>I. Introduction</b></div>
Anytime a constitutional case intersects with the culture wars, you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone on social media will <br />
magically become a constitutional scholar--in their own minds anyway. Yes, folks, merely believing something is sufficient for it being true. But I digress (already)...<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this post, I'm going to give an overview of the various theories of constitutional interpretation and mention a few of the trade-offs that come from selecting one over the other. Later, I'll suggest how to think about up-coming constitutional cases.<br />
<br />
As I run through the various theories, here's a philosophical question to keep in the back of your mind: What is the purpose of a justice system and a system of laws? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>II. Penumbra Cases and Judicial Discretion</b> </div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyYwVRCG1uloncM5wcBxPrIixhhq8ujvuI9kvP3fIvIyf0Hh68klLOxXQNaqB85qcRWxpOKHpjiBjufs5ix7BwaEh28bRG52LsLr0Lwk0znuL_uP0ZYzoBQlboP-b2sgxKSI6m7KsenTY/s1600/ben+destroys.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyYwVRCG1uloncM5wcBxPrIixhhq8ujvuI9kvP3fIvIyf0Hh68klLOxXQNaqB85qcRWxpOKHpjiBjufs5ix7BwaEh28bRG52LsLr0Lwk0znuL_uP0ZYzoBQlboP-b2sgxKSI6m7KsenTY/s320/ben+destroys.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Most people pre-reflectively conceive of applying the law as a deductive practice. Laws are general commands to do or not do some behavior. If a particular case is an instantiation of a general prohibited or required act then the law applies. For example, a local law might command, "no vehicles allowed in the city park." This is a general prohibition on a class of behaviors. Suppose that someone drives their car on the walk-ways in the park. A car (particular) is a kind of vehicle (general). It follows that the law has been broken. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy. Why do we even have lawyers? Just pay me instead.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, suppose you want to go to the park with your toddler child. They have a tricycle. Are they allowed to ride it on the walking paths? It's not clear. It's a vehicle. But was the intent of the law to exclude even tricycles? Does intent even matter?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cases where it's not clear how or if the law applies are called <b>penumbra cases</b>. This is in contrast with the core cases, where the law unambiguously applies. (For the classic article on deduction in the law and penumbra cases, read Oliver Wendell Holmes' wonderful <a href="http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/palaw.pdf" target="_blank">The Path of the Law</a>.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here's another example of a penumbra case. Congress enacts a law applying a 10% tax to all imported fruits from Mexico. Does the tax apply to tomatoes? In this particular kind of case we have a conflict between "common use" language and "technical" language. Which should we go with and why? Do we go with the understanding that most consumers will have? Or of that of a biologist? In part, our answer will depend on who we think the law serves and to whom it is directed.<br />
<br />
Considerations of social utility might also enter. We might also consider legislative intent--why did Congress enact the law in the first place? What were they hoping to achieve? As I hope you can start to see, legal interpretation is not always straight forward. If it were, we likely wouldn't need a court system. Employing bureaucrats to issue fines and sentences would be sufficient.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the above cases, the law is unclear for reasons related to the <i>inherent</i> vagueness of language. In other penumbra cases, it's not clear what to do because the law is silent yet a wrong seems to have occurred. This happens because, among other reasons, it's impossible for legislators to anticipate every single act that could cause harm to another.<br />
<br />
Consider one famous constitutional case--<i>Rochin v. California</i> (1949). In this case, on suspicion of drug dealing, the police entered the open door to Rochin's residence then forced open his bedroom door. When the police entered his room they noticed two capsules sitting on the bedside table. "Whose are those?" they asked. Rochin reached for them and swallowed them. The police jumped on him tried the force the capsules out of him. Unsuccessful, they handcuffed him and took him to the nearest hospital where they forcibly had his stomach pumped to produce the capsules. The state of California used the opioid capsules as evidence against Rochin. At the time there was no California law against extracting physical evidence from a suspect in this way.<br />
<br />
The 14th Amendment forbids any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, <i>without due process of law</i>." Was this a violation of due process? On some interpretations, due process simply means that the existing state legal procedures are followed. If stomach-pumping wasn't prohibited under California law then due process wasn't violated. There are, of course, other ways to conceive of due process and reasons for why we might think it entails more than simple adherence to whatever state laws are in effect. We'll circle back to this later.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All this to say, in almost all cases that make it to the Supreme Court, it will not be straight-forwardly clear whether or which law applies, what meaning judges should ascribe to the text of the law, what Congress intended by enacting the law, what reasons legislators had for ratifying the law, which of these considerations should prevail when they conflict, and a whole host of other considerations. In short, judges will have to use <i>discretion</i> in weighing competing variables in their decisions on penumbra cases. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A long-standing concern with granting judges discretion is that they will rule merely according to their personal convictions. The solution, some say, is to get rid of judicial discretion. But I hope from the albeit short list of examples above you are able to appreciate that judicial discretion is necessary to a functioning legal system. There are libraries of cases where it's not clear how the law properly ought to apply. Such cases can only be resolved by allowing some degree of judicial discretion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, here's our situation. A justice system requires judicial discretion but there is a legitimate concern that judges could end up using discretion badly. They might use it as a pretext to merely rule according to their own private values: this is particularly worrisome where there is latent or explicit racism. In a democracy, some people think that judicial rulings in penumbra cases ought to reflect the prevailing views of the community rather than a single powerful individual in that community. After all, what could be the legitimate purpose of a justice system if not to render judgements that best accord with that community's general sense of justice?<br />
<br />
To prevent pernicious discretion we need a theory of legal interpretation (also called legal construction) that we apply consistently across cases. When we consistently apply one theory to all cases, a couple of good things might happen:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>We reduce the likelihood of pernicious discretion.</li>
<li>The law becomes more <i>predictable</i> because we know in advance how judges might rule on hard cases. This is important because a central purpose of having laws is to govern behavior. Citizens can only make important decisions when they can reasonably predict in advance which sorts of actions will be punished and which won't.</li>
<li>The law becomes more <i>consistent</i>. The thread from legislation to various later rulings across time will be held together by a common theory of interpretation. Justice--whatever it is--seems to contain the idea that like cases will be treated alike.</li>
<li>The law becomes more <i>stable</i>. When the law changes rapidly over time, it becomes more difficult for people to figure how they may or may not act.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
Ok, so what should our theory of construction be?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>III. Theories of Constitutional Interpretation</b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>A. Original Legislative Intent:</b> Constitutional laws ought to be interpreted primarily by reference to the reasons why the original legislators voted for/ratified those laws. Most contemporary legal scholars reject this view. Why?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1RnwgJsCFI1y5YxuVPAxWy1dB7HrClRbFZkejhbJxem4LwKw-j6p-7HKx3vTK7O9Cr1tXn1JF097xrXXiM6jkb65MixNKpwJ-WRVP3vxAuqw4InpurChOr58SL_CYCGThKPmpQL-0X-g/s1600/vision.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="632" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1RnwgJsCFI1y5YxuVPAxWy1dB7HrClRbFZkejhbJxem4LwKw-j6p-7HKx3vTK7O9Cr1tXn1JF097xrXXiM6jkb65MixNKpwJ-WRVP3vxAuqw4InpurChOr58SL_CYCGThKPmpQL-0X-g/s320/vision.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
As a citizen, you need to know what you can and can't do without suffering state punishment. The words of law are the only things <i>publicly</i> available to you to guide these decisions. You don't have available to you the private reasons for which a legislator supported a law. For example, a legislator might vote for a law not because they support it but because they've made a deal with the opposition: I'll support your law if you support mine--i.e., the one I really care about. The reasons for which a legislator voted for a law are often not public knowledge. It's in their mind and unknowable to the public. Such a view is inconsistent with the <i>rule of law</i>. Instead it is <i>rule of man </i>(i.e., the subjective reasons of an individual).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Related to this problem is that different legislators might vote for the same law but for different reasons. If we interpret law according to legislative intent, then it's not clear who's reasons you ought to interpret as relevant to governing your behavior since the law will have been supported for different reasons.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another closely related problem is that there can be a difference between legislators' publicly proclaimed reasons for voting for a law and their private reasons. Which ought to rule? The genuine private reasons or the ones that were politically advantageous to publicly express? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I said, most scholars reject legislative intent as a <i>primary</i> means of interpreting constitutional law for the above reasons. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, what else could we look at?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>B. Strict Construction:</b> On this view, judges have no interpretive discretion to interpret the text of the law except in an extremely literal way. E.g., 1st amendment says Congress shall make<i> no </i>law abridging freedom of speech. That means <i>none</i>—including prohibitions on defamation, yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, speech to incite riot, etc…. For strict constructionists, judges have no discretion to interpret beyond a rigid literal interpretation of the legal text.<br />
<br />
Here's a famous constitutional case to illustrate the point: In<i> Smith v. United States (1993)</i>, Smith offered an undercover officer a machine gun as <i>payment</i> for illegal drugs. Federal law imposes mandatory sentence enhancement penalties, specifically 30 years for a "machinegun", if a defendant "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm."<br />
<br />
He's the question: Did Smith "use" a firearm in a drug trafficking crime? A strict constructionist will say "yes." Strictly speaking, Smith <i>used</i> a firearm. The reasons for the legislation, the intent of the law, and so on have no bearing on interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Smith had indeed "used" a firearm in a drug trafficking crime and 30 years of prison added to his drug sentence.<br />
<br />
Although popular with some at the turn of the 20th Century, not a lot of legal scholars hold this view anymore (despite the <i>Smith</i> ruling). The closest scholarly view to strict construction is Scalia's textual originalism...(who, to his credit, was one of the three who opposed the majority opinion in <i>Smith vs United States</i>).<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>C. Textual Originalism: </b>On this view, Constitutional laws ought to be interpreted primarily by reference to the meaning of the words in the text <i>as those words were understood when the law/amendment was ratified</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdhocn7U4vpOa6mTkONxDedSGZjQ-f-vONMmAHqPH-T2HhtYF0Qhan-YK5_anSiYxQaTBZfPqJB2TK_AAkCNE6eyxWuKImIPwYFVAUMvo3dLZXZ0uu-xAENH_q7h0YhjINXnMAHxaIMGk/s1600/neverforget.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="617" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdhocn7U4vpOa6mTkONxDedSGZjQ-f-vONMmAHqPH-T2HhtYF0Qhan-YK5_anSiYxQaTBZfPqJB2TK_AAkCNE6eyxWuKImIPwYFVAUMvo3dLZXZ0uu-xAENH_q7h0YhjINXnMAHxaIMGk/s320/neverforget.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
Let's take a short step back to understand why the italicized part matters. Ronald Dworkin points out that the Bill of Rights contains deliberately vague abstract clauses: i.e., clauses and terms that require interpretation. Terms like "fair", "due process", "equal protection", "cruel", "reasonable" and so on <i>by their very nature</i> require interpretation. For example, since Plato and Aristotle people have disagreed over what <i>fairness</i> consists in. And so, we need some theory of construction to tell us how we ought to interpret these abstract terms since people will differ.<br />
<br />
Consider a classic example from the 8th Amendment: i.e., the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." How ought we to interpret "cruel" and "unusual"? For the textual originalist, we ought to understand words in the Constitution as they were originally understood at the time of ratification (1791). So, on this view, any punishment or means of punishment that was not considered cruel and unusual in 1791 ought to still be permissible today. Simply put, the standard for what counts as cruel and unusual was set in 1791. I'll return to this issue in a moment. But first we need to look at <i>semantic originalism</i>.</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>D. Semantic Originalism (aka Interpretivism): </b>This distinction will be easiest to understand by way of example. Let's return to the 8th Amendment which prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. The semantic originalist says constitutional construction ought to focus primarily on the original text but that we ought to interpret the vague terms, like <i>cruel</i> and <i>unusual</i>, as they are understood <i>today </i>rather than how they were understood in 1791. (Note that the term "excessive" also requires interpretation and therefore discretion.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3t1mZ4_tCc17_dTDvLh4MbxW3jiiXoYzSU6j-G677IdK01zFGzXSY36df7o9gnqYnnfr9bDkustqs7CtLY5h2aGJdNNTMkRQertlA8aB03zgwJra4G-qmHwViyRlsktc7Yvj8DKYdfW0/s1600/vague.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="577" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3t1mZ4_tCc17_dTDvLh4MbxW3jiiXoYzSU6j-G677IdK01zFGzXSY36df7o9gnqYnnfr9bDkustqs7CtLY5h2aGJdNNTMkRQertlA8aB03zgwJra4G-qmHwViyRlsktc7Yvj8DKYdfW0/s320/vague.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Dworkin, a major proponent of semantic originalism, marks an important distinction between <i>concepts</i> and <i>conceptions</i>. A concept, like "fairness" is a general abstract ideal. People can disagree about whether an arrangement or outcome conforms with fairness because they have different <i>conceptions</i> of fairness. A <i>conception</i> is a particular view about what fairness is. Cultures--both across time and location--will have different conceptions of abstract moral terms.<br />
<br />
Dworkin's point in advocating semantic originalism concerns how we ought to interpret the vague clauses. Cruel, unusual, fair, reasonable, due process, equal protection, excessive, necessary and proper, are all abstract concepts. Different historical times and places will have different conceptions of those general concepts. Judges ought to use discretion in order to interpret these concepts in ways that are consistent with the prevailing conceptions of the current time and culture since these are the people to whom the laws apply.<br />
<br />
For example, in <i>Rochin v California</i>, the majority opinion argued that forcibly pumping a person's stomach for evidence violates our (current) <i>conception</i> of due process:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Coerced confessions offend <i>the community's sense of fair play and decency</i>. So here, to sanction the brutal conduct which naturally enough was condemned by the court whose judgment is before us, would be to afford brutality the cloak of law. Nothing would be more calculated to discredit law and thereby brutalize the temper of a society. (Justice Frankfurter. My italics for emphasis)</blockquote>
In other words, our political morality <i>today</i> contains a conception<i> </i>of due process that goes beyond merely following whatever laws are in effect. How the state treats its citizens is also relevant to whether it complies with due process even if no particular law is broken.<br />
<br />
Here's another example comparing legislative expectation or intent with semantic originalism: In <i>Brown v Board of Education</i> (1954) it was argued that segregated schools violated the 14th Amendment; i.e., that "equal protection of the laws" forbids racial segregation in schools. In 1789, when the Amendment was ratified, those who voted for it did<i> not</i> expect or intend for it to prohibit the racial segregation of schools since many of them sustained segregation in their own constituencies. Also, previously in <i>Plessy v Ferguson (1896)</i>, the Court had upheld "separate but equal" policies.<br />
<br />
Here we see an example of a changing political morality where the particular <i>conception</i> of "equal protection of the law" changed. Should we understand "equal protection of the law" as it was expected to apply by those who ratified the 14th or as it was understood by the prevailing political morality in 1954? (Justices ruled 9-0 in favor of <i>Brown</i>). The semantic originalist supports the latter view. The textual originalist is committed to the former.<br />
<br />
The founders were well-read in philosophy and wise. They understood that moral progress didn't end with them. It's an ongoing process. As human beings, they are fallible by nature. Their particular moral conceptions might be flawed or incomplete. In fact we know they were since many were slave-holders, didn't believe women should have the same rights as men, and so on.<br />
<br />
On the interpretivist view, it's inconceivable that the founders expected the vague constitutional clauses to be interpreted forever according to a particular conception tied to a small subsection of the population in 1791. Other Articles and Amendments are very specific. This suggest that, where the drafters wanted to be specific, they were. The vague clauses are <i>deliberately</i> left vague so as to allow them to match the prevailing conceptions of the era in which they are interpreted.<br />
<br />
There is a Jeffersonian democratic argument in favor of semantic originalism: Jefferson proclaims that "democracy is for the living." In other words, it is an odd view of democracy and justice that insists the living be governed by the norms of the long-dead. In so far as we think law and a justice system ought to produce rulings that reflect the values of the community subject to those rulings, then semantic originalism gets it right.<br />
<br />
Let's recap some of the important philosophical issues going on here. The main debate so far is between Scalia's textual originalism and Dworkin's semantic originalism. A good justice system produces rulings that are predictable and consistent across cases. On these criteria, Scalia's view has an edge. If we always interpret terms--concepts and other words--as they were understood in 1791 then rulings will be predictable, consistent, and stable.<br />
<br />
However, we also want a justice system to rule in ways that are consistent with the values and conceptions of the community subject to those laws and justice system. Just like it would be odd for an American court to rule according to what the Taiwanese think is fair, cruel, excessive, etc... it's also odd to rule according to those terms as they were understood 250 years ago--especially when our conception may have changed, or when they are disputed.<br />
<br />
Some argue that this view collapses into either majoritarianism or pernicious judicial discretion. Another important argument against semantic originalism is that it politicizes the Supreme Court. When Justices are understood to rule based on what they take to be the prevailing political morality, competing factions will want to ensure that it is their political morality that determines how vague clauses are understood. What is supposed to be an apolitical branch of government becomes politicized. One reply is to dispute whether the Supreme Court ever was apolitical and it might be best to just be open about its nature. Perhaps openly acknowledging the political nature of the Supreme Court is what is most consistent with democracy!<br />
<br />
<b>E. Loose Construction/“True” Originalism (Posner)</b>: Constitutional laws ought to be interpreted under the the theory of judicial interpretation that was common when the Constitutional laws were written since this is the theory that the legislators anticipated would be applied to those laws. Loose construction involves<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“interpreting the will of the legislator, exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, or the spirit and reason of the law…As to the effects and consequences, the rule is, where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them.” --William Blackburn, Commentaries on the Laws of England.</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwbQhCHHXp8Vb2Snk7Q2JjRXNZCHzyzwqfLCmHNc0fhOtsuqZ6347JkFt8tiF6i72Yc_8dpObXr3UJAzhwBVnf-QQ_Bb66ceStyzTQEqPCys6mx0yDskRMQ-PokhSa6n3YYHGChKyw84Y/s1600/brain+construction.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="701" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwbQhCHHXp8Vb2Snk7Q2JjRXNZCHzyzwqfLCmHNc0fhOtsuqZ6347JkFt8tiF6i72Yc_8dpObXr3UJAzhwBVnf-QQ_Bb66ceStyzTQEqPCys6mx0yDskRMQ-PokhSa6n3YYHGChKyw84Y/s320/brain+construction.jpeg" width="228" /></a></div>
In other words, interpretation requires taking into account a variety of factors that a reasonable judge with discretion may apply. The text of the law is the primary resource but we shouldn’t interpret the text in a way that gives unreasonable judgments. Justice John Marshall, considered the greatest Supreme Court Justice of his generation, was a loose constructionist. He also, by the by, helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To summarize, true originalism requires that the Constitution be interpreted with the same theory of interpretation that its drafters thought would be applied to it.<br />
<br />
In early constitutional cases that involved the Bill of Rights--when the drafters where still alive--we see both political parties and judges engaged in loose construction. <i>No one assumed that the rights in the Bill of Rights codified fixed meanings</i>. This also gives some support to semantic originalism.<br />
<br />
The main criticism here is that with so many permissible variables for judges to appeal to, on ideological cases, they'll always find a way to simply rule according to their particular ideology. We're back to the concern over pernicious discretion.<br />
<br />
<b>IV. How to Be a Philosopher During the Trump Era</b><br />
If you're an educator that teaches political theory and philosophy of law, the Trump administration has an upside. His administration's actions have brought constitutional questions to the mainstream consciousness and media. This provides a lot of current real-world examples to discuss in class. As you watch these cases enter the media cycle, take a step back and ask yourself which theory of construction various pundits or justices are applying.<br />
<br />
Are they being consistent across cases? Virtually every 5-4 decision is split along ideological lines. How likely is it that justices are applying a single theory of construction consistently across cases such that they always happily always end up on their ideological side? Hint: They rarely are in highly politicized cases. (See <a href="https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/supreme-court-justices-become-less-impartial-and-more-ideological-when-casting-the-swing-vote" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://stanfordpolitics.org/2016/01/07/troubling-partisanship-supreme-court/" target="_blank">here</a>).<br />
<br />
Here's one main inconsistency to look out for. Very often people who claim to be textual originalists will actually give "expectationist" or intent-based arguments. Let's return to <i>Brown v Board of Education</i> to illustrate. Someone might oppose the <i>Brown v Board of Education</i> ruling because, clearly, many of the ratifiers did not <i>expect</i> the equal protection clause to have the <i>consequence</i> of prohibiting segregation. In other words, the argument is based on legislative <i>expectation</i> (I.e., how legislators expected the laws to apply) rather than the meaning of the words in the text.<br />
<br />
This expectationist view falls prey to the same objections as legislative intent: It's inconsistent with the rule of law. The text of the law is the public document that governs our behavior--not the private reasons and (conjectures) of legislative expectation.<br />
<br />
The semantic originalist will say rulings ought to be governed primarily by how we understand the rights clauses such as due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, excessive, etc... <i>today</i>. However, this is not to say intent or expectations never matter. Everyone's familiar with the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law....<br />
<br />
So there you have it. Thanks to my handy-dandy summary of methods, you too can join all the other online self-anointed constitutional scholars!<br />
<br />
<b>V. Final Thoughts</b><br />
In the introduction, I suggested you keep a question in the back of your mind: What is the purpose of a justice system and a system of laws? Our answer to this question should bear on which theory of constitutional construction we support. Selecting an answer is not so simple because we don't just want one thing from a justice system, and different theories order those desiderata differently, in turn requiring different trade-offs. We want the law to be predictable, stable, and consistent. However, even if a theory of construction gives us all that, something important is missing if it doesn't yield judgments that accord with a community's sense of justice,.<br />
<br />
And even this criteria isn't decisive because we need to acknowledge that in a large political community there will rarely be homogenous values and conceptions. If we always favor the majority's values and conceptions then we risk subverting the very purpose of many rights clauses--to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. But if we always favor minority views then the justice system can fail to represent the values, beliefs, and preferences of the majority--which is also a problem. Threading the needle in a principled way is no easy task.<br />
<br />
Next time a constitutional issue makes the front page or your favorite podcast, take a moment to reflect on these questions in the context of the issue. Hopefully, it will allow you to appreciate the complexity that often isn't captured by today's media...but<i> is </i>if you take a philosophy class!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-8889724608535742522019-04-08T19:02:00.003-07:002019-04-09T12:36:24.478-07:00How to Prevent Your Students from Plagiarizing: Stop Looking for A Technological Solution <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHpaCPGLkf_OdBDbr2qG-ZO4CSdeskqEWEIvANU_kyfhEjcBNgAApVIjCvgxvyx3kDUPFIYNu1GwiQj3_BFGXiM4k3qpkvieZbJdVYqlZA1UJWtAASyP775T9-Zfr_KFH113LNSYWrau4/s1600/more+tech.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="642" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHpaCPGLkf_OdBDbr2qG-ZO4CSdeskqEWEIvANU_kyfhEjcBNgAApVIjCvgxvyx3kDUPFIYNu1GwiQj3_BFGXiM4k3qpkvieZbJdVYqlZA1UJWtAASyP775T9-Zfr_KFH113LNSYWrau4/s400/more+tech.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Anyone teaching in college these days knows that plagiarism is a growing problem. Not just the incidence rate but student attitudes. Here's an excerpt from a <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/710953499/how-students-may-be-cheating-their-way-through-college?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1frxkPWJy-D9V82GYR0u0FVp3hdbpfCcM6PQe3kejWZOVStDgtb4IDqAY" target="_blank">recent NPR piece on it</a>:<br />
<br />
Student: Technically, I don't think it's cheating because, like, you're paying someone to write an essay, which they don't plagiarize, but they write everything on their own.<br />
<br />
SMITH: So they may not be plagiarizing, I say, but aren't you?<br />
<br />
UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT: That's just kind of a difficult question to answer. I don't know how to feel about it. It's kind of like a gray area.<br />
<br />
Plagiarism happens a couple of ways: Students will find an online essay or use a friend's previous essay and pass it off as their own. In recent years, this method has become more difficult to pull off since schools have invested in anti-plagiarism software. Basically, tools like Turnitin compare the text of a student's essay to a massive database of every essay ever turned into the system as well as to webpages, and spits out a similarity score for each passage.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Recently, savvy students have found a technological way around this. There is scrambling software that takes a plagiarized paper and automatically swaps in synonyms and changes word order.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
New anti-plagiarism software must now look for digital fingerprints and other features to identify plagiarism. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This approach to preventing plagiarism is a losing battle. When you look to technology to solve a bad-actor problem you're asking for an arms race. Someone will always find a work-around. The solution to plagiarism isn't better technology but better pedagogy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>How to Make Plagiarism Extremely Unlikely Without Using Technology</u></b></div>
<div>
Divide your assignment into 5 steps:</div>
<div>
A) Topic selection</div>
<div>
B) Create an outline</div>
<div>
C) Submit a first version (NOT rough draft)</div>
<div>
D) Peer editing </div>
<div>
E) Final submission and Responsiveness Score. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Topic Selection</b></div>
<div>
If you're assigning the same general essay topics that you wrote about in your undergrad you're giving a gift to plagiarizers. There are unlimited online and offline resources for core themes that you might find in an undergrad class.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Instead, assign topics that relate to current events that occurred no more that about 6 months ago. This doesn't mean you can't engage classical topics however, students must apply those themes and issues to a contemporary context/TV show/political event/movie, etc... </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For example, instead of asking my students to compare and contrast Kant vs Utilitarianism or some shit that's been done "<i>since the dawn of time</i>," I'll find a contemporary news story, TV episode, movie, political issue, campus issue, etc... where these considerations are relevant. If you can't find a way to apply what you're teaching to the contemporary world dafuq is the value of what you are teaching anyway?</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>Create an Outline</b></div>
<div>
There are two ways to do this. For 1st and 2nd year students I like to give them a choice of topics and build the outline into the essay assignment. This way they are constrained in how they can present the paper and it also prevents those wild an unruly papers that completely miss the point. Under these constraints it's obviously much harder to find an essay that matches the outline I've required. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here are a few examples of the kind of papers I've assigned in the past:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>From my Intro to Ethics class:</i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Black Mirror "Nose Dive"and the Meaning of Life</b><br />
1) Give a general summary of the plot of the episode and the core philosophical issue. Explain it in a way that would allow someone who hadn't seen the episode to understand what happened.<br />
2) (a) Give a one paragraph summary of Epictetus's core ideas about what is necessary for a good life.<br />
(b) Apply Epictetus's ideas to Lacie's situation: What reasons would Epictetus give for why Lacie is unhappy? What is she doing wrong in the pursuit of happiness?<br />
(c) What is the strongest argument you can come up with against Epictetus's assessment of Lacie's unhappiness?<br />
(d) Offer a possible reply to the argument in (c).<br />
(e) What is your own view? Is Epictetus's assessment correct or is there some other reason why Lacie is doomed to be unhappy? Support your view with an argument. </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i>From my American Political Thought class (upper level class):</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Topic 1: Hamilton and Trump (Read: Hamilton's Report On Manufacturers)</b><br />
Trump has proposed a tariff on imported Steel. WWHS? (What would Hamilton Say?).<br />
Part 1: Explanation: Using direct quotes as support, explain Hamilton’s view with respect to the role of government in the economy—specifically with respect to manufacturing, primary resources, and the roll of tariffs. (Don’t apply it to the case yet, stay at the level of theory)<br />
Part 2: Application: By appealing directly to Hamilton’s view, explain what position you think Hamilton would take on Trump’s tariffs.<br />
Part 3: Evaluation: By appealing directly to Hamilton’s arguments, defend or object to his assessment of the goodness or badness of the tariffs. Whatever your view, consider at least one objection to it and reply to that objection.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Topic 2: Madison and Sanctuary Cities</b><br />
Continuing a trend that began under Obama, Trump has directed a Federal agency to arrest and deport aliens using ‘expedited removal.’ Critics allege that this process violates several important elements of due process. In addition, there is growing evidence that many of the agents in the federal agency are not following due process. In other words, the current policy and practice in some (but not all!) ways resemble the Alien Acts of 1798. Since some states believe the federal government is overstepping its constitutional powers by violating due process, several States and cities have adopted the policy of ‘sanctuary cities’ whereby local officials and law enforcement don’t cooperate with federal immigration agencies. Before working on this question, read the following article explaining expedited removal: <a href="https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/primer-expedited-removal">https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/primer-expedited-removal (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.</a> (you are also encouraged to do your own research on the issue).<br />
Part 1: Explanation: Explain Madison’s argument against the Alien Acts (Report of 1800) and why it is a cause for alarm. Use direct quotes then in your own words interpret and explain his view.<br />
Part 2: Application: WWMS (What would Madison say?) Defend a view with respect to how Madison would assess the current widespread use of expedited removal. Be sure to explicitly refer to his arguments and positions in Report of 1800.<br />
Part 3: Evaluation: (1) Consider at least one objection to either (a) your interpretation of what position Madison would take (i.e., someone might attribute to Madison the opposite position) OR (b) construct an objection to whatever view you attribute to Madison in Part 2. (2) Reply to the objection.</blockquote>
I'll bet my bottom dollar that they're not going to find any existing essays that match the assignments I've given. This doesn't rule out paying an online writing service. That's why I have them write the paper in steps...<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Submit a First Draft for Peer Editing.</b></div>
<div>
Students must submit a <i>finished</i> and <i>polished</i> version of their paper. It has to be what they consider to be worthy of being turned in, not a rough draft. How do I ensure this? It's not foolproof but I explain to them that it's going to be peer edited by 2 other random students in the class. A few other reasons: </div>
<div>
(a) I explain that they are burdening their fellow students if they give them shitty work.</div>
<div>
(b) Putting rims on a crappy car can never make it a great car. In other words, it you turn in a D paper, no amount of editing will ever get it to a B or A. To get a top grade, you have to start with a solid foundation. </div>
<div>
(c) Peer pressure: Most, knowing that their peers will be reading it, will be reluctant to have their peers read crappy work since it will make them look bad.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Peer Editing.</b></div>
<div>
I devote an entire class to peer editing. Each student brings 2 hard copies to class. I have a <a href="https://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/p/peer-editing-sheet.html" target="_blank">checklist and worksheet</a> that must be followed. There are very specific instructions--it's not willy nilly "edit your peers' papers." The quality of a student's peer editing is worth 20% of their total grade for the paper assignment (10% for each peer review). They will not finish doing the peer review in class but I divide class time 50/50 for editing each paper that way if there are any major questions they can ask the author in person in class. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Final Submission and Responsiveness Score</b></div>
<div>
Here's the important part. 20% of their paper grade is for how well they respond to their two peer editors. It works like this: When I read the final paper, anytime there is an error or weakness (content or writing), I look at the peer review sheets. If it was mentioned by a peer reviewer but the author didn't take it into account, the author loses responsiveness points. If a peer reviewer didn't catch it, the peer reviewer loses points. I explain all this when we do the peer reviews and it incentivizes them to take the task seriously. Importantly, students must turn in both hard copies of their rough drafts (that their peer editors marked up) along with their final version.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Conclusion:</u></b></div>
<div>
By narrowly constraining the topic and structure of the assignment, I eliminate most of the risk of plagiarism. By dividing the assignment into steps that are connected through peer editing and responsiveness to peer editing, I reduce the possibility of hiring someone to write the paper. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is a default tendency for our culture to look to technology to solve our problems. It's true that technology can solve many of our problems but such a narrow view blinds us to non-technological solutions.<br />
<br />
What I've offered here isn't the only way to handle plagiarism. My intent is only to highlight the idea that playing with the content and structure of assignments influences how easily students will be able to plagiarize the assignment. I have no doubt there are other pedagogical methods of reducing plagiarism (such as short in-class writing assignments).</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-39995687795760031082019-02-28T00:27:00.002-08:002019-02-28T01:43:08.472-08:00Stoicism vs Existentialism on the Meaning of Life<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Wnouy_wmEZKPoTrI4clplqGx9B7HcanOxZ3lbKXWk4H11_afxFVc3amr0ppoxeezUeK-IANRtHqHR6L7MG0xgY8IE6KUXFNCbBWxloh_o4uC9PwUuF0mSZe1_mxV48B9yZ5ix0rQ6c8/s1600/stoic+vs+existentialist.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="756" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Wnouy_wmEZKPoTrI4clplqGx9B7HcanOxZ3lbKXWk4H11_afxFVc3amr0ppoxeezUeK-IANRtHqHR6L7MG0xgY8IE6KUXFNCbBWxloh_o4uC9PwUuF0mSZe1_mxV48B9yZ5ix0rQ6c8/s400/stoic+vs+existentialist.jpeg" width="263" /></a></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
Here's a short essay I wrote for a one-page essay competition on the meaning of life. I was a dumbass and didn't read the rules properly. The rules were one page double-spaced. Mine was one page single spaced which I figured out only after I'd submitted it. Anyway, I've posted it here so it doesn't die a sad death somewhere on my hard-drive. <br />
<br />
<b><u>Existentialism vs Stoicism on the Meaning of Life</u></b><br />
<br />
Both the existentials and the Stoics purport to provide answers to the meaning of life. Whatever that answer is, both agree that wealth, fame, career, power, graduate degrees, and other ‘externals’ have no value. They disagree, however, with respect to the reasons for externals’ non-value. And the reasons for non-value differ because the existentials and the Stoics fundamentally interpret questions about the meaning of life differently.<br />
<br />
For existentialists the question principally concerns life’s significance. What makes life significant? Creating value and meaning. Life and the world we are thrust into are normatively barren; they contain no ready-made meanings or values. As luck would have it, human beings have the capacity to create both meaning and value through deliberate choice and action. The meaning of life and everything in it is the meaning you construct for it—the meaning you choose for it. And so, the answer to the meaning of life is for each individual to introspect and to create their own meaning and values through choice and action. Importantly, meaning and value are inherently subjective since they unfold from the private consciousness of each. Hence, externals have no value unless we choose to impart it upon them in how we structure them into our life projects. <br />
<br />
The Stoics understand the question as asking how we can live well. The Stoic answer: By joyfully accepting of the world as it is. Contemplating the meaning of life is understood as assessing what sorts of things reliably achieve this Stoic aim. Unlike with existentialism, both the goal and path—virtuous living—are objective: they apply to everyone.<br />
<br />
The Stoics observed that the world is full of unhappy people with wealth, successful careers, fame, and graduate degrees, etc…Externals have no value because of their merely contingent causal relation to cheerful acceptance. Worse still, since the causes of externals’ presence or absence ultimately lie outside of the causal power of our will, incorporating them into our life projects risks not only failure but necessarily undermines joyful living: If you insist on pursuing externals "of necessity you must be envious, jealous, and suspicious of those who can take away those things and plot against those who have that which is valued by you.” Externals have no value because they reliably undermine the meaning of life; i.e., joyfully accepting the world as it is.<br />
<br />
So we know what not to pursue, now what? If we seek a life of significance, our projects must in some way conform with our internal reflections on our current and idealized selves. Meaning requires that what we do connects to our considered values and interests. Subjectivity matters for significance. Point existentialists. However, the Stoic arguments support objective constraints on what sorts of ends we ought and ought not to pursue if we want to also live well. Finally, the probability of realizing and sustaining a meaningful project falls without developing the objective virtues of courage, wisdom, self-control, and—more controversially—justice. Point Stoics.Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-84272541805159260742019-02-22T11:48:00.003-08:002019-02-28T10:12:06.006-08:00Jussie Smollett, Bad Inferences, and Narrative <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnvfxYvaTX66fzWN5rxl4w3RBbzAMhGl9Oe0E454fk5wJ8gfWP881zCJaoCDzZP8OKYve031Q8pqg4EZHOhnJQpRXvqAYU56HmqrAHcCYWMg1sBZulj5jtCQwA1yMI0p-vAyWcAzK7eSQ/s1600/hate+crime.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="524" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnvfxYvaTX66fzWN5rxl4w3RBbzAMhGl9Oe0E454fk5wJ8gfWP881zCJaoCDzZP8OKYve031Q8pqg4EZHOhnJQpRXvqAYU56HmqrAHcCYWMg1sBZulj5jtCQwA1yMI0p-vAyWcAzK7eSQ/s320/hate+crime.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
I've been seeing what I take to be a lot of bad inferences by smart people concerning the Jussie Smollet hoax. There is a long-running narrative on parts of the right (particularly online) that we should be skeptical of the authenticity of many hate crimes. The Jussie Smollet hoax is pouring gasoline on this narrative and spreading it outside its usual domain on the right.<br />
<br />
While both the hoax and the narrative are ugly, this is a beautiful opportunity to talk about some of my favorite critical thinking concepts....<br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Concepts</u></b><br />
<b>Fallacy of Confirming Evidence</b>: Sister of confirmation bias, the fallacy of confirming evidence is when we count only confirming evidence and ignore disconfirming evidence when forming our conclusions. For example, suppose I hold the belief that vaccines cause autism. I go out into the world and I see an autistic child and I find out that child was also vaccinated. Hypothesis confirmed! I see another child with autism that was vaccinated. Yet more evidence. Ah ha! Vaccines cause autism. I could do this all day long: Find autistic children, discover their vaccination status, and if its positive count it as confirmation for my hypothesis.<br />
<br />
The obvious error is that I'm not taking into account all the children who have been vaccinated but aren't autistic. In general terms, I'm only taking into account positive evidence and ignoring disconfirming evidence as I form my view.<br />
<br />
The fallacy of confirming evidence often works together with <b>motivated reasoning</b>. Rather than examine a data set then come to a conclusion, I begin with the conclusion, "vaccines cause autism", then go out into the world and carefully select only the evidence that supports this view.<br />
<br />
Good reasoning requires that we take into account both confirming and disconfirming evidence. Which leads to our next concept...<br />
<br />
<b>Framing: Absolute Numbers vs Rates</b>: It's very easy to mislead people with absolute numbers since they provide no context. For example, if you hear that 20 people got A's in my class last semester you might think my class is easy. But not so fast. To make the correct evaluation you need to know how many people were in my class total. If there were only 20 students in my class then 20 A's is a decent indication that either my class is easy or I'm the world's greatest teacher. However, if it turns out that I had 500 students in my class, then you might draw different conclusions.<br />
<br />
The lesson here is that we cannot evaluate absolute numbers without context and using rates is an excellent way of giving context. Partisan media and groups often use absolute numbers as a way of creating a narrative.<br />
<br />
There are a bunch more, but this should be enough to get the party started. I've listed some other ones at the end of this post for the keeners.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Jussie Smollet Hoax and Hate Crime Hoaxes</u></b><br />
With these critical thinking concepts in our back pocket, let's take a look at hate crime hoaxes. Several right-wing media outlets have helpfully compiled<a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/hoax-hate-crimes-list/" target="_blank"> lists of all the hate crime hoaxes during the Trump presidency</a> going back to 2016. These lists are graciously prepared in order to save us from the epidemic of liberal hate crime hoaxes aimed to delegitimize the moral bonafides of Trump and his supporters.<br />
<br />
I counted about 20 on the list. Let's triple that for fun. That's 60 hoax hate crimes <i>since 2016</i>. That makes 20/year!!!! OMG we're over-run with hate crime hoaxes. All hate crimes must be hoaxes. #DontBelieveThem<br />
<br />
Oh, wait. We need to know the total number of <i>reported</i> hate crimes/year. The FBI puts it at around 7000/year. Let's do some math: Let's see...7000/20....that's 0.286%. So, less that one percent of <i>reported</i> hate crimes are hoaxes (if we triple the actual number). Clearly this is an epidemic. Our immediate reaction to someone claiming to be the victim of a hate crime should be to disbelieve them because there's a .286% chance it's a hoax:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wGdhc9k07Ms/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wGdhc9k07Ms?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
Of course, there's a 99% chance that it isn't but let's not let statistics interfere with the narrative folks! Let's also keep in mind that the FBI and other reporting agencies estimate that the number of actual hate crimes is much higher than the number that actually get reported. This means that the percentage of hate crimes that are hoaxes is probably even lower than 2/10th of a percent.<br />
<br />
As a final note, suppose absolutely everyone who was subject to a hate crime is included in the FBI statistics (which is very unlikely since the groups who are typically subject to hate crimes have good reasons to fear the police). Suppose we also multiply the actual incidence of confirmed hoaxes by TEN. That would be 20x10=200 hate crime hoaxes since 2016. Which means ~67 hoaxes per year. 7000/67= ~1%. So, <i>even in the most charitable interpretation of the hate crime hoax epidemic, the incidence rate doesn't rise above 1%</i>.<br />
<br />
Don't fall for the right-wing narrative. Remember, facts not feelings!<br />
<br />
<b><u>Bonus Round:</u></b><br />
<b>Availability Bias</b>: This is the tendency to think that the examples that most easily come to mind are also the most representative examples of a phenomena. The availability bias explains why many people are afraid of flying. When there's an airplane accident it's all over the news. We don't hear major news reports of all the airplanes that didn't crash. So, when some people think of airplane safety the first thing that comes to mind is the crashes, not the same flights. Because these are the examples that most readily come to mind, the mind takes them to be the most representative cases of airplane safety.<br />
<br />
In the case of hoaxes, we are inundated with stories if there is a hoax (especially if you are in a right wing media ecosystem). The 7000 legitimate cases rarely get the media coverage the hoaxes do. Since the hoaxes are the most available cases, the mind takes them as the most representative cases, and extrapolates from them general conclusions about hate crimes.<br />
<br />
<b>Selection Bias:</b> A selection bias will operate in conjunction with the availability bias. Which sorts of cases are the most likely to make the news? The ones that are outliers for a variety of reasons. They often involve high profile people or are anomalous for various reasons. There are 7000 hate crimes per year. Why don't we see all of them reported? Why doesn't right wing media report all the actual cases? There's selection bias going on. That media will only pick up the ones that serve to fulfill a narrative.<br />
<br />
Another selection bias is that those who commit hate crime hoaxes are most likely to do it for attention. They <i>want</i> to get noticed. Hence, these types of cases will disproportionately enter the media cycle.<br />
<br />
<b>Base Rate Neglect/Base Rate Fallacy</b>: This one's a bit tricky to explain so I'll hand over the details to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy" target="_blank">wikipedia article</a>. Suppose the incidence rate of a phenomena is low. For example, 1% of all hate crimes are hoaxes . That means that for every case, all things being equal, we should assume that there's a 1% chance that it's a hoax. However, people fixate on the particulars of each case ignoring the base rate. It's not that particulars don't matter, it's that people place too much weight on the particulars in their reasoning while putting too little on the base rate.<br />
<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-17512854011697308342019-01-14T13:12:00.002-08:002019-01-16T18:11:19.112-08:00How to Be Epictetus in the Gym and on the Mats<b><u>Intro</u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirPBnazatW_vUzo3rFZrJ3-UXVVJdibSScE4Kd5LjWXQLUd9Plt2jnvC_Zl3bu-X28w8r05PaHVFwzVXSDoOAz2r9YbYw7BZh4JOie6lk3FqaQ0kbKOB7dcp3N41x7SYmZzb6W0zoCRZo/s1600/hard+to+swallow+2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="719" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirPBnazatW_vUzo3rFZrJ3-UXVVJdibSScE4Kd5LjWXQLUd9Plt2jnvC_Zl3bu-X28w8r05PaHVFwzVXSDoOAz2r9YbYw7BZh4JOie6lk3FqaQ0kbKOB7dcp3N41x7SYmZzb6W0zoCRZo/s320/hard+to+swallow+2.jpeg" width="222" /></a></div>
Happy New Year, everyone! Welcome to my annual fitness post. Last year I wrote <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2017/01/annual-fitness-post-aristotle-in-gym.html" target="_blank">How to be Aristotle in the Gym</a>, so this year I thought I'd try doing something similar with Epictetus. Epictetus is one of the 4 famous heads of the Stoic school (Zeno of Citium, Cleathes, and Chrysippus are the other 3). He is perhaps best known for his curmudgeonly and conversational style. If you've never read him, check out some of the <a href="https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/files/Discourses.pdf" target="_blank">Discourses</a>. Many lessons are as hilarious as they are enlightening.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, for this post, not only will I incorporate his ideas but, for fun, I'm going to adopt his tone. The focus of the post will cover mindset and how to deal with injuries and other setbacks. But first let's get a familiar with some of the main tenets of stoicism and how they relate to physical health...<br />
<br />
[Aside: If you're looking for injury prevention <i>technique</i>, see my past post: <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2014/01/annual-fitness-post-injury-prevention.html" target="_blank">Here</a> and <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/01/injury-prevention-in-gym-without-giving.html" target="_blank">Here</a>. For my current weightlifting routine go <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-simple-strength-and-muscle-building.html" target="_blank">here</a>. For increasing plant-based protein in your diet without losing gainz, go <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/07/you-can-make-friends-with-salad-giving.html" target="_blank">here</a>.]<br />
<br />
<b><u>Epictetus and the (Non)Value of Physical Health</u></b><br />
Why do you do something rather than nothing? The aim of all action is happiness. People find happiness in a variety of things and this explains why people pursue different things. But isn't the part of happiness that we most value <i>not</i> wealth, fame, power, or university degrees but rather how we handle the cards we are dealt?<br />
<br />
No life is free from misfortune, chance, and adversity. But in facing such occasions we encounter opportunities to exercise and develop the genuine foundations for a stable happiness: Strength, dignity, equanimity, composure, stability, fortitude, persistence, and courage. None of these virtues are meaningfully developed without facing some adversity. And no person can live a happy life without these traits. So, if it's a stable enduring happiness you're after, develop your virtues.<br />
<br />
So, what about physical health? Ought I to pursue it? It seems like it's also part of a happy life.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"No my friend: enjoying health in the right way is good; making bad use of your health is bad."<br />
(Discourse III. 20. 4)</blockquote>
The stoic view on physical health, like anything outside of your will, is that it is neither good nor bad. What matters is whether you make (virtuous) use of it and/or pursue it virtuously. A sound body enables a criminal to commit his crimes just as it enables a good person to do good deeds.<br />
<br />
You should not pursue fitness merely for the sake of fitness. This is why the whole bodybuilding/fitness industry would be such a travesty for Epictetus. What do such lives amount to? They devoted 10s of thousands of hours to making their muscles puffy. What kind of life is that?<br />
<br />
So, does this mean I should be indifferent about my health? No. A happy life is one in which we develop a beautiful soul. The body is the vessel of the soul and so it's important to care for the vessel that contains it. Notice, however, that the reasons to pursue health and fitness are purely instrumental, they are not ends in themselves.<br />
<br />
There are a few other stoic reasons for caring about your health, most of which are inherited from Socrates/Plato.<br />
<br />
First, whatever burdens you must bear, they are more bearable to the healthy person.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And yet what has to be borne by anyone who takes care to keep his body in good condition is far lighter and far pleasanter than those things subjected to the out of shape person. (Plato, <u>The Republic)</u></blockquote>
Also<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why even in the process of thinking and not using our body, it is a matter of common knowledge that grave mistakes may often be traced to bad health. And because the body is in a bad condition loss of memory, depression and discontent often attack the mind so violently as to drive out whatever knowledge it contains. (Xenophon quoting Socrates)</blockquote>
In short, in poor health we are more prone to bad decisions and a weakened will in the face of challenges. We are less likely to do the kinds of virtuous actions that beautify our soul. As the saying goes, "Fatigue makes cowards of us all." (Quote is attributed to both George Patton and Vince Lombardi). And the unfit are easily fatigued.<br />
<br />
Second, physical development is <i>practice</i> for the much more difficult task of intellectual and moral development. It also cultivates our affinity for Beauty. For that ancients, Truth, the Good, and Beauty are inextricably connected and all are required to develop a beautiful soul. People aren't always immediately interested in the Good or Truth; but if the three are tied together, Beauty can draw them in the right direction.<br />
<br />
Physical beauty, however, is inferior to beauty of a soul. Having a beautiful soul requires knowing (and acting on) the True and the Good. It follows that cultivating a beautiful soul is much more difficult than developing a beautiful body. That is, is easier to get puffy muscles than it is to discover and act on moral and intellectual truth. Hence, especially for youth, it's important that they at least have some aspiration for beauty--even if it's initially of the inferior kind. This is a starting point to "show him the way to more appropriate objects of devotion" (Sherman, <u>Stoic Warriors.</u> P. 31)<br />
<br />
In Epictetus's own words (concerning leading a youth to care for having a beautiful soul):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But if he should come to me befouled, dirty, with whiskers down to his knees, what can I say to him, what sort of comparison can I use to draw him on? For what has he ever concerned himself with that bears any resemblance to beauty, such that I can redirect his attention, and say, "Beauty is not there, but here"? Would you have me say to him, "Beauty lies not in being befouled, but in reason"? For does he in fact aspire to beauty? Does he show any sign of it? Go and argue with a pig, that he should not roll in the mud." (Discourse III. 23. 27.)</blockquote>
<b><u>Some Simple Advice that Would Improve Most People's Health and Save them Money</u></b><br />
Recall the earlier lesson that the unfit are easily fatigued, that fatigue undermines our will and judgment, which in turn interferes with developing a beautiful soul. In short, a developing a beautiful soul requires we avoid fatigue to the extent that we can.<br />
<br />
Think of health and fitness as a three-legged table. Each leg represents one of<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>diet/nutrition, </li>
<li>exercise, and </li>
<li>sleep/recovery. </li>
</ul>
If you remove one leg, the table collapses. Also, if the legs aren't in the correct proportion, the table is unstable.<br />
<br />
Different people struggle with different "legs," however, I think sleep is the most often overlooked. You can do all the right exercises at the right intensity and eat all the right foods in the right amounts but if you aren't getting enough sleep, your efforts are soon undermined. During deep prolonged sleep, your body releases hormones <i>necessary</i> for recovery and growth. You simply cannot recover physically (or mentally) if these hormones aren't regularly released into your body. And, without quality sleep, these hormones will not be released into your body.<br />
<br />
The fitness industrial complex offers no end of new supplements, magic pills, special diets, exercise plans, and exercise innovation. Some of them are useful, some of them not, most are only moderately so. But rarely do you hear about sleep, and if you do, it's often as an afterthought.<br />
<br />
If sleep's as important as I claim it is, why don't we hear about it as much as the other two legs? The answer is simple, Big Fit doesn't make a profit off of you sleeping. They can't sell it to you (<a href="http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/sleep-data/?xid=soc_socialflow_facebook_FORTUNE&utm_campaign=fortunemagazine&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2MxeBVHyRyz7L47knd5YKQOxV1GxdYV0PXD6sReLw2gmXVR6zK7lJBwxM" target="_blank">yet!</a>).<br />
<br />
But now I've told you what <i>they</i> don't want you to know. Figure out how much sleep you need and restructure your life such that you get it. You'll be surprised at what a difference it makes. It blows my mind how much money people are willing to pay for supplements of questionable efficacy yet unwilling to find a way to get one more hour of sleep a night. I'd be willing to bet <i>anything</i> that an extra hour of sleep will do you more good for your health than <i>all</i> your expensive supplements combined.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why are you willing to pay so much for supplements?"<br />
"Because I want to be healthy."<br />
"I just told you that getting an extra hour of sleep will help you much more than your supplements ever will. So, why don't you get an extra hour of sleep instead of staying up online or watching Netflix?"<br />
"I know but I don't want to have to change my life."<br />
"Fine. Then don't complain about your health when I've just told you how to improve it." (Epictetus, <u>The Lost Discourses</u>)</blockquote>
<b><u>Injuries and Setbacks</u></b><br />
My first genuine interaction with Stoicism was Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. My first reaction to Stoicism was to throw the book across the room.<br />
<br />
Why? Well, you know all those annoying self-help-y aphorisms like "Everything happens for a reason" and "Every challenge presents an opportunity"? Well, the Stoics were the OG's (original gurus) of self-help. They viewed their philosophy as being first and foremost a practical guide to living well and a means of dealing with the inevitable difficulties and misfortunes of life. There is deep wisdom in their teachings. The problem is that, after 2, 000 years of being repeated <i>ad nauseam </i>and out of context, they can seem like just one more vacuous platitude to scroll past in our newsfeed. Especially when it's the person posting it that most needs to heed the advice! (<a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque" target="_blank">Tu quoque</a> for those keeping score).<br />
<br />
How does all this fit with the theme of this article: fitness and injuries? Let me illustrate.<br />
<br />
Four years ago, I suffered perhaps the worst injury of my grappling career. I rolled my right ankle and tore a bunch of soft tissue. I was on crutches for 2 months, limping for a year and a half, and only recently completely pain free. I still tape my ankle every judo practice as a preventative measure.<br />
<br />
After about 6 months of no judo, I started doing some light technique practice. Because I'd injured my dominant foot, I couldn't practice throws to my dominant (i.e., strong) side. The only way I was going to be able to train at all is if I practiced to my weak side.<br />
<br />
It took a full 2 years before I was able to begin training to my strong side again. By that time, my weak-side throws were better than my strong side throws. After a few months, my strong side caught up. The net result is that now I can do some throws just as well to either side.<br />
<br />
Without getting too far into judo technique, I'll explain why that's such a huge advantage. To avoid a throw in judo or wrestling, you circle away from the direction of the throw. If you walk into the direction of the throw, you make your opponent's job very easy since you are walking in the exact direction required for the throw to be successful.<br />
<br />
So, what happens when you can throw equally well on both sides? If I attack one direction, you circle away from the throw. But circling away from a throw in one direction is also walking into the throw from the other direction. If I can throw in both directions, your defense to my initial attack actually literally walks you into my attack from the other direction.<br />
<br />
What's the moral of the story? The simple one is that every challenge presents an opportunity. The challenge presented to me was what very easily could have been a career-ending injury. Instead, I chose to use it as an opportunity to develop a part of my game I otherwise wouldn't have spent as much time on. The net result was to move me another step closer to the ideal martial artist.<br />
<br />
Think of your own injuries in the same way (And I promise, you will have injuries, whether you train or not!). Maybe you injure your shoulder or your back. Give your body a chance to heal from the initial injury, but now figure out how to train around your injury and eventually restrengthen it. This forces you to learn new exercises and improve your technique on ones you already know. Doing it imperfectly now has real consequences. The long run effect is to make you improve in ways you otherwise wouldn't have if circumstance hadn't forced you to.<br />
<br />
Now, he's where part of me wants to throw the Discourses across the room. Surely, some injuries are so bad and permanent that we will forever be impaired. An extreme example might be paralysis. What kind of asshole tells someone newly paraplegic, "hey, man, you should see this as an opportunity." Now, just because what the stoics say isn't true in every case, doesn't mean it isn't true in some cases. In my case it was true.<br />
<br />
My own view is that, psychologically, we ought to err on the side of stoicism when we are confronted by setbacks. I think there's much more harm in despair and giving up than there is in a mentality that seeks opportunity in misfortune.<br />
<br />
<i>He's the first lesson: Learn What You Would not Have Otherwise Learned</i><br />
You're going to have setback in your fitness journey. This is the nature of life. So whachugonna do abouddit? Give up and cry like a little baby or find a way to learn and improve from it?<br />
<br />
Moving on...<br />
<br />
The more subtle message has to do with value. Initially--well, let's be honest--not just initially, but for a long time, I was genuinely heart-broken by my injury. I wasn't hopeful at all. Right before the injury, I was the best I'd ever been. I was on track to test for my brown belt. I was looking forward to doing well in tournaments. I was upset because the injury interfered with realizing what I valued: belt promotion, tournaments, winning.<br />
<br />
But the stoic is concerned with internal goods: wisdom, perseverance, composure, courage, and so on. These are the goods that make us a complete person and that most reliably contribute to living a good life. These are the fruits we ought to pursue. And I ultimately gain the sweetest fruits of all by refusing to quit and continuing to persevere in the face of misfortune:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What will you make of illness?<br />
I will expose its true nature by outdoing myself in calmness and serenity; I will neither beg the doctor's help, nor pray for death. What more could you ask? Everything, you see, that you throw at me I will transform into a blessing, a boon--something dignified, even enviable. (Discourse III. 21. 14-15)</blockquote>
Or<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Y]ou have inner strengths that enable you to bear up with difficulties of every kind. You have been given fortitude, courage, and patience. Why should I worry what happens if I am armed with the virtue of fortitude? Nothing can trouble or upset me, or even seem annoying. Instead of meeting misfortune with groans and tears, I will call upon the faculty especially provided to deal with it. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'But my nose is running!' What do you have hands for, idiot, if not to wipe it? 'But how is it right that there be running noses in the first place? Instead of thinking up protests, wouldn't it be easier just to wipe your nose? (Discourse 1. 6. 28-32.)</blockquote>
In other words, it is through the various challenges life inevitably sends our way that we most develop our virtues--the true and reliable foundations for a happy life. And who are you to think of yourself as so weak as not to be able to face such challenges?<br />
<br />
Suck it up buttercup. You kan dou eet!<br />
<br />
All that energy you spend complaining about your ankle, your back, your neck, etc... isn't going to heal it. You might as well redirect your efforts toward addressing it. Wipe your nose!<br />
<br />
<i>Here's the second lesson: Focus on What Really Matters</i><br />
In the long run, in facing injuries and misfortune, you develop the traits that have genuine value: Fortitude, courage, perseverance, wisdom, etc...<br />
<br />
<i>Brace yourself</i>: It's not puffy muscles or being able to lift a certain amount of weight that matters for a good life. It's the character traits you develop that allow you to manage and overcome, not only your current injuries and health problems, but future ones too.<br />
<br />
This is another way of expressing the earlier Socratic point: Physical fitness and sports are a controlled environment for character development. In fitness/sports, more than in any other endeavor, there's a strong correlation between effort and results. The lessons learned and traits you develop are meant to prepare you for the more difficult domains of intellectual and moral development. Intellectual and moral challenges are infinitely more demanding than any physical ones.<br />
<br />
Too many people think puffy muscles or round booties are the final goal and despair when they're thwarted. Such people never surpass the most basic level of development as human beings. They are incomplete human beings and they never fully achieve complete lasting and reliable foundations for a good life.<br />
<br />
I know. It's all easy to say. Personal development is extremely difficult and takes time. However,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nothing important comes into being overnight: even grapes and figs need time to ripen. If you say you want a fig now, I will tell you to be patient. First, you must allow the tree to flower, then put forth fruit; then you have to wait until the fruit is ripe." (Discourse 1. 17. 7.)</blockquote>
<b><u>Conclusion:</u></b><br />
Fact: In pursuing your fitness goals you <i>will</i> get injured. You <i>will</i> also get sick. You <i>will</i> get overwhelmed with work and social obligations. These <i>will</i> set you back. Crying about it won't change anything. Neither will anger, sadness, or quitting. So, whatchugonna do?<br />
<br />
Adopt that OG (Original Guru) self-help mindset: See an opportunity to learn to train differently and improve your technique. Better yet, see this as an opportunity to develop the virtues. When you face the next inevitable setback, you'll be better equipped to handle it.<br />
<br />
Epictetus often compares the quest for happiness (through the exercise and development of virtuous character) to athletic competition. There are important disanalogies. First, in the contest of life we compete against ourselves, not against others. Second, we compete over and over, through repeated opportunities for achievement. To be defeated need not mean that we are out of the race. Life gives us new opportunities in which happiness may flower:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even if we fail here and now, no one stops us from competing again, we don't have to wait another four years for the next Olympics, but as soon as a man picked himself up and renewed his grip on himself and shown the same enthusiasm he is allowed to compete. And if you give in again, you can compete again, and if once you win, you are like someone who never gave in. Only, don't let sheer habit make you give in readily and end up like a bad athlete going around being beaten in the whole circuit like quails that run away. (Discourse 3. 1-5)</blockquote>
Jigoro Kano (founder of judo) echos something similar in this wonderful quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The man who is at the peak of his success and the man who has just failed are in exactly the same position: Each must decide what to do next.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-37332368822797056642018-12-29T00:42:00.002-08:002019-01-21T23:23:58.242-08:00Lessons for Liberals<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Introduction</span></u></b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuLvRtwAcWdEX3oKcXvVti5FP21cF8KYo_0-Okyte8vy2l3edMF0coHNPO4j6_JJWvqp9AfE_eePu9zjNmDeUAD0h6mk2Xl8-UMAS-SPN35wAtAWmwKWQSmsr812DYoHFdFIXDllSr1d0/s1600/people+online.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="750" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuLvRtwAcWdEX3oKcXvVti5FP21cF8KYo_0-Okyte8vy2l3edMF0coHNPO4j6_JJWvqp9AfE_eePu9zjNmDeUAD0h6mk2Xl8-UMAS-SPN35wAtAWmwKWQSmsr812DYoHFdFIXDllSr1d0/s400/people+online.jpg" width="400" /></span></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Let's begin with what Liberals know to be self-evident: All current Liberal views are true and all non-liberal views are false. Let's add to that what everyone on the Right knows: All Liberals hold exactly the same views on all issues. There are no divisions. No subgroups. And there is certainly no nuance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, here's the problem for Liberals. How do we communicate the Truth to all those backward non-liberals? (If you're on the Right, simply swap 'Liberal' with 'political Right' .)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Here's what I want to think about. Suppose you had no reason at all to doubt even in the slightest your views on morality and justice. How should you go about communicating with people who hold mistaken views? In suggesting an answer, I'll touch on three interrelated themes: the means by which we communicate moral knowledge, the relationship between moral knowledge and the good life, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">the nature of knowledge</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">[This is a short portion of a paper I'm working on so many arguments aren't fully elaborated and several possible objections are left out].</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Pumping Intuitions and Cultural Precedent</span></u></b><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Why should I spare words? They cost nothing. I cannot know whether I shall help the man to whom I give advice; but I know well that I shall help someone if I advise many. I must scatter this advice by the handful. It is impossible that one who tries often should not sometimes succeed.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--Seneca, Letter XXIX paraphrasing the view he opposes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Sometimes philosophers construct fanciful thought experiments to illustrate a point. With that in mind, please indulge me...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Suppose there were a group of people who believed that God himself spoke to them. With unwavering certainty they insisted that He taught them what is just and unjust, true and false, moral and immoral.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Upon hearing God's words, these crusaders of Truth and Justice went out into the world spreading the 'good' news to all. Some groups employed the tactics Seneca condemns above: They spread the word indiscriminately to everyone--ignoring varying degrees of receptivity, social context, or norms of discourse. They showed no concern for how others might perceive God's messengers and how that might affect receptivity to the message. Furthermore, those who hesitated to immediately recognize the Truth were condemned as foolish and stupid (at best) or evil.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje7tRLkZ0PY_kKHjPS9icEQ2qBjMHTNnvyi9Ybmgysnz5-FOFxe-RKAxd0dDUaCMGLeii5YQwaZWsTkZFGQxbEQcc8fQiNUcrGtEy7xbxXHu2lSQuIcfE-E_Jv9DE25AWq-BSFnthm8dQ/s1600/right+signs+1.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje7tRLkZ0PY_kKHjPS9icEQ2qBjMHTNnvyi9Ybmgysnz5-FOFxe-RKAxd0dDUaCMGLeii5YQwaZWsTkZFGQxbEQcc8fQiNUcrGtEy7xbxXHu2lSQuIcfE-E_Jv9DE25AWq-BSFnthm8dQ/s320/right+signs+1.webp" width="320" /></span></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Instead of engaging in patient thoughtful discourse that demonstrated mutual respect and recognized the concerns of others, many resorted to shaming, name-calling, and bullying tactics. Those who were most certain of the Truth would hold signs kinda like these...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2L7tMnJOkuIiyYZQml3c7dQHBbOnaiiyVI3tZG0OQKpS1w5U2gT8tQT-K3ToledCSKztrbad8uCV7xi7RYV6oDupn7PSVYn-X8xtfBe-qHQsgCFEgLoR_nnEuTjjrYQpswP-kfhJW3gs/s1600/hell+sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="742" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2L7tMnJOkuIiyYZQml3c7dQHBbOnaiiyVI3tZG0OQKpS1w5U2gT8tQT-K3ToledCSKztrbad8uCV7xi7RYV6oDupn7PSVYn-X8xtfBe-qHQsgCFEgLoR_nnEuTjjrYQpswP-kfhJW3gs/s320/hell+sign.jpg" width="246" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxSENriPCo_j9mUl4hZSgl99wzByHU_Db2YfD1m5I3_m-0Avd0znh36r2mojX5Z-FBYcXqrG2137DxQE4lO4fB4Km2QiMvB5RPtPEUErwck5412cO6t-ykJFwR0SFFgQmyau4IaYvY30/s1600/right+signs+2.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="742" data-original-width="1000" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxSENriPCo_j9mUl4hZSgl99wzByHU_Db2YfD1m5I3_m-0Avd0znh36r2mojX5Z-FBYcXqrG2137DxQE4lO4fB4Km2QiMvB5RPtPEUErwck5412cO6t-ykJFwR0SFFgQmyau4IaYvY30/s320/right+signs+2.webp" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Let's pause here to illuminate an argument that's being assumed in the background. First, knowing the truth about morality and justice is somehow important to living well. This idea has its (Western) roots in Socrates for whom knowledge, truth, justice, and the good life are deeply intertwined. A good life <i>requires</i> we understand the content of 'good' and 'evil' and that we correctly apply them in our daily actions. A life lived contrary to justice can never be a good life.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The above view implies it would be a bad thing if you held false beliefs about justice--not just for others but for you as well. It follows that we do good when we correct other people's false views and teach them the true views.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">However, as the hypothetical case above illustrates, some ways of communicating moral truth paradoxically cause people to turn away from the truth--even if it comes direct from God's own sweet lips.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Lessons for Liberals:</span></u></b><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The knowledge of sin is the beginning of salvation. </span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--Epicurus</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At this point, some of you may have caught on to what I'm rambling about. We all know that the Liberals have the monopoly on moral truth. This isn't the issue. Liberals need to think carefully about how they convey that truth because if they don't, they will come off very much like the people above. And the outcome, with respect to conversion, is negative and predictable. In fact, there's growing evidence that it's counter-productive.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">[<b>Note:</b> If you're uncomfortable with applying the concept of truth to justice and morality, simply substitute it with the notion of justification. I take it to be uncontroversial that some moral beliefs are better justified than others.] </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Lesson 1:</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">How you treat others with whom you disagree affects how receptive they are to your message. This is true regardless of how wrong they are and how right you are. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">From the point of view of people who aren't on the Left, many on the Left behave just as badly as those in the example above. To the heretic, both appear just as smug, and they are both just as willing to condemn to damnation those who refuse to recognize it. A functioning democracy requires that people at least be open to changing their views. Part of this involves <i>creating</i> a dialectical environment in which people can be open to criticism and new ideas. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">How can we do this? The first step is obviously some baseline of civility and respect. The second is to initially acknowledge your interlocutor's concerns even if, ultimately, you don't think they merit it. You can evaluate their concerns later once you've established some good will. No one is going to be receptive to anyone who's first move is to dismiss their concerns out of hand.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A common objection appeals to the virtue of anger in the face of injustice. Failing to be outraged by injustice (to oneself or to others) is itself morally troublesome; you're complicit by omission. Furthermore, demands for civility unduly burden the oppressed when engaging with their oppressors. There's much to say here but I'll tender only a brief reply. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The attitude we choose ought to be guided by what we hope to achieve with our moral and political speech. Anger in the face of injustice and unjust ideas signals disapproval and--increasingly--group membership. If that's all you intend to do, by all means, express your anger. But to the person who doesn't already hold your values, your outrage is uncompelling as a reason to abandon their view and to endorse a new one. Also, in some circles, Liberal outrage is cause for delight. Worse still, moral outrage can have the paradoxical effect of galvanizing support for the practice in question where it didn't exist previously.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If, however, I wish to persuade those who don't already hold my view I must offer them arguments and reasons. Most importantly, my arguments must begin from premises my interlocutors also accept. You can't drive someone to your destination if they never get into your car. And, they're not going to get into the car if you're yelling insults at them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In short, if you purport to persuade, arrest your anger. Better yet, remain respectful. Whatever you do, do not confirm your outgroups' (negative) biases of your group.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">(If someone's not being respectful to you, you can always walk away. I'm not sure we owe <i>everyone</i> respect. My point is only applies if you wish to persuade someone of your view.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Nature of Knowledge</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>"Man, the rational animal, can put up with anything except what seems to him irrational; whatever is rational is tolerable."</i> --Epictetus</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Two competing accounts of the source of knowledge run throughout the history of philosophy. The ancient Greek philosophers argued that Truth is accessible to everyone because, as rational creatures, we are sensitive to argument and reasons; that is to say, we are all sensitive to the means by which assertions are justified. Logic is <i>objective. </i>Argument forms are either valid or invalid. Anyone, with a little training, can evaluate the validity of an argument. Hence, <i>everyone</i> is equipped (when they so choose!) to evaluate arguments for what constitutes justice and for when that concept is correctly applied. This epistemological assumption inspired the Enlightenment and continues in its contemporary progeny.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On the other hand, in <u>The Republic</u>, Plato remarks that "there is an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry." Here we have the other strain of epistemology: one that appeals to emotion, inspiration, revelation, or personal experience. These sorts of justifications for belief escape and obscure the objective lens of reason and logic; they aren't publicly scrutable. Hence, they are at least controversial as sources of justification. Nevertheless, at least some knowledge is irreducibly <i>subjective</i>. Historically, Romanticism, existentialism, and post-modernism all claim subjective knowledge epistemically legitimate or valuable. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The core philosophical issue here is whether access to moral knowledge is universal or not. Some Liberals have adopted the latter view (#NotAllLiberals): Certain groups at the intersections of race and gender have privileged access to moral knowledge. I suggest, that even if true, this is a strategic error.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Lesson 2</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If we want people to know (and adopt) different moral views, we cannot do it without offering reasons and arguments that are publicly scrutable. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Just how compelling are divine revelation or appeals to 'inspired' texts to the atheist? Liberals who rely on privileged access to moral truth engage in the same failed tactics as the kind-hearted Mormons who visited me last week. As I sat there listening to them in my living room, I was reminded something Thomas Kuhn wrote: "Yet, whatever its force, the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling to those who refuse to step into the circle." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">By extension, telling people that their race or gender renders them incapable of grasping moral truth is self-defeating. If they're incapable of grasping it, it's unreasonable to expect them to in the first place. Moral outrage is misplaced. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Excluding subjective knowing comes with a caveat. Some knowledge is surely subjective <i>and</i> morally relevant. What it's like for me to experience the world or how others' actions and words affect me aren't obviously evaluable through objective reason and argument. They're <i>my</i> experiences. Many these experiences <i>do</i> matter morally. If our theory of justice tells us that we ought avoid institutions, policies, words, and actions that make people feel as though they are being dehumanized or less-than then this subjective data matters.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But appeals to subjective experience on its own can't be the end of a discussion on justice. Many white Christians evangelicals feel as though they are a deeply persecuted group in America. Is it true? After all, until recently, they risked imprisonment for uttering "Merry Christmas." If subjective experience is our only epistemic standard, the conversation ends here: They have experiences as though they are oppressed, therefore they are oppressed. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yet, we know that simply feeling outraged does not on its own justify the outrage. Justification depends on how well the response 'fits.' People can be mistaken about the fit of their subjective judgments about and emotional responses to occurrences, intentions, harm, to name a few. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Surely there are features of being oppressed or unjustly treated that, although subjectively experienced, can measure up to some publicly scrutable standards of 'fit.' Is there a(n unjustified) power imbalance? Is one treated differently than one's peers? Is there a reasonable possibility to meaningfully shape the public institutions that govern one's life? Is one disproportionately excluded from certain opportunities or public resources? Is one group disproportionately negatively affected by what is supposed to be an impartial law or policy? These are all standards within which we can begin to evaluate subjective claims of privilege, discrimination, benefit, and burden.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The idea that moral truth is accessible only to members of a select group is the secular equivalent of divine inspiration. Particularly in a democracy, pronouncements on justice demand justifications accessible to all except perhaps the most extreme and recalcitrant partisans. The alternative leads us away from democratic values and into authoritarianism--which is great when your team's in power but not so great when the pendulum inevitably swings. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Conclusion:</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In closing, indulge me one last thought experiment: Suppose there is some truth to what I have said so far. A) How we treat people affects their receptivity to our message even if God's whispering it in our ear. B) Relying exclusively on a subjectivist/privilege epistemology is self-defeating. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now consider your actual epistemic situation. Consider all the beliefs you hold and have held, and all the competing possible beliefs held by others--present and future. What are the chances that, right now, you are the first human being to hold all and only true moral beliefs while everyone else, including future liberals, hold some false beliefs?<br /><br />In other words, if we take seriously the non-trivial possibility that some of our current moral beliefs are false, we should be even more cautious in berating others who hold beliefs contrary to our own. Not just because of the reasons I've already suggested above but because we should think about how we will want to be treated when the inevitable happens: I.e., when someone on Twitter points out to us why we are mistaken. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Do you treat others how you would wish to be treated if you turned out to be wrong?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I leave you with Seneca:</span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Do you think that the man has any thought of mending his ways who counts over his vices as if they were virtues? Therefore, as far as possible, prove yourself guilty, hunt up charges against yourself; play the part, first of accuser, then of judge, last of intercessor. </span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--Seneca Letter XXVIII</span><br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-53476955465372034182018-06-03T18:05:00.000-07:002018-07-14T15:11:50.421-07:00A Simple Strength and Muscle-Building Program and the Death of Bro Splits<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0RclR56gSpe7l7l81igm35qnOhRh9XzyJXQXjxBwPFr-olH8mXwxDHiiv6PhT1qZfAIcjIKJp_MngH2GX-wv4_7rEB0JF_PWNKs5DLOvgz37LLNw3ViTFN4K9RbtBK1rKUdyR52I7fbk/s1600/y-u-still-use-bro-splits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0RclR56gSpe7l7l81igm35qnOhRh9XzyJXQXjxBwPFr-olH8mXwxDHiiv6PhT1qZfAIcjIKJp_MngH2GX-wv4_7rEB0JF_PWNKs5DLOvgz37LLNw3ViTFN4K9RbtBK1rKUdyR52I7fbk/s320/y-u-still-use-bro-splits.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Introduction</span></u></b><br />
Here's a science-based strength and muscle-building program for anyone looking for a change in their old routine. If you're completely new to using weights, this might be a good program to use <i>after</i> about 3-6 months. This program is suitable for advanced beginner to upper intermediate. It's not meant for competitive or aspiring competitive bodybuilders since it's built primarily from compound movements; there are virtually no isolation exercises. The program aims to balance fitness, strength, muscle growth, and aesthetics.<br />
<br />
First, I'll present the program then, for the keeners, I'll explain some of the principles behind being successful in the gym. Finally, I'll introduce you to some trends in 21st century exercise science which are signaling the demise of bro science.<br />
<br />
I need to say one more thing. You'll notice that each routine is a full-body workout. As I was putting this program together, I thought I'd do a little digging on the state of affairs in the bro-splits vs full-body debate. It turned into a several-day journey down a rabbit hole of surprising science. For those unfamiliar with these terms, <i>bro splits</i> means you assign a different workout day to each major body part. E.g., Monday is chest, Tuesday is legs, Wednesday is back, etc.... With bro splits each body part only gets trained 1x/week. This is by far the favored method for gym bros and professional bodybuilders alike.<br />
<br />
A full-body workout routine, on the other hand, usually trains each body part per workout allowing one day rest between each workout. This typically amounts to training 3x/week, although programs vary from 2x to as many as 6x per week.<br />
<br />
It's a core bodybuilding dogma that bro-splits are superior to full-body workouts with respect to building mass and strength. This dogma has been so firmly entrenched that for at least 3 or 4 <i>decades</i> no one even bothered to do a comparative study. Well, in 2014, the Norwegian powerlifting team committed sacrilege: Rather than act on faith and tradition alone, they decided to put dogma to the test.<br />
<br />
The results of the <a href="https://www.strongerbyscience.com/high-frequency-training-for-a-bigger-total-research-on-highly-trained-norwegian-powerlifters/" target="_blank">Norwegian Frequency Project</a> sent shock waves through the weight-lifting world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/A3DGbLfVAgE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A3DGbLfVAgE?feature=player_embedded" style="clear: left; float: left;" width="320"></iframe></div>
Experienced powerlifting athletes following higher frequency programs outperformed those in lower frequency programs with respect to strength and mass. A flurry of studies followed and continue to follow. I'll discuss more below but the upshot is that science destroyed bro science. Carefully measured and controlled studies eclipsed anecdote, tradition, and dogma [gasp!]. Bro splits, despite a ton of cultural inertia, are on the demise.<br />
<br />
Reporting on a follow-up study, <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/high-frequency-resistance-training-is-not-more-effective-than-low-frequency-resistance-training-in-increasing-muscle-mass-and-strength-in-well-trained-men/" target="_blank">Baysianbodybuilding.com </a>offers what I consider to be the best explanation of the decades-long unquestioned reign of bro splits:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
An additional finding was that the bro split group experienced significantly greater levels of muscle soreness throughout the study. This suggests they experienced greater muscle damage and tentatively supports that <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/mechanisms-muscle-growth-muscle-damage-metabolic-stress-mechanical-tension/">muscle damage is not a mechanism of muscle growth</a>. It is probably also the reason bros prefer bro splits: they feel like they work better and because they experience this amount of soreness, they also think they can’t train with higher frequencies. Bros typically base everything they do on how they feel and then rationalize with pseudoscience AKA broscience.</blockquote>
This is enough preamble for now. More science-y stuff later. Let's get to the routine...<br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">The 3 Day/Week Program: Full Body</span></u></b><br />
<b><br />Important: </b>If you're a beginner or any of the movements in the routine are new to you, <i>please</i>, <i>please</i> consult with a personal trainer or experienced friend before attempting them. You will learn to do the exercise effectively, avoid potential injury, and save yourself from being "that guy/girl" in the gym that everyone rolls their eyes at. I see so many beginners who don't think they're beginners doing all manner of wrong things when working out. Lifting with poor form virtually guarantees injury and no gainz. Also, it's entirely appropriate in gym culture to ask someone who looks like they know what they're doing. Almost all experienced lifters are as enthusiastic as Mormons to share their knowledge with you.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGjK2NIBs2kgB5OMBy0PzlYrkKZUF2r2kV47dVYEDf0aKx0r4sZLgHK1_j1Pud7_wspRHeoFh0FQ1ksvN8fSfsjHmdkjekAYYcGpsbH5wPeJXsDFdqWSnUMJfTWrk2PWrnGyKiFoXt0_k/s1600/what-if-i-told-you-the-sexes-are-biologically-different.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGjK2NIBs2kgB5OMBy0PzlYrkKZUF2r2kV47dVYEDf0aKx0r4sZLgHK1_j1Pud7_wspRHeoFh0FQ1ksvN8fSfsjHmdkjekAYYcGpsbH5wPeJXsDFdqWSnUMJfTWrk2PWrnGyKiFoXt0_k/s320/what-if-i-told-you-the-sexes-are-biologically-different.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Trigger Warning!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Biological Sex and How it Affects How You Train:</b> TL;DR version. For most exercises, men should do 6-10 reps for mass/strength gains *(sort of--I'll mention something about this later in the post). Women should do 8-15. Men should use longer rest periods. Women should use shorter periods. For the most comprehensive article on the topic: <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/why-women-should-not-train-like-men/" target="_blank">BayesianBodybuilding.com</a> <i>I suggest all women read it</i>.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Day 1:</u></b><br />
<b>1. </b><b>Deadlift</b><br />
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 warm up sets (more if needed).</li>
<li>3-4 sets x 5-8 reps (men), 8-12 reps (women).</li>
<li>I use all 3 kinds (standard, sumo, Romanian) of deadlift depending on how my body is feeling. Go with whatever you like on that day or stay with the same one each Day 1 (<a href="https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/workout-plans-based-on-muscle-confusion-dont-work.html" target="_blank">muscle confusion principle is fake news</a>). </li>
<li>Go heaviest on your 3rd set. Back off on the fourth to preserve strict form (if necessary).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<b>2. Bench Press</b><br />
<ul>
<li>2 sets warm up.</li>
<li>3-4 sets x 5-8 reps, 8-12 reps (women).</li>
<li>Your 3rd set should be your heaviest set. Come back down a bit on the 4th set to preserve strict form.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>3. Lateral Shoulder Raises</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>1-2 sets warm up.</li>
<li>2-3 drop sets--each to failure. </li>
<li>E.g., 20 lbs to failure, 15 lbs to failure, 10 lbs to failure. Cheat on the last 2 or 3 reps of each increment. </li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>4. Standing Barbell Curls</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>1-2 warm up sets</li>
<li>3-4 sets x 7-10 reps, 8-12 reps (women)..</li>
<li>Your 3rd set should be your heaviest. Come back down a bit on the 4th to preserve strict form.</li>
<li>Use either straight bar or ez-curl bar. Whatever feels best to you.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div>
<b>5. </b><b>3 Sets of Any Ab Exercise</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Day 2</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<b>1. Squat (or Leg Press if your back is having a bad day)</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 warm up sets (more if you still don't feel warmed up)</li>
<li>4-5 sets x 5-8 reps, 8-12 reps (women).</li>
<li>Your third set should be your heaviest set. If doing 5 sets, make your 4th set the same as the 3rd before backing off to preserve strict form.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div>
<b>2. </b><b>Bent-Over Dumbell Row or Seated Cable Rows (med to narrow grip)</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>3 sets x 7-10 reps, 8-12 reps (women).</li>
<li>I use higher reps here because most people's technique really suffers on this exercise when they go heavy. Use a weight that allows you to squeeze your shoulder blade to your spine.</li>
<li><i>For judoka</i>: Modifying bent-over dumbbell rows mimics one of the core movements in judo. To do this, flair you elbow out as though you are doing uchi komi with your hikite (pulling arm). "Look at your watch" for each rep as you would with uchi komi.</li>
<li>Use the <a href="https://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/workout-tips/lift-doctor-negative-reps-positive-muscle" target="_blank">negative</a> on this exercise and be sure to hold a full contraction at the top of each rep.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<b>3. </b><b>Incline Dumbbell Bench Press </b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 warm up sets.</li>
<li>3-4 sets x 5-8 reps, 8-12 reps (women)..</li>
<li>Your shoulders are one of the easiest areas to injure so be sure to be well-warmed up before going into your working sets.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<b>4. Calves</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Do 4 sets of any kind of calve raises if you like. </li>
<li>I've given up on ever growing my calves and do 10 minutes of skipping instead. It's better for the kind of muscle I need for judo anyway.</li>
<li>If you believe in miracles and haven't given up on growing calves yet: 3 sets of one kind then 2 sets of another kind of calve exercise.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>5. </b><b>3 Sets of Any Ab Exercise</b><b>. Superset with back-hyerextensions. </b></div>
</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><u>Day 3</u></b></div>
<div>
<b>1. </b><b>Lunges</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 warm up sets</li>
<li>4 sets of ~16 reps, ~20 reps (women).</li>
<li>1 set = 8/10 reps for each leg. Alternate legs with each rep.</li>
<li>I prefer to either hold dumbbells on my shoulders or use a bar for lunges. It helps keep good posture and engage my core. Holding dumbbells at my side doesn't seem to engage my core as much. This is a matter of preference.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<b>2. </b><b>Dumbbell Shoulder Press (seated or standing--your preference)</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 sets warm up</li>
<li>3-4 sets x 5-8 reps, 8-12 reps (women).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<b>3. A. Wide-Grip Pull Down</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2 sets with a medium light weight x 12-15 reps.</li>
<li>This is just a warm up for pull ups so don't tire yourself out here. We're just warming up to prevent injury.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>3. B. Wide-Grip Pull-Up</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>3-4 sets x 7-10 reps, 8-12 reps (women)..</li>
<li>If you're not used to doing pull ups, use the pull-up assist machine. If you don't have one, put a box/bench under you and use your legs for help to complete at least 7. Use your legs to push yourself up but fight gravity on the way down (i.e., use the <a href="https://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/workout-tips/lift-doctor-negative-reps-positive-muscle" target="_blank">negative</a>).</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>4. </b><b>Dips</b></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>2-3 sets to failure.</li>
<li>When doing dips, bend your knees, cross your lower legs, and pitch your body forward. If you do dips straight up and down, you put yourself at higher risk of shoulder injury.</li>
<li>Use a dip assist machine if you're not used to doing dips to build up to unassisted dips.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<b>5. 3 Sets of Any Ab Exercise</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>Principles and Tips:</u></b></span></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>The First Rule of Exercising/Sports/Weigh-lifting: Avoid Injury!</b></div>
<div>
Always warm up. If you're feeling off one day, ease up on the weight. Learn and use strict form. Have an experienced friend or trainer check your form every once in a while. Learn <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2014/01/annual-fitness-post-injury-prevention.html" target="_blank">correct breathing technique</a>. Learn to distinguish good pain from bad pain. If you get injured, you're out for at least two weeks. That sets your fitness in reverse. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another good tip for avoiding injury is to always "leave one in the chamber." This means end your set when you fell like you might still be able to do one last rep but that it would require you to break form. In other words, do as many reps as you can with strict form. There's a time a place for breaking form, but as a general rule, avoid it as it increases the odds of injury, which in turn will set you back.<br />
<br />
For a more detailed account of how to prevent injury, read my more detailed post <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/01/injury-prevention-in-gym-without-giving.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>Number of Reps:</b></div>
<div>
Fact: You can't get stronger without lifting weights heavier than what you're used to lifting. The way to lift heavier weight is to drop the number of reps. This is why, for strength training, you shouldn't be doing more than 8 reps. Once you can do 4 sets of a weight at 6-8 reps, you should increase the weight, or better yet... (For women, work in the 8-15 rep range. See <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/why-women-should-not-train-like-men/" target="_blank">article</a> linked at the beginning of the program).<br />
<br />
What I've said above isn't entirely true. There's still some conflicting literature but it seems like the most important variable for muscle hypertrophy is total training volume for a body part. This means 3 sets x 8 reps of 100 lbs (= 24 000 lbs) should give you the same results as training 2 sets of 12 of 100 lbs (= 24 000 lbs) or 6 sets x 2 reps of 200 lbs (= 24 000 lbs). Same volume = same results regardless of how you got there. My guess is that this is only true within a certain range of combinations as, were it possible, lifting 24 000 lbs once probably won't give you the same results as the above possibilities.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<b>Level of Resistance:</b></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
In a <i>standard pyramid</i> progression, you start off with a relatively lower weight but relatively higher reps. For each set, increase the weight but decrease the reps. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Example</i>: </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Set 1: 70 lbs x 8 reps.</li>
<li>Set 2: 80 lbs x 7 reps.</li>
<li>Set 3: 90 lbs x 5 reps.</li>
<li>Set 4: 100 lbs x 1 rep.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The benefit of standard pyramid progressions is that, when you reach your heaviest weight, your muscles, tendons, and ligaments are really warmed up. The downside is that you can exhaust your muscles by the time you get your heaviest weight so your technique suffers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a <i>reverse pyramid</i>, you start off with a heavy weight and low reps. With each set you decrease weight and increase reps.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Example</i>: </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Set 1: 100 lbs x 5 reps.</li>
<li>Set 2: 90 lbs x 7 reps.</li>
<li>Set 3: 80 lbs x 8 reps. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The downside of a reverse pyramid is that you risk injury when you lift heavy before the body part is fully warmed up. The upside is that you're at full strength when you do the heaviest set.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Solution</i>: </div>
<div>
My solution is to combine the methods. This way I get the benefits of both while diminishing the downsides of each. I do a standard pyramid up to and including my third set. At my third set, I'm still close to full strength but fully warmed up. On my fourth set, I bring the weight back down slightly below my third set. This way I preserve strict form on my last set. If I'm doing 5 sets, I might stay at the higher weight for set 4 but do one less rep then come down for the last set.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Example</i>:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Set 1: 70 lbs x 8 reps.</li>
<li>Set 2: 80 lbs x 6-7 reps.</li>
<li>Set 3: 100 lbs x 4/5 reps.</li>
<li>Set 4: 90 lbs x 6-7 reps.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<b>Rest intervals:</b></div>
<div>
I like to rest around 90 seconds- 2 min between sets but if I'm really focused on building strength I might even increase rest times up to 3 minutes. Science says, <i>for men</i>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807" target="_blank">longer rest periods are better for muscle hypertrophy</a> (for women, it seems like <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/why-women-should-not-train-like-men/" target="_blank">short rest periods are likely better</a>).<br />
<br />
If I'm close to a judo tournament, I reduce rest time to 1 minute: I want the workout to more closely mimic the explosion-recover intervals of a match and to keep my heart rate up. </div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>Number of Sets:</b></div>
<div>
You'll notice that for many of the exercises, I've given a range of possible sets. This is to allow flexibility in the program. If you're more on the beginner end of weightlifting or are restarting after a break, you'll want to use the lower number. If you're more in the intermediate or higher range, you'll want to use the higher number of sets.<br />
<br />
Also, regardless of where you stand, some days you have more energy than others in the gym. Build flexibility of sets into your routine to accommodate the variation in how you feel on any given day. Why leave an exercise early if you still have lots of energy? Why do one more set if you're already exhausted? Nothing good will come of it except an increased risk of injury.<br />
<br />
<b>Rest Days:</b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU_C-zxxNL-_ukaQu_vXNryPvT-jd4-CQRZqcIMa2ql_4smWkKOQnphI5kltUGt4Vn9fiNdrDxsb-_hUyVNHM7jf2FUizfjdj-1LJC5PgT7RRVMiJyNsHiXk2wzz-uHP_n3zsKXwcG4qo/s1600/one-does-not-simply-sit-on-their-ass-47-days-a-week-and-expect-to-be-in-good-shape.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="335" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU_C-zxxNL-_ukaQu_vXNryPvT-jd4-CQRZqcIMa2ql_4smWkKOQnphI5kltUGt4Vn9fiNdrDxsb-_hUyVNHM7jf2FUizfjdj-1LJC5PgT7RRVMiJyNsHiXk2wzz-uHP_n3zsKXwcG4qo/s320/one-does-not-simply-sit-on-their-ass-47-days-a-week-and-expect-to-be-in-good-shape.jpg" width="320" /></a>By most standards--especially evolutionary standards--our daily lives are sedentary. For this reason, just cuz you're not in the gym lifting on your off days, it doesn't mean you should be sitting on your butt watching Netflix. You were probably already sitting in your office all day. At least go out for a walk. Better yet, participate in a physical group activity. Take a dance class. Do a martial art. Coach a kids' sports team. Just do something to get off your butt!<br />
<br />
<b>Summary: Personalizing your Program</b><br />
Recall that volume is the dominant variable for muscle and strength gains. Think of all the above variables (including rest period) as means of individualizing a program in a way that maximizes total training volume for <i>your</i> body. There are 4 variables to play with: number of reps, number of sets, weight (% of max), and duration of rest period. What you should do is play with each to find the combination that results in the highest total volume per exercise.<br />
<br />
For example, I find that pretty much no matter the weight (in the working weight range), I have trouble going above 8 reps. My power drops off significantly after the 6th rep. So, for me to do the most volume, I use low reps (5-7) and high weight. I also find that I recover fairly quickly between sets, so I use moderate rest periods. This allows me to get more sets done in a workout.<br />
<br />
An average woman might find she can reach higher total volume when she does high reps of med-low weight with short rest periods. So, this is what they should do.<br />
<br />
The key idea here is that as you get to know your body, you should individualize this or any program to suit your body. Use a pre-made program as a general template but the exact combination of sets/body part, rest periods, reps, and weight (% of max) aren't going to be optimal for everyone. No program can be optimal for everyone given human diversity. Learning to customize your program comes with experience and experimentation. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">More on Bro Splits vs Full-Body Programs</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
Let’s talk a little bit more about the bro splits vs full-body workouts. Recall that with bro splits, you assign a day to each major body part and maybe train a minor muscle on that same day (e.g., chest and biceps; back and triceps). In each workout you try to “destroy” that particular muscle group with the idea that it will take a long time to recover. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With a full-body program we usually train all (major) muscle groups during each individual workout. Two implications follow: First, you will train each major muscle group several times a week (3 in a standard program). Second, your muscles won’t get “destroyed” after each work out since you’re only doing 3-5 sets for a particular muscle group as opposed to the 14-18 (or more) in a standard bro-split. It follows, that you can train each muscle group more frequently.</div>
<div>
<br />
Why do full-body programs seem to be outperforming bro splits? First, (on average) protein synthesis mostly occurs over the first 48 hours from your workout. This means that the majority of muscle growth/repair occurs only in the first 48 hours, post workout. After that period, resting your muscle has minimal mass/strength gain benefit. After 48 hours, your muscle is, in effect, ready to be trained again . <br />
<br />
Understanding this allows us to properly conceptualize the debate between bro splits and full-body programs. It’s not really that training your full body in a session has some magical powers, it’s that a full body program allows you to increase each muscles’ training frequency over a given period. In a standard bro split, each major muscle group is trained only 1x/week, but muscle growth only happens for the first 48 hours. In a (standard) full-body program, each major muscle group is trained 3x/week. This means there are 3x the growth periods compared to a bro splits program.<br />
<br />
<b>Hold On a Second...</b><br />
If you’ve been lifting for any reasonable amount of time, your spider senses should be tingling from what I’ve said. Something’s not quite right. Anyone who’s an experienced lifter will tell you that for muscle growth you simply can’t push a muscle group hard enough in just 3-5 sets of a single exercise. To really get that drained, quivering-jello-muscle feeling, you need to work that muscle over at least 3 or 4 different exercises of 3-5 sets each. That is, you need a minimum of 14-18 sets on each muscle group to truly damage it in order to get the gainz you’re after.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpcNA5SV3-eoXTbTqL-tcBJV6n6LpncjnejnpnHeQXNtrscUyJxKLwAChrQb1hZsnLB-otu_N4nm9NNu9Al5byhKRhSGfYNzu0WGZT3eZ6usR5zuOLCpJJEj6bVm_MsEEAf1EAMnzu1Do/s1600/volume.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="461" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpcNA5SV3-eoXTbTqL-tcBJV6n6LpncjnejnpnHeQXNtrscUyJxKLwAChrQb1hZsnLB-otu_N4nm9NNu9Al5byhKRhSGfYNzu0WGZT3eZ6usR5zuOLCpJJEj6bVm_MsEEAf1EAMnzu1Do/s320/volume.jpg" width="320" /></a>What am I getting at? When we compare full-body to bro splits programs, total training volumes will differ. And the research is clear on one thing: Training volume is a primary driver for mass and strength gains. The whole point of bro splits is to increase training volume over what one could do in a full-body program. That’s why bro splits became the gold standard for weightlifting. Let’s look at that more carefully.<br />
<br />
Assume a standard bro split program:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Day 1: Chest 16 sets.<br />
Day 2: Legs 16 sets.<br />
Day 3: Rest<br />
Day 4: Shoulders 16 sets.<br />
Day 5: Back 16 sets.<br />
Day 6: Rest<br />
Day 7: Arms 16 sets.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Compare that to a 3x/week full body program where each body part gets 3-4 sets x 3 times/week (9-12 sets/body part/week). <br />
<br />
When we compare the two programs head to head, for each body part, the bro splits program does an additional 4-5 sets of volume each week (assuming we hold reps constant). That’s a big difference. Take chest for example. Even if I’m only benching 150 lbs x 6 times, for 4 sets that’s 3 600 lbs (900 lbs x 4 sets) of volume difference in just one week between the programs. Now add together the volume difference for <i>each</i> body part between programs. That’s a massive difference in total volume between the programs in just one week. Imagine over a year.<br />
<br />
No thanks, Mr. Science Man, I’m keeping my bro splits. Keep your stupid "science" away from my precious gainz!<br />
<br />
What’s going on here? In a lot of the comparative studies they have to hold training volume constant across the two types of programs. Without this control, volumes are different and there's no way to can point to frequency as being the differentiating variable. Great for controlled science but this doesn’t translate well outside of the lab since the whole point of bro splits is to increase training volume. I’ll bet my last scoop of protein powder that if you compare training volume between any real-world full-body program vs any bro split program, there will be a significant difference in total weekly training volume (favoring bro splits). If total volume drives gainz, it's bro splits all the way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE4yGG3oza1JpbdJTXQv4U2wumQf2dOhncwfTCEgzKP-MoiT8tcgRBFSpiXNCHMVztskFdMFt0-CobTrwGSXalfsOg8IsYfiSFUgSsldHBHB_HTlxP7J195s9NibGKuY6JylVykjN8SZA/s1600/not-sure-if-volume-or-frequency-determine-optimal-gainz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE4yGG3oza1JpbdJTXQv4U2wumQf2dOhncwfTCEgzKP-MoiT8tcgRBFSpiXNCHMVztskFdMFt0-CobTrwGSXalfsOg8IsYfiSFUgSsldHBHB_HTlxP7J195s9NibGKuY6JylVykjN8SZA/s320/not-sure-if-volume-or-frequency-determine-optimal-gainz.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Hold on a tick. We started this whole article citing the trend in the literature, across various studies and study designs, that full-body training generates results superior to bro splits. But the studies are a sham. They're comparing apples to oranges. Bro splits have higher volume. If volume drives gainz, how can a lower volume program produce moar gainz than a higher volume program? The meat in my head is getting overtrained with all this!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Resolving the Paradox</b></div>
<div>
Wait! There’s more! There’s another training dogma that’s come under increasing scrutiny: that muscle damage is the mechanism for muscle hypertrophy. Bro splits seek to maximize volume because it is the best way to guarantee maximum muscle damage. The reasoning goes like this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Moar muscle damage leads to moar bigger muscles. And moar volume leads to moar muscle damage. So, moar total volume leads to moar muscle damage which leads to moar bigger muscle growth. By transitivity, moar volume leads to more bigger muscles. Therefore, bro spliz all the way.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
But what if muscle damage isn’t the primary driver of muscle growth? And what if, like everything else in the world, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns" target="_blank">the law of decreasing marginal returns</a> also applies to training volume?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not going to rewrite an already <a href="https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/inflammation-muscle-growth/" target="_blank">excellent article</a> so I'll summarize. <i>Short term</i> spikes in inflammation (signaled by interleukin 6; IL-6) trigger the metabolic pathway for muscle repair. But long-term/chronic inflammation (also signaled by IL-6) interferes with muscle growth. IL-6 serves a dual role depending on its intensity and duration.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
See where we're going with this?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bro splits lead to <i>long-term</i> inflammation since there is massive muscle damage. But what does this do to the potential for muscle growth? Recall, it <i>undermines</i> it (relative to a short and intense IL-6 signal). What does high frequency training do? It leads to short-term spikes in IL-6 which...(say it with me) activates the muscle-growing metabolic pathways <i>three times a week</i>.<br />
<br />
Pair this with what we observed above, that most protein synthesis (muscle-building) usually only occurs over the first 48 hours post work out, and we're on our way to resolving the volume-frequency paradox.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9gRU-2SqcmnCHKuy6mGf7ZjCWT4GTFQB8ZJl2Xj7rSNon2ErOVDIjovhIOuPagMlBAiUKfe7BbAFKAR7jaorEnd_9YtKeqlJbxVPri8U4NKQ9uc-lROUi_LpnAk5d2ca77gL_nm8cfhQ/s1600/i-am-the-law-of-decreasing-marginal-returns+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9gRU-2SqcmnCHKuy6mGf7ZjCWT4GTFQB8ZJl2Xj7rSNon2ErOVDIjovhIOuPagMlBAiUKfe7BbAFKAR7jaorEnd_9YtKeqlJbxVPri8U4NKQ9uc-lROUi_LpnAk5d2ca77gL_nm8cfhQ/s320/i-am-the-law-of-decreasing-marginal-returns+%25281%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Let's walk through it. The law of decreasing marginal returns tells us that there's some upward bound to the gainz we can make by adding more volume to our workout. At some point, more volume isn't going to translate to moar units of gainz. We can see this by imagining extreme ends of a continuum of volume training. At one end I lift one pound/week. Surely adding one more unit of training volume will lead to a better rate of gainz. At the other extreme, all I'm doing is lifting weight, from the time I wake up, until the time I go to bed. In fact, I sleep with a 45 lb plate on my chest so that with each breath I exert force x distance. Adding another 45 lb plate on my chest at night (i.e., increasing volume) isn't going to add more units of muscle gain. In fact, adding more volume at this point probably decreases my total gainz and negatively affects rate of gainz.<br />
<br />
Somewhere between the two ends of the continuum, there's a point where adding more volume doesn't increase units of muscle gain (i.e., the marginal rate). I'm still making gainz but the amount of gainz/unit of additional volume starts to drop. And somewhere beyond that point, adding volume will actually undermine muscle growth.<br />
<br />
Bro splits push us past the point where we make optimal gainz from volume. The additional units of volume in bro splits are actually detrimental to growth rather than beneficial (<i>relative to</i> lower volumes). The kind of inflammation we get undermines optimal growth whereas frequency training gives us the amount of volume much closer to the goldilocks zone--<i>and</i> we get that optimal volume 3x/week.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's another lesson here. If, after training, you experience <i>short-term </i>soreness and you want to preserve your precious gainz, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26638792" target="_blank">don't suppress it with anti-inflammatories <i>or </i>anti-oxidants</a>. You're interfering with the muscle-building signal.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_fbCcWyYthQ/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_fbCcWyYthQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
EDIT: I just discovered this interview with Firas Zahabi, George St. Pierre's (GSP) coach, who is widely regarded as one of the best MMA coaches in the world--he also happens to be a philosophy major! I can't recommend watching this interview strongly enough. It summarizes everything in this article<br /><br /></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Summary</span></u></b><br />
To summarize, two main dogmas of bro science are under serious attack from non-bro science (aka, science): First, contra bro science, full-body training (i.e., high-frequency training) is superior to bro splits for muscle hypertrophy.* Second, contra bro science massive muscle damage and subsequent soreness don't guarantee optimal gainz. The <i>amount</i> of muscle damage and inflammation matters. A third take-away is that for any weightlifting program, experiment with reps, sets, weight, and rest periods to maximize total program volume for <i>your</i> body.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>*Note</i>: It may be the case the bodybuilders using steroids will still do better on bro splits because the steroids allow their bodies to recover faster from massive muscle damage. It's also what allows pros to train twice a day. This should <i>not </i>be read as an endorsement of steroid use!<br />
<br />
<i>Caveat</i>: Pretty much all of the studies that show superiority of higher frequency training over lower frequency training used cohorts of <i>advanced</i> lifters or athletes. There was little or no difference in the results of studies that used beginners to compare different relative training frequencies. This is probably explained by the fact that beginners will make significant gainz no matter what they do. For advanced athletes, the low hanging gain-fruits have already been plucked. Different training methods will matter more.<br />
<br />
<b>Additional Sources Consulted:</b> </div>
<div>
1. <a href="http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/bro-split-versus-total-body-training-which-builds-more-muscle/" target="_blank">http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/bro-split-versus-total-body-training-which-builds-more-muscle/</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none}
</style>Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-59718223938599933292018-05-10T11:58:00.001-07:002019-10-04T21:18:04.639-07:00The Holy Grail of Teaching: Better Learning Outcomes with Less Prep-Work and Grading<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ws5yqa6luIS_A9xRVErMPa2wW-9dBjE_usm0FCpKQPlHXEn7cBKINHnLKqlO9fmvXeg-T85ll0S6F6PBof6PdA7rLlcToBFtW-C5ZGbhzZRFZM2L5x4W4_3EE3R4zn8TbSqvzpSaNxc/s1600/what-if-i-told-you-you-can-improve-your-students-performance-and-do-less-work.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ws5yqa6luIS_A9xRVErMPa2wW-9dBjE_usm0FCpKQPlHXEn7cBKINHnLKqlO9fmvXeg-T85ll0S6F6PBof6PdA7rLlcToBFtW-C5ZGbhzZRFZM2L5x4W4_3EE3R4zn8TbSqvzpSaNxc/s320/what-if-i-told-you-you-can-improve-your-students-performance-and-do-less-work.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
This post is directed primarily at teachers but I think students and parents alike can benefit from reading it in order to understand what goes on behind the curtain. I'm going to focus on course design rather than teaching technique, although the two overlap. Designing a course is perhaps one of the most complex and challenging tasks under the sun because it requires balancing a large number of competing objectives. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
1. <b>Depth vs Breadth</b>: Every class period you spend going deeper into a sub-topic is one class you take away from the breadth of the course content. And vice versa.<br />
<br />
2. <b>Reinforcement vs New Content</b>: Every class you spend reinforcing previous content is a class you don't spend on new content. And vice versa.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Predictability vs Flexibility</b>: For some reason, students panic or perceive instructors as disorganized whenever the original syllabus changes. However, different cohorts will find different units interesting (and uninteresting). Ideally, we want to tailor a syllabus to a cohort; that is, if a cohort finds a unit particularly interesting there are good pedagogical reasons to extend the unit. Similarly, if a cohort finds a unit boring, you want to be able to cut it short sometimes. The trade off, however, is that every time you change the syllabus, students panic or perceive you as disorganized . On the flip side, you maintain rigidity at the cost of students not getting additional time on what they enjoy or shortening units they don't enjoy.<br />
<br />
4. <b>Assessment and Incentive vs Time Grading</b>: This is a big one. Here's the reality: For a variety of reasons I won't get into--because I'll start ranting like a lunatic--most students have been conditioned to see little if any intrinsic value in doing any school work. This includes doing the readings before class, any kind of written activity, or self-assessment activity. In other words, if it doesn't count towards their grade, most students either won't do it or will do a crappy job of it. However, here's the thing about learning a new skill or new content: It ain't happening without practice and repetition. To quote Aristotle, "We are what we do repeatedly. Excellence then is not an act but a habit." So, how do we get students to get the practice and repetition they need for learin' to happen?<br />
<br />
Easy fix, you say. Just make them do lots of assignments. Problem: students hate what they call "busy work." Students must perceive assignments to be both relevant and worthwhile <i>for them</i>. Instructors must give careful forethought to the content of assignments, how they fit in to course objectives, how they relate to other course material, and how much weight they should be accorded as a percentage of the course grade. When weighting an assignment or task you must consider the direct relationship between weight and student motivation. You must also constantly refer back to your course objectives: What do you want your students to be able to know and do by the end of the semester? This should inform your weighting.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpNz4kZo7nBcEo7C-NEraFkW_VV166dHoSs-sxITN1db2-dHbypyhVQNevFOXTXprof0j6kgCFV9pk6TJXL18r68xCEK54K0Wh9OoH7LQrrAPd7jxhjmvqFCn1uvs5jHpt5EQEQtF2FcY/s1600/i-want-to-teach-well-but-i-also-want-a-life.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpNz4kZo7nBcEo7C-NEraFkW_VV166dHoSs-sxITN1db2-dHbypyhVQNevFOXTXprof0j6kgCFV9pk6TJXL18r68xCEK54K0Wh9OoH7LQrrAPd7jxhjmvqFCn1uvs5jHpt5EQEQtF2FcY/s320/i-want-to-teach-well-but-i-also-want-a-life.jpg" width="320" /></a>The major trade off with assessments involves grading time. It's all fine and dandy to assign regular homework or assignments but <i>someone</i> has to grade those. And that someone also has to prep classes and probably wants a faction of a life outside of their job. And if that someone is a grad student, they also need to do coursework, work on their dissertation, submit to journals, submit to conferences, attend colloquium talks, attend various committee meetings, etc... You get the point.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, in my method described below, I'll explain how to juggle these competing ends in a way that delivers better learning outcomes but with less prep-work and grading than you're probably doing.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Teaching College Kids in the Twenty First Century</u></b><br />
Check it. Yo, yo. What's up? Immabout to drop some knowledge on y'all. <----Talk like that a lot.<br />
<br />
Outside of the classroom more students than ever are working part-time or even full time. Depending on the source, around 5/6 of students work at least 19 hours/week. When they aren't working, many of them <i>aren't</i> doing school work. And if they <i>are</i> doing school work, many of them are simultaneously texting and watching cat videos.<br />
<br />
Whatchugonnadoabouddit?<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Choice 1</i>: Whine and complain about students "these days." <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsIbsfAhNupdndeiizb_5MXbtwX_rZ4OSF6tkuwRGPpFNwpK5OthysFXUsqp04dGa-XUPxvOXYUwPWIfCQiFJTDbOblU-oNeE7d8aKPl0t5I8H6EV9vncJ0zk-ViP-9s1zrdjmGwtxuUk/s1600/damn-whippersnappers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsIbsfAhNupdndeiizb_5MXbtwX_rZ4OSF6tkuwRGPpFNwpK5OthysFXUsqp04dGa-XUPxvOXYUwPWIfCQiFJTDbOblU-oNeE7d8aKPl0t5I8H6EV9vncJ0zk-ViP-9s1zrdjmGwtxuUk/s320/damn-whippersnappers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</li>
<li><i>Choice 2</i>: Only teach to the minority of students who are highly motivated and/or don't have jobs. This may be combined with Choice 1.</li>
<li><i>Choice 3</i>: Accept that you are powerless in the face of broad sociological trends and adapt your teaching/syllabus accordingly such that you are able to reach the average student.</li>
</ul>
I'm not going to convince you which you ought to choose. Allz imma say is that I chose 3. And immabout to explain what that choice means in practical terms.<br />
<br />
Most importantly, it means that with a few exceptions <i>you must make class time for whatever skills or knowledge you want your students to acquire</i>. Lemmi add a few details to that.<br />
<br />
There are different levels of knowing which can be sliced and diced various ways. The three broad categories I have in mind when designing my courses and lessons are: (a) Basic comprehension, (b) application, (c) theory-level. There are other ways to conceive of levels and kinds of knowing--this is simply how I do it. Let's look briefly at what each means.<br />
<br />
<b>Basic Comprehension</b>: A student has basic comprehension of a concept or argument if they can reproduce it. For example, they demonstrate basic comprehension when they can answer questions like: What does happiness mean for Aristotle? What does Locke think the purpose of government is? How does MLK distinguish between laws we should follow and those which we may permissibly break? Answering these questions doesn't require deep understanding but it demonstrates basic (superficial) knowledge of course content and themes. There is an even lower level of understanding which is recognition. This kind of "knowledge" is tested on multiple choice tests. The student needn't be able to recall or express the information on their own--only recognize it when presented to them. Pick the level you want your students to achieve and build <i>in-class</i> activities that bring them to this level. Basic comprehension is rarely the final goal; however, it's a necessary rung on the ladder to the other levels.<br />
<br />
<b>Application</b>: The next level of understanding requires that students be able to apply new concepts, arguments, or skills to novel cases. For example, I might present students with a famous literary or movie character and ask them to evaluate whether Aristotle would call this person happy. Or I might ask them to evaluate whether Locke would consider a certain political revolution or law to be justified. Or I could present them with a particular law and ask them whether MLK would recommend we follow or ignore the law. In all cases I'd require them to justify their answers by appealing to the original author, otherwise there's no way to distinguish between lucky guesses and understanding.<br />
<br />
<b>Theory-Level:</b> At the level of theory students begin to understand the various theoretical trade-offs and implications of different views. They compare theory to theory and draw logical implications of theories. This is requires a very high level of understanding and can only be reached after the first two have been firmly established. I find the best way to develop this level of knowledge is to get students to 'toggle' back and forth between theoretical frameworks. For example, I might present a case and ask them how different theories would appraise it. Then I'd ask them to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of the differing appraisals. (More on this below)<br />
<br />
Whatever level(s) I want my students to attain, I <i>must</i> create in-class activities that foster those levels of development. Why? Because, if you accepted Choice 3 above, <i>students are not going to do it (well) outside of the classroom</i>. Now, you can go back to Choice 1 and whine and complain that they should. But guess what?<br />
<br />
They. Aren't.<br />
<br />
So <i>you</i> decide. Given that most students--culpably or not--are not going to engage in deep learning outside of the classroom, what level of learning do you want them to possess by the end of the semester? Pick it and stick it into your syllabus; that is, set aside class time for developing that level of knowledge.<br />
<br />
<b>The Bottom Line</b>: The days of lecturing then sending students home with readings, exercises, and assignments is over. A student taking a full-load and working full time doesn't have time or make time to put in the deep concentration required for deep knowledge acquisition. Knowledge acquisition (all levels) must now be deliberately built into classroom activities otherwise it won't happen for most students. Stop whining and accept the new world order. Thanks, Obama.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Basics</u></b><br />
To repeat so far: All good courses begin with a firm understanding of the course objectives. You need to decide BEFORE designing the rest of your course what the students ought to be able to do and know, and the level at which they know it. This will help mitigate (but not entirely eliminate) some of the above competing trade offs you have to make. For example, if I want them to acquire a particular skill, then I have to build doing that into the syllabus. This means I'm going to reduce some of the content in order to make time for skill acquisition. To explain a bit more about how course objectives help 'set' your syllabus, I'll begin by describing common pitfalls.<br />
<br />
On the first day of class, you read through the course syllabus, skimming over the course objectives/learning outcomes section. Or maybe you even spend a little time explaining each. What happens next? With the exception of the first week, for the rest of the semester you never mention them. Then, you are shocked! shocked! I tell you! when at the end of the semester you students fail to meet these outcomes.<br />
<br />
<b>Rule #1:</b> Build in and reinforce your chosen learning outcomes. As I've said, one of my course objectives is for students to be able to interpret and argue from various <i>competing</i> positions. That is, I want them to learn how to see an issue through eyes that are not their own <i>and</i> to formulate arguments from that perspective. How to do this?<br />
<br />
First, in each lecture, anytime an issue or case is presented, I ask the class to tell me what previous authors would have said. Then I ask them how another author would respond. This can be done through group work, take-home assignments, or soliciting volunteers. It's also important to model the skill yourself so students have template. The point is, anytime a situation arises where a course objective can be realized/practiced, we do it.<br />
<br />
But here's what usually happens. Teachers fixate on getting through the material. "I can't stop anytime students have a chance to occupy different points of view, I'll never get through the material." This is what I mean by designing your course <i>from</i> the objectives. If a core objective is for students to be able to argue from competing perspectives then opportunities to do this shouldn't be interfering with a well-designed syllabus. The syllabus should be built to allow students to practice exactly this thing!!!111!!!--not just to bulldoze through a set of readings. The fact that the pace of readings "interferes" with your course objectives should tell you to go back a revise the syllabus. Begin with objectives <i>then</i> decide on number of readings.<br />
<br />
Build your objectives into the assignments and classwork. You can't just tell students "here are your objectives for the course" then magically expect them to achieve them. Where on God's green earth did someone ever acquire a new worthwhile skill without close supervision, repetition, guidance, practice, and critical feedback? It takes <i>a lot</i> to acquire a new cognitive skill. You are teaching someone to think differently. That means <i>you're fundamentally changing the way their brain operates</i>. This does not happen overnight and it certainly doesn't happen by accident.<br />
<br />
All ranting aside: You must build <i>time</i> into your syllabus for your students to practice and develop the course objectives. Like I said, it does not magically happen. So, if you want students to be able to reconstruct arguments, you must build <i>class time</i> into your syllabus to do this. Also, the fact that you build it into class time in sends a message to students that it's important--it's not just an afterthought. In the next section, I'll give more concrete suggestions on how to do this and explain why it needs to be part of class time.<br />
<br />
<b>Rule #2:</b> One of the wisest things I've ever heard comes from Paul Woodruff. In his excellent book, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-ajax-dilemma-9780199356881?cc=us&lang=en&" target="_blank">The Ajax Dilemma</a>, he says "If you want to know what an organization values, look at what it rewards." Most students will only do what they are rewarded for and they will do it in proportion to the size of the reward. So, reward them (i.e., give them points) for the things you want them to do and how much you want them to do it. Want them to do the readings <i>before</i> class? Find a way to reward that. Want them to show up to class? Find a way to reward that. Want them to improve their writing? Reward the <i>improvement</i> not just the writing (more on this below). If you don't reward something, from the point of view of students, it's just "busy work." <i>Reward the things you value for your course (which should be the course objectives)</i>.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I know students are supposed to be intrinsically motivated by the beauty of knowledge and all that nice stuff. But if we want to reach as many students as possible we need to be a bit Machiavellian or Pavlovian--pick your metaphor--in our approach. Below I will give you specific ways that I have found to be successful in rewarding the various outcomes I seek.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Holy Grail Method: How to Get Better Learning Outcomes with Less Prep-Work</u></b><br />
Where I teach, most classes meet 3 times a week for 50 minutes. If you teach a course that meets twice a week, you can modify my method by making every 3rd or 4th meeting the activity day.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Overview:</b><br />
<ol>
<li>Mondays and Wednesdays are new content (i.e., lecture).</li>
<li>Fridays are reinforcement, application, and critical appraisal.</li>
<li> 5 minute, 5 question multiple choice auto-graded online quizzes at the beginning of each <i>lecture</i> class.</li>
<li>Quizzes should involve the core elements of the reading. Lectures should answer the questions on the quiz.</li>
<li>Fridays are in-class group work.</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Each activity sheet contains three main sections: Basic comprehension, application to novel cases, theory-level questions. Ideally, the sections are related.</li>
<li>For all exams, questions are selected exclusively from the Friday work-sheets. This incentivizes effort and care in doing them.</li>
<li>Only grade 3 or 4 questions selected at random (same for all groups) for the assignment's grade. This reduces grading time but ensures members work collectively and check each other's work.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<i>Grading:</i></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><i>Reading Quizzes</i>: 25% of final grade. (lowest 3 scores are dropped)</li>
<li><i>In-class group assignments</i>: 25% of final grade.</li>
<li><i>Midterm</i>: 15% of final grade</li>
<li><i>Short paper</i>: 15% of final grade</li>
<li><i>Final paper</i>: 20% of final grade (2x10% each peer editing sheet; 20% responsiveness to peer reviewers; 60% the final version of the paper).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgV-U_kPpd8C_d_AgNzwX6AW8WqwypZQ3D7qzXHiS6ZqCJvZmIMPz151Q8hMyvYYOujUGi9a2zzr0CEGQyQ-ylSzZ3cPX0qkTtUv1wAFRi_IFEObpRabaojzrdx0ZpLVuEhfMCTexCT98/s1600/you-want-me-to-read-course-content.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="697" data-original-width="630" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgV-U_kPpd8C_d_AgNzwX6AW8WqwypZQ3D7qzXHiS6ZqCJvZmIMPz151Q8hMyvYYOujUGi9a2zzr0CEGQyQ-ylSzZ3cPX0qkTtUv1wAFRi_IFEObpRabaojzrdx0ZpLVuEhfMCTexCT98/s320/you-want-me-to-read-course-content.jpg" width="289" /></a><b>Getting your Students to Read</b>: Any way you slice it, part of a good education at any level should improve reading skills. And how do we get better at anything? We do that thing, and we do it at a level slightly beyond our existing level. The? A? problem is many students nowadays don't read. [Shakes fist in the air]. How do we get them to read? Well, what gets rewarded gets done.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of each class for which there is an assigned reading, give an <i>online</i> (i.e., auto-grading) 5-question multiple choice quiz. Make the quiz password protected (Canvas and Blackboard have this feature). Put the password up on the board when you enter the classroom. Doing this also solves attendance problems since you can only do it <i>in class</i>. You don't need to take attendance because students will show up if there are points at stake. Boom goes the dynamite.<br />
<br />
Aside: I drop the 3 lowest scores. This allows me to avoid dealing with determining the legitimacy of absences. You get 3 free low scores. I don't care if you slept in or went to the doctor. You get three. That should cover life. Don't make me play detective.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Selecting Readings and Reading Length:</b></i> Readings should be no more than about 7 pages or 3 arguments. Think about what you can cover in a class period. Can you cover more than 3 core arguments? My experience is, no. Not with any depth or discussion. So, why assign what can't be adequately covered?<br />
<br />
Also, if the reading is longer than 7 pages, <i>students won't read it</i>. Remember they have 4 other classes. If every class assigns 7 pages per class that's 50 pages of reading<i> for each class meeting</i>. That's 150 pages per week if instructors only do lectures and no activities. That's just not going to happen. Don't set your students up for failure. I try to assign about 5 pages if it's dense and 7 if it's from a non-academic source.<br />
<br />
<i>Benefits to you</i>: There's a happy upside to this. You only have to prep for 5 pages twice a week rather than for a chapter three times a week. You're welcome.<br />
<br />
<b>How to Design your Quiz: </b><br />
The quiz should not be difficult. Basically, you want it so that the average student will get 3/5 or 4/5 if they read the article. <i>We're not trying to trick the students here</i>. We're only giving them a small reward to do the reading. We are telling them, "I value you reading this article. Here's a cookie for doing it."<br />
<br />
Question 1 should always be: "What is the main point the author of the article is trying to convince us of?" The other questions should involve core sub-arguments or sub-conclusions. Stuff like,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The author gives 3 reasons in support of X. Which of the following is not one of the reasons.</blockquote>
You can also do some obvious application questions: E.g., "What would the author say about the following case:[...]"<br />
<br />
The point is that we need to reward them for the things we want them to do. We want them to read, so we reward reading. If they read the article, the quiz should be fairly easy.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Variation:</i></b> Marcus Schultz-Bergin has a nice variation. Students are allowed to have notes open for the quizzes. This incentivizes them to be active readers and take notes while doing the readings. I'm contemplating using this myself.<br />
<br />
<b>Getting Students To Pay More Attention in Lecture.</b><br />
Set the online quiz so that when they get a question wrong, the correct answer <i>isn't</i> revealed and build your lecture around the quiz questions. (And obviously ban cell phones once they've taken the quiz)<br />
Most students will have gotten at least one question wrong on the quiz. They want to know what the right answer is. So, build your lecture (in part) around the questions on the quiz. If you built the quiz out of the key arguments and points, this should be fairly simple to do. Now, your students are looking for particular information throughout the lecture.<br />
<br />
I know what you're thinking. <i>But why should they care about learning the right answer if they've already lost the points for it on the quiz? </i>Let me explain:<br />
<br />
<b>Quiz Redo</b>: At the end of the week, students have the <i>option</i> of retaking their quizzes. The score of the first attempt and second attempt are <i>averaged</i>. This way, they're still penalized if they didn't do the reading the first time around but are incentivized because they can still improve. Also, the more poorly they did the first time around, the more incentive there is for them to listen and take notes during lecture. They are <i>rewarded</i> for paying attention and improving. Message to students: I value you improving and learning--See! Here's a cookie for doing it. Motivation problem solved. Learning is happening.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Details</b>:</i> Redo quizzes are open from Friday after class until Saturday evening. I don't allow the redo immediately after the first attempt because I want them to have to go back to their notes. This will better reinforce the information. I don't extend the redo time to Sunday because I don't want the quiz -taking to interfere with them doing the reading due Monday. Boom.<br />
<br />
<b>Activity Fridays</b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuSBf6O7cDYbS59zB0qZLDU0agTv_9tRz3Pqyxl44miFQ_DGE-rEJ7oVclR2o5xXVtRyZzddREjm0i6A1-UxUoBsnYUonz0-er2NQBAkZD89tRs6IVlgZiuBVwKAjhkVsiWp0dLK12pX4/s1600/y-u-no-know.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuSBf6O7cDYbS59zB0qZLDU0agTv_9tRz3Pqyxl44miFQ_DGE-rEJ7oVclR2o5xXVtRyZzddREjm0i6A1-UxUoBsnYUonz0-er2NQBAkZD89tRs6IVlgZiuBVwKAjhkVsiWp0dLK12pX4/s320/y-u-no-know.jpg" width="320" /></a>Imagine a world where you're told to read an article then you receive a lecture on it, never to hear about it again until six weeks later when you're asked to explain some ideas in that article from memory. Add to this that you have to do this for six weeks of other readings in five other classes. Gee, I wonder why students don't do well on exams. Then, a few months later at the end of the semester you're asked to write a paper that incorporates many of the ideas from the entire course. Your teacher is shocked and dismayed when you can't do this.<br />
<br />
<br />
What do we want our students to do? Learn the content. Learn to apply the content. Learn the theoretical implications and trade-offs of the content. When in the above process did they do this? Answer: <i>Nowhere</i>.<br />
<br />
Let's fix it.<br />
<br />
Every Friday (or every 3rd period--you choose) I have students do activity sheets. The sheets are divided into three sections. As you might have surmised, the sections are: Basic content questions, application questions, and theory-level questions. Most groups create a group google-doc. The assignments are short enough that the average group should be able to do 80% of it in class and the fastest group should finish in class. However, it isn't due until the day <i>after</i> the next lecture (i.e., Tuesday at 5pm in my case). This way there's ample opportunity to polish. And--let's be honest--I ain't grading it until the following weekend anyway.<br />
<br />
<i>Fact</i>: Most group-work is a dismal failure if it's assigned for outside class time. This has remedies but they're fairly involved so I'll set them aside. Besides, the purpose of the weekly group activities is fairly circumscribed so having them do most of it in-class works best. Also, I'm there to give immediate feedback and assistance if they're struggling or just need confirmation.<br />
<br />
Here's a problem of group work that arises regardless of whether it's in or out of class: Some members do better work than others. If members are graded as a group, the students who did better work get penalized by the bad work. This is compounded by another problem: Students usually parcel out work for group work, so no one learns the content from questions they didn't do.<br />
<br />
<i>Solution</i>:<br />
Tell the students, "I will pick 3 (or 4) questions at random to grade. Your score on those questions determines the group's grade on the assignment." Now, rather than each student working on their own questions and failing to learn/reinforce the content of the other questions, students have an incentive to at least work in pairs and check each other's work. [Previously I graded the entire assignment but I'm going to switch to this method]. Because they don't know which questions I'm going to grade, students are motivated to do well on all the questions and check each others work.<br />
<br />
<i>Benefit to YOU:</i> Not only do you avoid grading a bunch of individual assignments but you also don't have to grade all of each group assignment. Onerous grading averted. You're welcome.<br />
<br />
<b>How to Get Students to Perform Better on Exams</b><br />
Ok, I've just explained how we achieve and reinforce the various levels of learning. What about this exam stuff? The midterm exam will be composed <i>exclusively</i> of questions from group-work assignments. Now they have yet another incentive to carefully answer the questions.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNDMY2INydKTHBD0ORZE6IBKrONncuGL7Nwefd4p6wqBmfwddoZEokAR7TrISzYhhXNUyF6ICcrW8SytgUVCb_cn0jUNppiB0QuKvBFZ6zFcITy8fsNdaS0pKKs7DaXRNZTXzYhRbOMns/s1600/students-learn-more-and-i-do-less.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNDMY2INydKTHBD0ORZE6IBKrONncuGL7Nwefd4p6wqBmfwddoZEokAR7TrISzYhhXNUyF6ICcrW8SytgUVCb_cn0jUNppiB0QuKvBFZ6zFcITy8fsNdaS0pKKs7DaXRNZTXzYhRbOMns/s320/students-learn-more-and-i-do-less.jpg" width="320" /></a><i>Benefits To You</i>: You don't have to come up with all-new midterm questions. Just select from the ones you already have on the sheets. Besides, everything you want them to be able to know and do should be on those sheets.<br />
<br />
But here's the biggest benefit. In the old school method you had to prepare 3 lectures a week. That's a pretty big time suck especially if it's a class you haven't taught before. Now you're only prepping 2 lectures a week. You just cut prep time by 1/3 over the course of a semester.<br />
<br />
I know what you're probably thinking. "Well, yeah, it's one less lecture but I <i>still</i> have to make the activity sheet." Yes and no. You do have to make it BUT <i>you build the activity sheet as you're making each lecture</i>--not on a separate occasion. So, on Sunday night as I'm making my Monday lecture, I'm also writing down questions I want the students to internalize <i>based on the lecture I'm going to give</i>! For example, if in my lecture I'm covering Aristotle's definition of happiness then I go into the activity sheet and guess what question I write? [<i>Whisper</i>: Explain Aristotle's definition of happiness]. Then in the application section I'll present a case and ask whether Aristotle would consider such and such a person to be happy. Next comes theory...I might ask them to contrast or defend Aristotle's view against a hedonist view we covered earlier in the course. I repeat this process for Wednesday's lecture.<br />
<br />
When Friday comes around, the activity sheet is already complete because I made it Sunday and Tuesday night as I was building my lectures. Now instead of making yet another lecture and grinding yourself into exhaustion, you can drink yourself into a stupor or do whatever it is you like to do on your nights off. You're welcome.<br />
<br />
<b>More on Exams</b><br />
I think of exams as a test of my teaching, not of my students' learning. If I structured the course well, lectured clearly, allowed them to interact with the content sufficiently and in various ways, gave the right incentives, gave them a reason to care about the content, then the majority of my students should do well. If they didn't do well then <i>I</i> need to change some things. If I've done my job, the class average should be a B.<br />
<br />
If that sounds high consider what's happened in the course leading up to the midterm:<br />
<ul>
<li>They've actually read the material, </li>
<li>They've gotten feedback on how well they initially understood the material (i.e., the first quiz),</li>
<li>They've had a lecture on the material where any misunderstandings can be clarified,</li>
<li>They've worked collaboratively with others to ensure that they can comprehend the content, apply it, and understand the relative theoretical implications and trade-offs,</li>
<li>They've had an opportunity to improve on their previous quiz and <i>are rewarded for it</i>; i.e., via the redo quiz they reread their notes and group assignment answers <i>and</i> they get <i>more</i> feedback on how well they understand it.</li>
<li>They get feedback on their group work.</li>
<li>They get a review session where they can clarify any uncertainties. (i.e., they interact with the content for the SEVENTH time.)</li>
<li>They study the assignment sheets in preparation for the exam (that's EIGHT times).</li>
<li>They take the exam.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Again, if I did my job right, a student would have to make a concerted effort to get anything below a B. They would have to willfully ignore everything that's happened in and out of class. (Yes, there are such students but they are a small minority.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here I have given you the blueprint for student success without overburdening yourself with grading and class-prep time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>My Studints Dont Rite Good and Reading There Riting Makes me Want to Stab my Eyeballs with Hot Needles</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtcz8yyqffkeMlVyHQ-Uku80jxf_x0pW7ZTGufhmQIEbkI025glDsGuklXUtFoDlYioeScqkucnF6xttlUwI0n6UU-65RiO5tDkH8t0Rvpn5PSi46zkhkpsHDXfah3SerTzGmLLh1fzc/s1600/ask-students-to-please-proof-read-3-errors-in-essay-title-alone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1355" data-original-width="1500" height="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtcz8yyqffkeMlVyHQ-Uku80jxf_x0pW7ZTGufhmQIEbkI025glDsGuklXUtFoDlYioeScqkucnF6xttlUwI0n6UU-65RiO5tDkH8t0Rvpn5PSi46zkhkpsHDXfah3SerTzGmLLh1fzc/s320/ask-students-to-please-proof-read-3-errors-in-essay-title-alone.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
I'll elaborate more in a future post but here are the basics:</div>
<br />
After the midterm I assign and grade a short paper (3 pages) with extensive feedback. This gives students a feel for how I grade and what I'm looking for (and of course I've also told them this when I assigned the paper). For all other papers there is peer editing (I only assign one more longer one). For their term paper I give them about 10 days to write the best paper they can. It's due 10 days to two weeks before the final version is due. I emphasize that it must be what they consider to be a finished version--not something thrown together the night before. I have them bring two printed copies and we do an in-class peer editing session.<br />
<br />
Each student must edit 2 papers (meaning each paper is edited by two students). We do it on a Friday. Half of the time is allotted for each paper and what isn't finished is due on Monday in class. I've created a fairly extensive peer editing sheet. It should take around an hour for each paper. Their peer editing is worth 20% of their final paper grade (10% for each one) AND 20% of their final paper grade is how well they respond to each peer reviewer. Since they have motivation to edit each other well AND respond to the suggestions, the results have been great. What gets rewarded gets done. You can't tell them to invest a lot of time and effort into doing a peer edit then not count it for anything. Similarly, we can't expect them to respond to peer editing if there's no value in it for them. "I think it's valuable to respond to your peer editors. See! Here's a cookie for doing it."<br />
<br />
Again, we want student to get <i>better</i> at writing. But <i>you can't get better at anything unless you have a chance to learn from and correct your mistakes</i>. If you simply ask students to turn in a paper at the end of the semester, when did they get to learn how to write better? Where was the opportunity for improvement? Most students just look at the final grade on their paper and that's as far as it goes. Responding to peer editing <i>and rewarding it </i>provides the opportunity to improve, and that's what we should be aiming for.<br />
<br />
Also, as most of us know, weaknesses in own reasoning and writing are often invisible to ourselves--otherwise we wouldn't have made them public in the first place! Peer review allows us to recognize our own errors and weaknesses in the work of others. When we come back to our own work, we are better able see the once-invisible problems. Through peer editing we become better writers because we learn to edit ourselves.<br />
<br />
If you'd like, here's a copy of my <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/p/peer-editing-sheet.html" target="_blank">peer editing sheet</a> to use or modify.<br />
<br />
<b><u>An Objection</u></b><br />
I want to address just one of many possible to criticisms of my method. By using carrots and sticks I'm not teaching them the intrinsic value of reading, learning, knowledge, writing, etc... I'm only reinforcing what they've long been taught: That education and learning are primarily valued for extrinsic reasons.<br />
<br />
This is where YOU come. The passion you bring to the classroom, the ways in which you tie the content to their lives and concerns, the encouragement you give, and the readings you select will all contribute to this end. Not all material speaks for itself for everyone.<br />
<br />
I think it's unrealistic to think that most students will be purely intrinsically motivated from the start--especially if the course isn't an elective for them. But there's no reason why we can't have both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Some might only respond to the extrinsic motives. Fine. But my experience has been that if we can just get them to do the reading, students will start to appreciate the intrinsic value of the content. If I need to use extrinsic motives to get there, so be it.<br />
<br />
This is not to say there aren't legitimate worries of extrinsic motives for education crowding out or corrupting the intrinsic ones (<i>See:</i> Michael Sandel). Maybe I'm just being pragmatic. Wait. No. I'm not. I'm also an idealist. I really do believe that if I can just get a little bit of engagement, most students will come to see the intrinsic value too. Anyone in this line of work <i>has to</i> believe that what they're teaching has intrinsic value. Also, it's possible that students do sometimes see the intrinsic value of a class but for pragmatic reasons, they don't do the work. They've got a life and concerns outside of school, just like us.<br />
<br />
We must fight fire with fire--or pragmatism with pragmatism. If it's pragmatic reasons (e.g., a part-time job) that prevent a student from acting on what they perceive as the intrinsic worth of doing a reading or thinking about their paper then I'm going to give them pragmatic reasons to counter those obstructing pragmatic reasons: "Federalist #10 is one of the greatest American political documents you'll ever read. It'll change how you think about democracy and about your government."<br />
<br />
Still not enough to get you to read it? Ok.<br />
<br />
"Here's a cookie for reading it."<br />
<br />
Hey, teach! This is good shit!<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-71909589608628706042018-03-16T20:43:00.000-07:002018-04-08T10:26:02.060-07:00Identity, Truth, and Stoicism in the Face of Crumbling Norms of Civil Discourse <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipT7Z4gjUzBdyBrF08laBEnTxrOU2dfJASOy7jW0MmolqIFyJWOZizJjkYfjIa0-W7n7JKhtG6AjCuEPbqBqByfJdVE7U88oz4bnfsHaIkWIsZisAtfnQbqDLCveW-zpfmQbHkeW671EM/s1600/y-u-no-agree-with-me.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="1280" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipT7Z4gjUzBdyBrF08laBEnTxrOU2dfJASOy7jW0MmolqIFyJWOZizJjkYfjIa0-W7n7JKhtG6AjCuEPbqBqByfJdVE7U88oz4bnfsHaIkWIsZisAtfnQbqDLCveW-zpfmQbHkeW671EM/s320/y-u-no-agree-with-me.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Introduction</span></u></b><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Yo. Check it. You can't have a functioning democracy without at least two things: a concern for truth and civil discourse. Although perhaps too obvious to state, democracy requires citizens have a concern for truth. Without it, policy will be ineffective at best. Y'see, in (many conceptions) of democracy, policy represents, to some degree, the will of the people. If "the people" are more concerned with short-term political one-up-manship rather than quality of evidence and argument, a country will be governed by policy disconnected from the best evidence and arguments.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">A political community often contains an assortment of views on the same issues. While some differing views might each partake in some aspect of the truth, there's no reason to suppose all will. I know this will come as a shock to some of you, but some beliefs just are false. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Let's assume</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> it's better to get everyone to buy into a policy or view than it is to </span><i style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">force</i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> it onto a segment of the population. </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If each is equally convinced of their own 'rightness', how do we not only reach agreement but also lead those holding objectively false views into the light of reason--without outright coercion? That is, how do we get people with false beliefs to change their minds and endorse the policy based on the best evidence?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Think about how it is <i>you</i> discarded previously held views that turned out to be false. Did your change of mind occur by someone shouting at you and calling you an idiot? Did it arise after being ignored? After being mocked? My guess is probably not. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">While not the only means of effecting doxastic change, engaging in <i>respectful</i> discourse probably increases the odds. It also helps when people present compelling arguments, counter-arguments, and evidence. In other words, tone, attitude, and content <i>all</i> matter for changing people's minds. I'll call this loose cluster of methods and attitudes, the <i>norms of civil discourse</i>. [Note: There's a fair amount of philosophical literature on the exact content of the norms of civil discourse. For my purposes, a broad intuitive account is sufficient].</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In this post, I want to explore the ethical dimensions of belief, and how the various things we cling to sabotage our path to truth and civil discourse. By drawing on Stoic ideas, I’m going to suggest we all have within us the resources to reconcile the competing passions that have lead to the current breakdown in civil discourse and its corrosive effects on good policy-making. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Setting the Stage</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In perhaps one of the <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-07163-001" target="_blank">best known psychological studies of the 20th century</a>, subjects are asked to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. As they do so, they receive feedback on how well they are able to make the distinction. He's the twist (one of them, anyway): The feedback they receive has nothing to do with their performance. It's all a sham. Before they even began the task, experimenters had randomly <i>pre-sorted</i> the subjects into three groups: Those that will be told they are excellent, average, or below average. To summarize, <i>experimenter feedback is predetermined regardless of how subjects perform and has no relation to subject performance</i>. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the next phase of experiment, the fact of the predetermined feedback is revealed to the subjects. That is, the subject are told that the feedback was totally unrelated to their task performance. Subjects are then asked to self-assess their ability to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Of the 20 assigned to the ‘good-guesser’ group, how many do you think <i>changed</i> their self-assessment after the predetermined nature of the experiment was revealed to them? E.g., how many people who were told they were good-guessers evaluated themselves as average or below average? Keep that number in your head. Now, of the 20 who were told they were bad guessers, how many do you think <i>changed</i> their self-assessment after the reveal?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Now that you have those two numbers in your head, I’m going to give you a choice. I can tell you the real numbers from the study, or I can invent some fake numbers to tell you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Which do you prefer that I do?</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkOqFa0PCVQtJLhdf_DzyhxvDAvVns3uIuXlt44GH1hNFgWDbnKOWlSQeglmbgjyisCKTa8kPkcVPk3DA7ImSefSYtStVcnyW37BChe5e5hj_5o6VfYLvadhwJqzo2i_ItaOzL5XbRCo0/s1600/what-if-i-told-you-fake-news.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="302" data-original-width="334" height="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkOqFa0PCVQtJLhdf_DzyhxvDAvVns3uIuXlt44GH1hNFgWDbnKOWlSQeglmbgjyisCKTa8kPkcVPk3DA7ImSefSYtStVcnyW37BChe5e5hj_5o6VfYLvadhwJqzo2i_ItaOzL5XbRCo0/s320/what-if-i-told-you-fake-news.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I’ll reveal the real numbers in a moment but I want to make my first claim which is central to Stoic philosophy (it actually comes from Plato but the Stoics adopted it...): <i>Every soul is deprived of the truth against its will</i>. By this, the Stoics mean that<i> it is human nature to want truth and knowledge</i>. We have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge. If we have false beliefs, it is only because we have been mislead or we have not yet been taught.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When I asked you whether you wanted me to tell you the true numbers or fake numbers for the study, you very likely wanted the true ones. I’m even willing to go so far as to say that you felt pulled to know the truth. And if I’d given you the fake ones, you’d have probably been upset with me. Human beings have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge. You just experienced it yourself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Not so fast though. What is the content of the study that you want to know the truth about? After debriefing, only <i>three</i> of the 20 subjects who had been told they were good guessers didn’t continue to believe that they were above average! Of the 20 who had been told they were below average, only <i>three</i> of them revised their beliefs about their abilities too! (For anyone familiar with all the p-hacking issues in psychology, this effect size isn’t one that can be waived away.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I just finished telling you that a drive for truth and knowledge is intrinsic to human nature. But here we have a well-designed and multiply replicated study in which subjects were given the truth yet refused to take it into account in revising their self-conception. Their self-assessments were completely impervious to countervailing evidence. </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Only 15% of subjects in each group responded to evidence that undermined a prior belief.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What gives? Well, an affinity for truth isn’t the only component of human nature. As Aristotle observed, we are by nature social and political animals. In other words, we have an intrinsic affinity for being part of a group. Being part of a group requires two things: First, that we share the cluster of beliefs, behaviors, and values particular to the group of which we are a member. Second, that others see us as sharing those beliefs, behaviors, and values.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Let’s return to the study. Why didn’t the subjects merely accept the truth of what the experimenters were telling them and revise their self-assessments accordingly? To quote the study:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It is proposed that personal impressions and social perceptions become relatively autonomous from the evidence that created them. As a result, subsequent challenges to that evidence, and hence to the impression it fostered, will have surprisingly little impact— far less impact than would be demanded by any logical or rational impression-formation model. (<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-07163-001" target="_blank">Ross, Lepper, and Hubbard, 1975</a>)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In other words, subjects began to self-identify and see others as identifying <i>them</i> as members of particular groups—‘good guessers’ or ‘bad guessers’. To generalize, when you challenge someone’s beliefs, you are not only challenging beliefs but their <i>identity</i>. In order for people to relinquish beliefs <i>tied to their identity</i> they must also change their identity. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">But that’s not even the most difficult part: They have to surrender their membership in a group. Groups are defined, in part, by their beliefs. If you no longer share the same core beliefs as that group, not only can you not self-identify as a member but the other members can no longer identify you as a member. When a group identity is central to someone’s life—like a political or religious group—you best believe they’re going to reject evidence before they compromise the relationships that imbue their lives with meaning.</span><br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Stoicism, Truth, and Civil Discourse</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I began by telling you that we have an intrinsic affinity for truth and knowledge but even if you hadn’t read about the above study, that claim is on the face of it worthy of ridicule. Everything we’ve witnessed in the the current political climate undermines it. Now we have an explanation: Another intrinsic human drive—belonging to and preserving identity and group membership—completely sabotages our natural affinity for truth.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I’m going to argue for two solutions that come out of ancient Stoic thought. Stoic thought can be boiled down to two practices: </span></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Discover what is necessarily true of the world and </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Determine what is and is not in your power to do about it. </span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Below I'll suggest what I take to be three facts about the world and then I’ll suggest what you can do about them. The first applies to how we self-identify and the second applies to how we conceive of others. The third, to how we handle our political environment.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact 1 About the World</b>: If you self-identify <i>primarily</i> in terms of a group that is defined by particular beliefs you <i>will</i> sabotage your path to truth.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">On it’s own, merely being a social animal doesn’t undermine our affinity for truth. It’s the <i>nature</i> of the particular groups with which we identify that do. People ARE interested in truth but only so long as personal identity and group membership aren't threatened. From the individual point of view, this means that individually we can be part of the solution to civil discord if we reconceptualize or, at least, <i>re-order </i>our identity. Instead of <i>primarily</i> self-conceiving as a member of a particular political group, I can self-identify as a member of the group "rational animal." </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What are the values and behaviors of members of the group "rational animal"? Good reasoning and a concern for truth. In other words, self-conceiving in this way pulls us away from a conclusion-based identity and towards a <i>process</i>-based identity. A reasoner examines the strength of reasons (evidence and claims) and the logical relationships between reasons and conclusions. 'Rational animals' are primarily concerned with quality and method of justification for beliefs rather than dogmatically clinging to and defending particular beliefs.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Importantly, when we identify primarily as rational animals, it shifts our disposition towards others: First, we more likely come to view those with whom we disagree as <i>partners</i> rather than adversaries in the shared enterprise of pursuing truth. We become more calm and charitable because we want to <i>learn</i> rather than <i>impose</i> or defend a view. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Our concern for the process of justification--i.e., <i>why</i> someone believes something--helps us become better listeners since we can only evaluate justifications if we listen carefully. Not only are <i>we</i> better off for being better listeners, but we likely diffuse much of our interlocutors' animosity when we present ourselves as genuinely interested in why they hold certain beliefs. In short, we begin to turn down the dial on the reactive emotions and attitudes that have rendered political discourse so intractable. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Epistemic Humility</b>: We ought to always take seriously the possibility that our current view is mistaken. Self-conceiving primarily as a rational animal makes it easier to change our views in the face of new or better evidence and arguments. Consider for a moment how many beliefs about the world you hold. There are probably an almost infinite number. Now consider all the other people in your country. How likely is it that there are more than a handful that share </span><i style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">each one</i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> of your millions of beliefs? The odds are staggeringly small. Now consider the millions of people with whom you don't overlap on at least some beliefs. What are the odds that YOU, in the face of widespread disagreement, are the only one in the country that holds all the true beliefs about the world? </span></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXqjfKfOUOgZRePwXb0ZSauuJ9iW7bxyRStMdu2fwYznArC2xOr1oeEiTIlXbE6YN5ymHCzF_MK_F9YcoAFdpGuPYlZ7Z5bsz9P6iip1OzQxkwaDnyArAYWL-cpt9kVaz2l522P9uzcOE/s1600/i-haz-all-the-true-beliefs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXqjfKfOUOgZRePwXb0ZSauuJ9iW7bxyRStMdu2fwYznArC2xOr1oeEiTIlXbE6YN5ymHCzF_MK_F9YcoAFdpGuPYlZ7Z5bsz9P6iip1OzQxkwaDnyArAYWL-cpt9kVaz2l522P9uzcOE/s320/i-haz-all-the-true-beliefs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As someone who primarily identifies as a reasoning being, you are not wedded to any particular conclusion but to <i>standards of evidence and a process</i>. So, your views can more easy be responsive to new or better evidence and arguments.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Fact 2 About the World: Conceiving of our Political Others as Evil or Idiots or Both is a Poor Strategy for Changing Minds</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Stoic thought offers us insight in how we ought to conceive of others if we hope to mitigate the culture war and our own emotional outbursts that obstruct the pathway to truth. I argue we ought to adopt the Stoic teaching to act <i>as though</i> "every soul is deprived of the truth against its will." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There are two ideas contained here. First, humans have an affinity for truth (despite the fact that other variables interfere with its attainment); and second, as members of the human species, we are 'rational animals'--which implies we are all sensitive to reasons and arguments (although, perhaps to varying degrees).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Here is Epictetus counseling</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> his student on how to handle someone with an obviously false and harmful view:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Student: Yes, but she is in error.</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Epictetus: Well, act on her idea. As long as you don't lay it out for her, though, she has nothing besides her own idea of right and wrong to guide her. So don't get angry at [her] for being confused about what's most important, and accordingly mutating from human to snake. (Discourse I. 26)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Marcus Aurelius had similar thoughts in this somewhat amusing example:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Are you angry with him whose armpits stink? Are you angry with him whose mouth smells foul? What good will this anger do you? He has such a mouth. He has such armpits: It is necessary that such an emanation come from such things--but the man has reason, it will be said, and he is able if he takes pains, to discover wherein he offends. Well then, and you, too, have reason: by your rational faculty stir him up his rational faculty; show him his error [...]. (Meditations Bk V. 28)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">And here is more of the same from Epictetus again:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Well, when a guide meets up with someone who is lost, ordinarily his reaction is to direct him on the right path, not mock or malign him, then turn on heel and walk away. As for you, lead someone to the truth and you will find that he can follow. But as long as you don't point it out to him, don't make fun of him; be aware of what <i>you</i> need to work on instead. (Discourse II. 11. 3-4)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Think of it this way. When a student reasons incorrectly on a math problem, we don't get angry with them. We assume they genuinely wanted to get the question right: They aimed for truth not falsity. No one would think it reasonable to yell and get emotionally upset because of the student's error. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/InlQvTqgdMM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/InlQvTqgdMM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Instead, as a teacher or peer, we adopt a compassionate disposition and work through that student's reasoning process to help discover where they erred. I submit that reconceiving of our cultural and political *others* as truth-seekers--inadvertently making errors in judgment <i>in good faith</i>--will dispose us to be more kind and dial down our own animus both of which opens the door for civil discourse. [All the while we should adopt a stance of epistemic humility; i.e., we should continue to take seriously the possibility that our own view is mistaken <i>unless</i> it aligns with a consensus of relevant experts. Then more confidence is warranted.]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I can hear some of you, including my past-self, mocking this idea:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"This is lunacy. Have you ever read the comments section of an article on vaccines, climate science, GMOs, Trump, Obama, etc...? There is no way these people are even remotely deprived of the truth against their will. Their ignorance is <i>entirely</i> willful."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This may be true for what I call the 'true believers' but I don't think it's true of the vast majority of people. There's selection bias in the comments sections of the internet. Those with the most extreme views and loudest voices are going to be disproportionately represented. Let's not make the mistake in believing those holding extreme views and attitudes are representative of all with whom we disagree. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I think the vast majority of people are responsive to argument and evidence <i>when its presented in a way that doesn't immediately threaten their identity or make them out to insufferable morons</i>. Treating people as though they are genuinely concerned with truth raises the odds that they will be open to evidence and argument. And even if agreement isn't reached, we can all count as a win the gain in civility.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Final Fact: You Can't Outrun Disagreement</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In closing, I want to dispense (draw on?) some wisdom from an American philosopher. In Fed #10, James Madison is trying to solve what is called The Republican Dilemma: How do we give power to the people but at the same time avoid the tyranny of the majority; i.e., avoid a large faction from ganging up and trampling the rights of a minority group. Part of his answer involves arguing against Rousseau. Rousseau's solution revolves around ensuring that political communities have relatively homogenous values, interests, levels of wealth, and ways of living. If everyone is in the same 'faction', the worry of some factions suppressing others is mitigated. Madison rejects Rousseau's view on the grounds that it is human nature for factions to form. He says</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. <i>So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts</i>. (My italics for emphasis)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Here is the insight: <i>We can’t outrun disagreement</i>. So long as people have different talents, values, and interests as well as the liberty to pursue them, we will disagree with each other. Even in our own families we must live with and get along with people with whom we deeply disagree. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Again, we can appeal to the Stoics' useful advice: Figure out what is necessarily true of the world then determine what is and is not in your power to do about it. Knowing that you will never outrun disagreement with people with whom you must live, <i>you</i> must determine how to respond to it. They ain't going nowherez and neither are you. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Are you going to <i>demand</i> that everyone believe what you believe? Are you going to get whipped up into an emotional frenzy with every dissenting view? Are you going to treat each person with whom you disagree as though they are idiots? This path is exhausting and yields no fruit. Trust me. I've tried it. I've tried it a lot.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To summarize, I instead suggest the following: (a) avoid identifying primarily as a member of a group defined by particular beliefs; (b) Identify primarily as a member of the group of people concerned with the <i>process</i> and standards of justification for beliefs rather than with conclusions; (c) take seriously the possibility that you could be wrong, particularly if you aren't an expert and your view conflicts with a consensus of experts; (d) engage with others <i>as though</i> they are deprived of the truth against their will; (d) avoid the temptation of identifying the loudest and most obnoxious as representative of a group (availability bias, sampling bias--for those keeping track!).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Drawing on Kant and Rawls and every major wisdom tradition, there's perhaps an even simpler way to think about the problem of disagreement and the norms of civil discourse: Employ the principle of reciprocity. How would I like to be treated by those with whom I disagree? You may be tempted to reply, "Ya, but...<i>they</i> aren't very nice to <i>me</i>!" Ok. But barring some special cases, do you increase or decrease the likelihood of persuading them to your view when you adopt acerbic strategies? I mean, what are you even trying to achieve in engaging? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">And what about the state of civil discourse? We are all all responsible for the tone of discourse within our purview--regardless of what others do. That is in <i>our</i> respective control. Nothing I can do will guarantee someone's civility towards me, but this doesn't mean I can't affect the probabilities one way or the other.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b><u>Jefferson and Adams: A Beautiful Bromance </u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>A Case Study In Civil Disagreement</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If there ever was a model for the kind of civil dialogue I'm talking about, it can be found in the friendship and correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">These two life-time friends and political adversaries wrote letters almost daily to each other despite </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">fundamental political disagreement. They weren't perfect though: After Jefferson won the presidency (against Adams, the incumbent!) they didn't write to each other for 13 years. However, once the ice thawed, they resumed their regular correspondence in which they regularly disagreed, until both their deaths in 1826. (Crazy history note that boggles my mind: The two friends died only 5 hours apart. Adams' last words were 'Jefferson still lives'. But that's not all. They died on July 4th) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is lengthy exchange of letters between the two in 1813--the year they had renewed their friendship. The topic concerned equality and how to ensure that the 'pseudo-aristocracy' (i.e., those whose status and power are a consequence of wealth and birth--not virtue, talent, and wisdom) don't hijack government to their ends. Before addressing Adams' view, Jefferson writes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">On the question of which is the best provision, you and I differ, but we differ as <i>rational friends</i>, using the free <i>exercise of our own reason</i>, and <i>mutually indulging in its errors</i>. [my italics]</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Notice a few things: The appeal to the values of friendship; that is, they can disagree on fundamental matters while maintaining mutual respect and while avoiding animosity. The value of the relationship and civility supersede any outcome. Also important is the acknowledgment and mutual conception of <i>both</i> as appealing to reason while also admitting their <i>mutual</i> fallibility<i>--</i>even under optimal conditions. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Later, after presenting his arguments against Adams' view, Jefferson writes,</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It is probable that our disagreement of opinion may, in some measure, be produced by a difference in character in those among whom we live.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Here, Jefferson importantly acknowledges the more general point that different life experiences shape our respective assumptions about the world. We cannot expect those who haven't lived our lives, met the people we've met, or shared the various circumstances that we have to hold the same views as us. Each of us experiences only a very minute subset of the human experience. And if our experiences shape our beliefs about the world, <i>of course</i> we will have different beliefs about the world, human nature, institutions, and so on... (<i>Caveat</i>: Relativism and infallibility don't follow--people can still be wrong).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Disagreement produced by differing life experiences has implications for our basic assumptions about the world. From the point of view of the norms of civil discourse, Jefferson's comments underscore the importance of mutually recognizing and acknowledging in one another the possible effects of our different experiences. I would venture that it is the failure of acknowledgement and consideration of differing experiences which draws out the reactive emotions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Finally, in closing the letter Jefferson writes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I have thus stated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view to controversy, for we are both too old to change opinions which are the result of a long life of inquiry and reflection: but on the suggestions of a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The take-away here is that we needn't always agree. Sometimes agreement isn't forthcoming. However, given that we cannot outrun disagreement, what matters <i>at least as much</i> as reaching resolutions is <i>how</i> we engage with each other. Also, on matters where we do disagree deeply, there is an obligation to explain to others our reasons for the views we hold. That is, we must be willing to submit our own justificatory reasons to rational scrutiny. We can't simply demand that others agree with us.</span><br />
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Closing Thoughts</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I study ethics and political philosophy. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in my research over the last couple of years. Every time I come up with what I think is a good idea, a voice in my head goes, “Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t my parents tell me this when I was, like, five?” And I don’t think much of what I’ve said here is any different. Nevertheless, that fact that so many, including myself, forget to employ these common sense ideas testifies to the value of their reminder. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Additional note regarding self and group identity in terms of beliefs</b>: I think there's an important distinction to be made between how we treat identity made up of empirical beliefs (observable facts about the world) vs identity made up of normative (i.e., value) beliefs. Without going into a lot of detail, I think there are good reasons for people to hold on more tightly to the value-based beliefs that form their identity. But I think we ought not hold on so tightly to an identity constituted by empirical beliefs. Doing so forces us into a position where we might have to deny a scientific consensus (think vaccine-safety denier, flat-earther, creationist, global warming deniers, etc...). This not only forces us to adopt dishonest strategies to maintain our beliefs and to dismiss legitimate argument and evidence but it undermines the important political role of empirical experts in forming policy. In clinging to empirical beliefs, as non-experts we apportion an inappropriate amount of credence to our own beliefs <i>relative to </i>those of a consensus of experts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What I have said applies to the vast majority of disagreement. However, there are special cases where I'm not convinced such a conciliatory attitude is appropriate. Most obviously, this applies to how we deal with overt neo-Nazis deliberately intimidating the well-being of others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b>Whataboutyou?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Finally, before I'm inundated with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque" target="_blank">tu quoque</a>s, let me make the following brief comment. We can acknowledge all I have said above and also agree that there is a time and place in discourse for humor, rhetoric, satire, and sarcasm. In fact, they are what can make political discourse fun--especially when done tastefully and between friends. Furthermore, in some contexts, humor and satire have shown to be effective means of persuasion (google it yourself--there's a lot of literature!). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Finally, with respect to my failings, the Stoics present their virtues as aspirational; i.e., they recognize the human propensity to screw up sometimes despite knowing better. Nevertheless, they give us a target at which to aim as we bumble through life. I have screwed up and continue to screw up a lot in terms of acting on these norms of civil discourse but I'm working daily on hitting the target more than missing it.</span></div>
</div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #333333; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-45503523834776113672018-01-05T22:03:00.000-08:002018-07-09T15:07:09.363-07:00Why Do Something Rather than Nothing? A Stoic Puzzle<div class="p1">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCqov2emt3YFLm0uYfPbr7ZlBjM1U3O6-ONrouoo7pqBcUaN6pZU3mAIq1q1nGhxaZkDAgK6OkWTGXpY-BfADFn-7Eu0Z3eIZffL9Zw5ywk1AZckYQulr1Mhvsh1CW959W6QxzGfqGJwA/s1600/if-nothing-has-value-theres-no-reason-to-do-anything.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="500" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCqov2emt3YFLm0uYfPbr7ZlBjM1U3O6-ONrouoo7pqBcUaN6pZU3mAIq1q1nGhxaZkDAgK6OkWTGXpY-BfADFn-7Eu0Z3eIZffL9Zw5ywk1AZckYQulr1Mhvsh1CW959W6QxzGfqGJwA/s400/if-nothing-has-value-theres-no-reason-to-do-anything.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></b></span>
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></b></span>
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></b></span>
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Introduction</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">The first question of philosophy is, How should I live my life? For the Ancient Greeks, the answer was to live a good life. A trivial answer to be sure until we ask further, What is a <i>good</i> life? Or to rephrase it, what makes a good life <i>good</i>? Answers varied from school to school but for just about all of them a good life consists primarily in developing the virtues—both moral and intellectual.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">From our modern perspective it’s perhaps odd to conceive of a good life <i>primarily</i> in terms of moral and intellectual development. For many people ‘living well’ and moral development aren’t <i>necessarily</i> connected. For the Greeks, however, they were intimately connected: You simply cannot have a good life without developing the virtues.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">One prominent school, the Stoics, place the virtues at the absolute center of their philosophy of the good life. They believed that a life dedicated to developing the virtues was not only necessary for a good life but also sufficient. That is, a good life isn't possible with out the virtues and a good life requires no other thing. In this post I’m going to discuss their philosophy of living well along with an apparent puzzle that arises out of their view.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">I’m choosing Stoicism because over the last 8 months, as an experiment, I’ve been trying to live according to Stoic principles. For a variety of reasons, I’ve decided to follow Stoic teachings to see how the quality of my life changes. Since at least my early twenties I’ve “tried on” various philosophies in search of a life well-lived. I doubt I’m the only one conducting these sorts of experiment.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the personal angle, I hope to avoid navel-gazing and stick to the philosophy. However, I do want to briefly mention that by living according to Stoic teachings, the quality of my life has changed dramatically—in the “good” direction. I’m still puzzling through parts of it and I’m not on board with many of their metaphysical beliefs but if you’re looking for a time-tested way to improve the quality of your life, I strongly recommend giving Stoicism a try.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">I’m not grounding this recommendation in a single data point but in a history of great names who studied and incorporated Stoic principles into their lives: Marcus Aurelius, Nelson Mandela, Seneca, James Bond Stockdale, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Bill Clinton, Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Sullivan (Mayor of Vancouver!), Arnold Swartzenegger, Beatrice Webb, Bill Belichick, T-Pain, Brie Larson, John Steinbeck, JK Rowling, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Tim Ferriss to name only a few.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Introducing Stoicism</span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">If we want to live a good life we need to figure out exactly makes a life <i>good</i> in the first place. For the Stoics, a good life is one that is virtuous, mentally tranquil, self-determined, and lived according to reason. An interesting feature of the Stoic system is that it is logically closed. By this I mean I can begin with any premise within the system and get to any other. This leads to a kind of logical equivalence between the various Stoic constituents for a good life: living according to reason, mental tranquility, and virtuous living all amount to the same thing. If I live according to reason, I will practice the virtues, and if I practice and develop the virtues I gain mental tranquility. I can start with virtue or self-determination and make the same connections: If I am virtuous, my actions will conform with reason, and when my actions conform with reason, my mind is tranquil.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">From the point of view of teaching Stoicism, this internal logical structure makes introducing it a bit of a puzzle because it isn’t clear where best to begin. In this post, I’ve decided to begin with the aspirational goal of Stoic living as described by Epictetus: The aim of Stoic practice is to <i>joyfully</i> accept the world as it is.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">When I first read this, I thought this was some D-pak Chopra-level bullshit. I’m supposed to <i>joyfully</i> accept when shit goes wrong? What kind of pollyannaish new-age nonsense is this?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Aside:</b> You may have noticed that the idea of <i>joyfully</i> accepting the world as it is doesn’t conform with the popular understanding of the Spock-like Stoic. I’ll talk more about the Stoics and emotion in another post but a constant theme throughout Stoic writing is that one should cultivate a <i>cheerful</i> disposition.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Alright, back to philosophy. The obvious question that falls out of the above aspiration is, How the heck are we supposed to maintain a cheerful disposition when so often our desires and goals are obstructed and frustrated? (Not to mention the general shit-show that the world can be).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">The answer requires we understand clearly what has value and what doesn’t (through exercise of reason!) and to pursue only that which has <i>objective</i> value; i.e., that which is valuable no matter who you are or what you believe. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">For most modern people, the idea that there are things with <i>objective</i> value is foreign: What do you mean there are things <i>everyone</i> should pursue? We are all special individual snowflakes, each with our unique set of things we should pursue to make life go well. Everything’s—like—subjective, maaaaaaaan! Amiright?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Stoics argue that people get frustrated and anxious—and hence have their tranquility disrupted—because they pursue the wrong sorts of things. They pursue things they <i>mistakenly</i> think have objective value with respect to making their lives go well.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">The Stoics divide objects of pursuit into two main categories: Internals and Externals. <i>Externals</i>, such as money, fame, material objects, relationships, career, sex, reputation, power, and even health have no objective value in so far as being able to make your life good or not. The <i>only</i> things that can objectively make your life meaningfully better are <i>internals</i>; i.e., the virtues.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Note:</b> There is more nuance to the Stoic view regarding the value of externals but I’m going to set that aside for now. It is enough to say here that, for the Stoics, externals have no <i>ultimate</i> value when it comes to determining the goodness of your life.</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">We can track the distinction between internals and externals as a division between things over which our will does or does not have <i>ultimate</i> control. For example, there are lots of things I can do to try to get recognition or affection but <i>ultimately</i>, receiving either depends on whether <i>others</i> want to give it (and continue to give it) to me. Because achieving these aims depends on something outside my own will (i.e., the wills of others) I set myself up for frustration and resentment when I don’t get what I want. And even if I do momentarily gain reputation or affection, I am anxious because its maintenance depends ultimately on elements outside my will.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">The same goes for something like money. I can work really hard, get the right education, and so on but <i>ultimately</i> the amount of money I get is outside my will: I can get robbed, my company can go bankrupt, my bank can go bankrupt, my business partner can make a bad deal, the stock market can crash, the job market can change rendering me obsolete, etc…<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">It’s not that I have <i>no</i> control over acquiring externals, it’s that ultimately, at the end of the day, whether I obtain them and maintain them depends on forces outside my will. This explains why pursuing externals can never lead to a sustained good life. When attaining them is difficult or obstructed—which it inevitably will be—we feel frustrated and resentful. And even if we do attain some external, its maintenance is precarious. It depends not on our will but on the will of others and on the world conforming to our desires, all of which contribute to a perpetual state of background anxiety.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-size: large;">Marcus Aurelius put it this way: </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">If you insist on pursuing externals "of necessity you must be envious, jealous, and suspicious of those who can take away those things and plot against those who have that which is valued by you. Of necessity a man must be altogether in a state of perturbation who wants any of these; and besides, he must find fault with the gods" (Meditations, Bk VI, 16).</span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">I’ll make one more remark on Stoic attitudes toward externals. The Stoics were not naive. They recognized that a human life <i>does</i> go better when, for example, a person has some wealth rather than none. But the good that comes from externals is <i>conditional</i>. That is, it is conditional on the circumstances the individual finds himself in. For example, if someone with a bad opioid addiction came into a bunch of money, this would not be a good thing. The goodness of money, unlike the virtues, is conditional--not objective--with respect to making our lives go well. Similar cases can be constructed for any external: the world is full of unhappy people with good careers, fame, reputation, money, material wealth, and so on.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">When we observe that our life circumstances and desires will inevitably change over time, there is no <i>guarantee</i> that the externals we pursue and possess will preserve their goodness in those new circumstances. In short, externals on their own don’t <i>reliably</i> cause us to have a good life; in fact, sometimes they can make it go worse. The virtues, on the other hand, <i>reliably</i> <i>cause us to have a good life</i>: There is no situation or identity where courage, wisdom, self-control, and justice don’t cause one’s life go better.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Also, acquiring internals, unlike externals, depends <i>entirely</i> on my own will. The quality of the judgments and decisions I make (i.e., intellectual virtue), the character of the actions I choose and the way I react to situations (i.e., the moral virtues) are all ultimately under the control of my will. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">No one can force me to assent to a false proposition or make a bad decision, and no one can force me to act foolishly or viciously. Whether I develop wisdom, courage, self-control, patience, compassion, persistence, humility, generosity, and so on, depend <i>entirely</i> on my will. And the same goes for their maintenance. Since I can never be prevented by some outside force from developing and maintaining the virtues, I avoid frustration, resentment, and anxiety towards myself and others. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>The Puzzle</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Early into my experiment with Stoicism, the following sorts of thoughts started to creep into my head:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">If no thing external to my will has value, what the heck do I do with my life? Get a job? Meh, what’s the point? Money and a career can't make me happy. Besides, they could be taken away at any point.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Deadline for my dissertation coming up? Meh. Dissertations ultimately have no value, so no real point in doing that. </span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">I should probably start preparing the lecture for tomorrow. Meh. The lecture has no objective value with respect to how my life goes. </span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Well, since I'm not going to work on my dissertation or tomorrow's lecture, I might as well go to the gym to stay healthy. Meh. No point. I could just get sick and lose my gainz despite all my hard work. Worse yet, my time of death is out of my control which means I could die in an hour. Why workout if I might die soon?</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Here's the funny thing. At this point, I'd been following Stoicism for about 5-6 months. Despite not caring about anything, I was actually noticeably happier than I had been in quite a while. Things that previously would have made me angry or upset rolled off me like water. Nothing bothered me cuz nothing really mattered. In a way, I’d internalized the most difficult lesson of Stoicism, to <i>joyfully</i> accept the world exactly as it is.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
But this way of living, this grinning apathy, can't be right. And it isn't what the Stoics intended either. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">What had I gotten wrong?</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Solving the Puzzle</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Solving the puzzle requires we hold in our heads what appear to be two inconsistent beliefs: That externals don’t matter but that how we use them does matter. Somehow, Stoicism requires that I <i>act</i> as though externals matter while also <i>believing</i> that they don’t. Epictetus recognizes the apparent paradox:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">It isn’t easy to combine and reconcile the two—the carefulness of a person devoted to externals and the dignity of one who’s detached—but it’s not impossible (Discourse II, vi, 9).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">We can reconcile the positions by way of analogy. Think of a great sportball player. A great sportball player pursues the ball with courage, persistence, and skill—that is what makes her a great sport ballplayer. But does the great sportball player believe the ball itself has objective value? No. The ball, within the context of the game, is a means of developing and demonstrating the virtues of a great sport ballplayer. But no sportball player, no matter how good, thinks that the ball itself has objective value. What has value—what is objectively good or bad—is <i>how</i> sportball players pursue the ball.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">As Epictetus puts it, we need</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">the star athlete’s concentration, together with his coolness, as if it were just another ball we were playing with too. To be sure, external things of whatever kind require skill in their use, but we must not grow attached to them; whatever they are, they should only serve for us to show how skilled we are in our handling of them (Discourse II, v, 21).</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Or as he puts it another way: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Life is indifferent, but the use we make of it is not indifferent. So when you hear that even life and the like are indifferent, don’t become apathetic; and by the same token, when you’re advised to care about them, don’t become superficial and conceive a passion for externals (Discourse II, vi, 1-2).</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">To summarize, Stoicism done right requires we inhabit a delicate doxastic state: We must believe that externals have no value yet we must act as though they do in order that we may develop the virtues. In a way, externals are a tool to develop the things that actually matter: the virtues.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">My mistake was was to focus solely on the idea that externals have no value. As a result I became apathetic. I failed to realize that apathy cannot breed virtue—the genuine aim of Stoicism and source of a good life. So, while it’s (sadly) true that my dissertation has no objective value with respect to the goodness of my life, how I go about writing it does. My lecture has no objective value but how I go about preparing it and delivering it does. My health has no objective value but how I go about sustaining it does. My career has no objective bearing on the goodness of my life, but how I go about pursuing it does.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><span class="s2"></span><br /></u></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>How To (Genuinely) Joyfully Accept the World as It Is</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">In retrospect, I <i>wasn’t</i> genuinely joyfully accepting the world as it was. Because of my new-found non-attachment I think I was merely joyful to be free of the sorts of situations that previously would have sent me into a fit of rage, frustrated, or saddened me. Indifference was just a step up from all the negative emotions that come from attachment to and pursuit of externals.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">But when we adopt the complete Stoic view, that developing the virtues is what makes your life go well, then—<i>through consistent practice</i>—we can approach a joyful state of acceptance. How? Because at every turn, you will find an opportunity to develop at least one of the virtues.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">Stuck in traffic? Here’s a chance to develop patience. Working on a dissertation? Here’s an opportunity to develop persistence. Facing a difficult choice? Here’s an opportunity to develop courage. And just about every judgment, decision, and action affords us a chance to develop our wisdom.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">If it’s the virtues that matter for living a good life then we should be <i>grateful</i> every time we are presented with an opportunity to develop them. These situations should be received <i>joyfully</i> because they are opportunities to acquire something of genuine objective value to the goodness of your life—unlike the externals which have no objective value. Although, in order to develop the virtues we have to act <i>as though</i> externals have value, all the while understanding their objective indifference to the goodness of our life.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="s2"></span><br /></span></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 13.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 13.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 16.0px}
span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><span style="font-size: large;">And so, as with so much so Stoic thought, we come full circle. If we internalize the idea that it’s the virtues that are the end goal and that have objective value, not externals, we see how we can joyfully accept the world as it is.</span></span></div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-66739427120428237342017-10-30T22:20:00.000-07:002018-10-03T09:00:22.238-07:00How to Get an A on any Exam<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC0MGU6a16ArLraDfIm03cpFs4mtJoJ_inH5gkVlH1aipxAQglWdPYgMvD9XQt6syJ0N4-XQcJMAJTpSOZ8eW2XAZtzkXp69cHHDoclnmuwzM8IsyTS3S7_oSf4gZnnwJg0j5yCjUhXyA/s1600/y-u-no-get-a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="375" data-original-width="500" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC0MGU6a16ArLraDfIm03cpFs4mtJoJ_inH5gkVlH1aipxAQglWdPYgMvD9XQt6syJ0N4-XQcJMAJTpSOZ8eW2XAZtzkXp69cHHDoclnmuwzM8IsyTS3S7_oSf4gZnnwJg0j5yCjUhXyA/s320/y-u-no-get-a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Introduction</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For most of my pre-college education I was a very average student--and that's being charitable. In my first year of college, I vowed I would learn how to get A's. I bought (and read!) a bunch of books on the subject as well as attended any study skills workshops available on campus. With the right techniques and the willingness to apply them, my outcomes improved drastically. The skill I became best at was test-taking to the point were I even looked forward to them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Very early in my teaching career, I discovered that many students (like former me) have never been taught how to prepare for a test. Consequentially, they typically do poorly, provoking high levels of anxiety leading up to and during tests. This inevitably leads to a negative feedback loop wherein their negative expectations manifest a self-fulfilling prophesy of poor performance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This blogpost is for all you people out there that get test anxiety or have children that do. Hopefully, with the tips I'm going to share, they (or you!) can learn to do well and to not fear tests.</span><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Preparing for Exams</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The most common mistake students make in preparing for exams is to study 'passively' rather than 'actively'. Let me explain the difference. Passive studying is when you simply reread the material and/or the notes. This will not help you very much and is basically a waste of time. To figure out how to do well on an exam let's think about what an exam is. </span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Tip 1: Focus on Understanding Rather Than Memorization</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">An exam is a demonstration of your comprehension of a topic. So, to do well on an exam you have to be able to do two things: (a) recall the information being asked of you and (b) show that you understand it--usually by applying it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you focus on (b), (a) will follow without any effort. Going from (a) to (b) takes more work. Understanding something requires putting it into a larger context: Figure out where an argument or explanation fits in relation to the main issue. Figure out and how each step in an argument connects to previous premises and supports the conclusion. Once you've done this, you will also have recreated the argument! Pure memorization without understanding is much harder to do. Avoid it where you can.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Some tests do require brute memorization of terms and so you can't escape all memorization. However, most technical terms are merely tools for understanding more complex concepts or theories. Figuring out where a term fits in the larger scheme of things will help you remember it. In short, connect new terms and concepts to other ideas to help understand, and in turn, remember them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Tip 2: Recreate Exam Conditions</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The other vital part of studying is to RECREATE EXAM CONDITIONS. This can be divided into two core ideas: (a) recreate the <i>activity</i> you will have to do and (b) recreate the <i>environment</i> you will be in. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Recreating the Activity</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On an exam you are being asked to RECALL and WRITE information. Simply rereading doesn't train you to recall and write. To practice recalling information, you have to--well--recall and write information. This principle is the same for any skill. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Suppose I'm on the sportball team and there's a big match coming up against State. Should I just sit in my room thinking about all the sport moves I'm going to make under various conditions? Obviously not. I need to actually<i> play</i> sportball and make real sport moves to perform well in the match. It's true, thinking about it will help <i>a bit</i>, but if my practice consists solely in flipping through a playbook and imagining how I'm going to make awesome sport moves, we won't win the sportball game against State.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Similarly, suppose I'm a musician and I have a concert coming up. Suppose I prepare <i>purely</i> by skimming through the sheet music thinking to myself, "Ok, I got that part. Umhuh. Ok, that's just triplets, I can do that." No one would ever think to prepare for a concert this way. Yet this is how people prepare for academic tests!!111!!!11! Why???/????//!!??</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, to recap, on a test you are being asked to RECALL and WRITE. You should practice recalling and writing the information the same way you'd practice for a sportball game by playing sportball and a musical performance by actually playing the music.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In practical terms this means that after reviewing a potential exam question, you should WRITE, in point form, your answers to the question while your text and notes are <i>closed</i>. This is what it is to recreate the activity of exam-taking. On the exam you don't have access to your notes. If you can't recall and write out your answer in point form without looking at your notes in the relaxed environment of your room, there is no way in heck you'll be able to do it on the actual exam. That kind of crap only happens in the self-deluded dreams of tired students.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Details: I am rarely able to recall and write an answer on the first attempt. Just like learning to play a section of music for a concert, you're not going to nail it your first time through. This is normal. Learning<i> is</i> repetition and incremental improvement. Expect do to just that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If I get stuck trying to recall an argument, I peek at my notes, complete the answer then I DO IT AGAIN, this time without peeking. I keep repeating<i> </i>this process <i>as many times as I have</i> to until I can write out the answer without peeking at my notes (i.e., until I perfectly recreate the exam conditions). When I can do it perfectly, I KNOW I will ace the test because I've already aced it several times before even stepping into the exam room.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After I'm able to recall and write an answer perfectly without peeking at my notes I move to the next question--<i>but not before</i>! I like to work in sets of three. So, when I'm able to do 3 successive questions perfectly, I circle back to the top of the exam and repeat all of them once. For example, if I'm at question 6, then I'll redo all 6 questions once just to make sure I've really got them. Remember, repetition is the name of the game. It ain't fun but it's more fun than the feeling you get from a crappy grade.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Get yourself to where, with your notebook closed, you can recall <i>and</i> write the answer for every potential test question. When you can, you will ace the test (so long as you took good notes). Also, you'll have a lot less stress because you've already <i>successfully</i> taken the test several times at home. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Recreating the Environment</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Most of this should be obvious but I'll spell it out: </span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cellphone off and in another room. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unplug your modem.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Don't use your computer. Print your notes if you took them on your laptop.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cellphone off and in another room.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No talking.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No chewing gum.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No fart noises.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No friends.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No life.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Never give up, never surrender.</span></li>
</ul>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Time</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm going to discuss time from two points of view: Total time and duration of study periods.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Total Prep Time (for Undergrad Exams):</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you want an A, expect to study at least 6-8 hours.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you want a B, expect to study at least 4-6 hours.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Notice I didn't write anything for the other letter grades. If your goal is a C, save your money, quit school now and find something you enjoy instead.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">These prep times will differ from person to person. They will also differ depending on how experienced you are at proper exam preparation. When you use the tips I've given for the first time, you probably won't get an A. This makes sense since you're just beginning to acquire the skills for exam preparation. Similarly, if it's your first time ever practicing for a sportball game you shouldn't expect to beat State. And no right-thinking musician would believe they're going to play a perfect concert after only their first time learning to practice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Importantly, the above times are total <i>undistracted study time</i> and does <i>not</i> include breaks or meals. Plan your study schedule accordingly.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, the total number of hours can be split up over 2 or (max) 3 days. It can also be done in one day/night.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Study Periods:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't study for longer than about 45min intervals with 10-15min breaks. I think this is right for people who are just leaning proper exam prep but wrong for people who are experienced. No one would say that everyone, regardless of experience, should only run for 45min. No, it depends on how much prior training you've had. The more training you've had, the longer you can run or study effectively, or whatever. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the beginning start with conventional wisdom but as you build your recall muscles, extend your study periods. The fewer breaks you can take, the less total time you need to prepare and do well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>Study Groups</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Study groups are useful for coming up with the answers for potential test questions, but this shouldn't be counted as studying. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Exam preparation means recreating exam conditions. Your study group isn't going to be there to offer you answers during the exam so you shouldn't prepare as though they will. And neither will your mom...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Advanced Techniques: Experts Only!!!111!!1</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Like I said, I wasn't always good at taking exams but through training and alignment of my chakras, I developed the skills. As I developed the skills and aligned my qi with the universe, I also developed confidence. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, here's how I studied for exams at the end of my test-taking career:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I come home from class and sleep until it's 9 hours (or however long I think I'll need to learn everything perfectly) before my exam the next day. I get up. Make a pot of tea and study for 4 hours straight. I take a 30min break to eat and drink a pot of coffee, eat chocolate then I study for another 4 hours. By now I'm starting to get a bit tired so I grab a light breakfast and 2 energy drinks on the way to the exam. I drink one drink on the way and have one on my desk if I feel I need it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Write the exam. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Walk aimlessly around campus waiting for my heart rate to come down from all the caffein. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Eventually, sleep.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Note:</i> This way of studying for exams requires absolute confidence in your test-taking skills. When it's 1am and are just opening your notes 9 hours out from a final, it's very easy to be overwhelmed and panic. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Summary:</span></u></b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Decide</i> what letter grade you want on the exam. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Set aside the corresponding number of hours required for that letter grade.</span></li>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A=6 to 8</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">B=4 to 6</span></li>
</ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Mentally commit</i> yourself to studying that number of hours--come hell or high water.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Set yourself up in an environment as close to the exam conditions as possible.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Turn your phone off AND put it in another room.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cover, Recall, and Write until you can do it perfectly for each answer. NEVER skim your notes. This is a complete waste of precious time.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Do not </i>move to the next question until you're perfect on the one you're working on.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Focus on <i>understanding</i> (i.e., how different ideas relate and apply to each other) <i>not</i> memorization.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Every 3 questions, go back to the top and see if you can do them <i>all</i> again.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Walk into the exam with confidence because you've already done it several times perfectly.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Write clearly! Your instructor can't give you points for what they can't read.</span></li>
</ul>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-73965826226584814432017-10-04T23:09:00.003-07:002017-10-06T07:37:22.452-07:00Value and Gun Rights<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoIpu8-9aWdd7jkheMOmqkxQmq1_1OFYhpCASmJgHC8Gx5HZGmxQSPdtBhMqq9bONCyiTg4nx0GDgID8gbvJhWpogdSpYcf7wft9CvmP4sICBX1o06_8EgPJk-5R1GKwqFwDoeHB6MgcI/s1600/sleeping+with+guns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="762" data-original-width="500" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoIpu8-9aWdd7jkheMOmqkxQmq1_1OFYhpCASmJgHC8Gx5HZGmxQSPdtBhMqq9bONCyiTg4nx0GDgID8gbvJhWpogdSpYcf7wft9CvmP4sICBX1o06_8EgPJk-5R1GKwqFwDoeHB6MgcI/s400/sleeping+with+guns.jpg" width="261" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The American Dream</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u></u></b></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></u></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>
Introduction</u></b><br />I've mentioned before that philosophers distinguish between lumpers and splitters. Splitters take a category of things, actions, concepts and show that there are important distinctions to be made within that category such that we should really see it as two (or more) distinct categories. For example, someone might argue that 'motor vehicle' should be treated as two categories because cars and motorcycles are importantly different in the skills required to drive them. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Lumpers do the opposite. They take what appear to be a collection of distinct things, concepts, or actions and argue that in some important respect they are all the same such that we can treat them as all belonging to the same category. For example, someone might argue that apples and oranges should both be considered 'fruit' from the point of view of import taxes.<br /><br />Shortly following the news of the mass shooting in Las Vegas <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/02/how-could-anyone-deny-the-need-for-tough">Reason magazine</a>, a Libertarian publication, published an article predictably calling for restraint (i.e., do nothing) with respect to gun control legislation. All the standard arguments were there for why gun control legislation is bad. What stood out to me, however, was the euphemistic lumping of guns as mere tools. Here are a few prominent examples :</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The unwillingness to leap to a legal solution to mass gun murders requires recognizing that guns are tools, with genuine uses for personal safety, personal fulfillment, and convenience, just as are cars, as well as noticing that a tiny number of people who own or have access to these specific tools ever use them to harm another human.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For the vast majority of their owners, guns are no more worthy of banning than any other element of their peacefully enjoyed liberty, one tool among many to shape their chosen life and leisure. Banning something that tens of millions of people innocently value and imposing onerous costs on American citizens, generally downward in socioeconomic terms, is a recipe for disaster. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Notice the effect on our emotional response to 'guns' when we lump them in with 'tools' (and refer to them as such). Much of the emotional charge runs out of the word. I have no doubt that this is what the writers at Reason magazine intended. I assume their thought is something like this: [Read in your learned teacher voice lecturing to students] "If we are to understand the issue of gun violence we must take a cold reasoned approach to the issue. There is no room for irrational emotion." This is <i>Reason</i> magazine, after all.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Setting aside that most philosophers (since Aristotle) reject the view that all emotions are purely irrational, I want to sporatically <i>adopt</i> this lumping convention for this blogpost: Listen, you hysterical liberals, <i>guns are just tools</i>. There are no relevant distinctions between a philips head screw driver and a gun. They belong in the same category. Settle down.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Preferences</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before moving forward, I need to quickly introduce a technical term. 'Preference,' as it is used in every day speech, is sometimes used differently from its more narrow meaning in economics and political theory. <i>Preference</i>, as it is used technically, is always an expression of <i>relative</i> choice or value; it's an expression of ranking something relative to some other choice. So, I can never just say I prefer <i>a</i>. I must say that I prefer <i>a</i> to something else. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Example: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P = some person;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a = apples</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">b = bananas</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P {a>b} means that some person prefers apples to bananas.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The main idea here is that whatever we choose, we make that choice in the context of available alternatives. How we rank our preferences is an expression of what we value relative to other things.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now that we've got the fancy talk out of the way, let's move forward and discuss gun legislation.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>Preamble: Gun Violence Statistics and Scope of Argument</u></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I don't want to turn this post into a cut-and-paste of gun facts. I'll just pick a few so I have something to work with.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-GQ_Magazine-2">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-3">[3]</a> and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cdc.gov-4">[4]</a> These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5">[5]</a> 21,175 suicides,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cdc.gov-4">[4]</a> 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cdc.gov-4">[4]</a> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 2010, 67% of all <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicides">homicides</a> in the U.S. were committed using a firearm.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-7">[7]</a> In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-fbi01-8">[8]</a> In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-9">[9]</a> In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-National_Vital_Statistics_System-10">[10]</a> In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle">rifle</a> while 6,009 were reported involving a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun">handgun</a>; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Fbi.gov-11">[11]</a></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States">Wikipedia</a>)</span> </blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I will add without argument, because you're all capable of googling, that the <i>per capita</i> numbers of all kinds of gun deaths, gun crime, and gun injury are <i>much </i>higher in the US when compared to other Western democracies even when crime rates are controlled for.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, let me point out that when I vaguely gesture at 'gun control legislation' below, I'm referring to some empirically supported combination waiting periods, background checks, licensing, and training--whatever it turns out to be--to reduce some <i>subset </i>of recognized gun violence. By 'gun-control legislation' I do not mean confiscating guns or prohibiting their sale (generally). For some reason any mention of gun control legislation is automatically interpreted, by pro-gun advocates, as confiscation or prohibition. This is not what I (or most gun control advocates) mean.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Reread above as many times as you need to.<br /><br /><br /><b><u>Let's Get Philosophical</u></b><br />With the empirical and technical out of the way, let's get into the philosophy. The pro-gun lobby argues that we should do <i>nothing</i> in the face of gun violence because they want to own and purchase guns in a way that is unrestricted. Let's express that in the cool unemotional language of economics. Given a choice between </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a =</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> easy access to <i>tools</i>.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">b =</span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">even attempting to reduce loss of </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">human life.</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The anti-legislation person's (P) preference ranking looks like this: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P: {a>b}</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Easy access to<i> t</i><i>ools</i> is more important than any attempt to reduce the loss of human life.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let me reframe that. The average annual death toll from guns is 30 000. Now suppose some piece of legislation could reduce the average gun-related death toll by a paltry 10%. That's 3000 human lives saved <i>every year</i>. Now, imagine we put 3000 people into a theatre and we say to someone who loves tools: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You have a choice: we can make everyone wait [insert some trivial number of days] to receive a<i> tool</i> or we can let these 3000 <i>human beings</i> die unnecessarily, <i>and repeat the same thing every year</i>.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The choice the anti any legislation tool-lover makes expresses their preference ranking. More specifically, they are expressing the ranking of their <i>values</i>. The anti any legislation position says, in the language of economics: There is more <i>value</i> in everyone getting tools promptly and without hinderance than there is in 3000 people/year dying preventable deaths.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This, simply put, is the 'preference ranking' of the anti-any legislation position.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>But It Won't Work</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, I know what you're thinking. But gun control legislation won't work!!! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Really? How do you <i>know</i>? Most (but not all)</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> of the evidence points in the other direction for </span><i style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">some</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> but not all kinds of gun violence. The e</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">xceptions to this trend in the literature are outliers which the pro-tool lobby cites </span><i style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ad nauseam,</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> ignoring the general trend. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why not introduce targeted legislation to address the kinds of violence that seem to respond to legislation in other countries? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's see what this denial of even <i>attempting</i> targeted legislation expresses in terms of value rankings. In doing so, let's grant that no one <i>really</i> knows for sure (in the Cartesian sense) whether a particular kind of tool regulation (that somehow works in just about every other Western democracy) will work in the US. Refusing to <i>even try</i> some targeted legislation expresses the following value ranking:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a = easy access to tools</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">b = even bothering to try to prevent the loss of 3 000 lives/year</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P: {a>b}</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In everyday English, this preference ranking expresses the following: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's more important for me have easy access to tools than it is for me to even <i>try</i> saving 3 000 human lives per year from preventable death. That is, me owning a tool and being able to buy tools with minimal restrictions <i>has more value </i>than even trying to prevent the (preventable) loss of 3 000 human lives.</span> </blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What the gun-control <i>advocate</i> fails to see is that<i> life's meaning, purpose, and value comes from owning tools</i>. Tools, <i>not</i> human relationships, <i>not</i> cultivation of ones virtue nor talents, <i>not</i> contribution to one's community, <i>not</i> preventable human death, are what matter for the good life. A purposeful and meaningful life depend on, above all else, easy, unrestricted, and unfettered tool ownership. </span> </blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In support of this view, Aristotle, in <i>The</i> <i>Nichomachean Ethics</i> famously argues that certain external goods are required in order to live the good life. He writes</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But nevertheless happiness plainly requires external goods too, as we said; for it is impossible, or at least not easy, to act nobly without <strike>some furniture of fortune </strike> GUNZ. There are many things that can only be done through instruments, so to speak, such as friends and wealth and political influence AND GUNZ: and there are some things whose absence takes the bloom off our happiness, as good birth, the blessing of children, GUNZ, and personal beauty; for a man is not very likely to be happy if he is very ugly in person, or of low birth, or alone in the world, or childless, and perhaps still less if he has worthless children or friends, or has lost good ones that he had, OR CAN'T BUY A GUN IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">QED</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>But America Is Different (We're Special)</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is a common trope of the gun control advocate to bring up how, among comparable Western democracies, tighter gun control legislation correlates positively with lower gun death. What these tool-haters fail to appreciate is that our magical American culture is different! Americans have <i>nothing</i> in common psychologically or sociologically or culturally with other human beings. None of the widely studied tendencies of human behavior apply here. <i>Ipso facto</i>, of all the possible gun control legislations that whose number are limited only by the human imagination, we can with absolute confidence and certainty say that <i>none</i> of them will work here. There is no conceivable way that legislation that works on just about every other human culture on the planet</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">--especially those most resembling our own--</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> could work here. Simply ridiculous to even try.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First of all, this line of thinking is right on both counts. The culture here <i>is</i> different. People here would rather own <i>tools</i>, unfettered and unrestricted,<i> </i>than attempt to reduce the total 30 000 human lives lost per year to tool violence. That, however, is a cultural <i>problem,</i> not something to puff your chest up about. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, here's the really cool part. "Scientists have determined/studies show" that humans have the capacity to reflect on their practices as revise them in light of those reflections. We are <i>not</i> stuck in the culture we find ourselves in! This is shocking, I know. You might need to pause to catch your breath. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And so, while it is true that current American tool-loving culture makes it difficult to save potentially tens of thousands of lives/year, with some reflection on its values, it could! All it takes is having the thought that the more or less unrestricted access to tools isn't as valuable as tens of thousands of human lives/year.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As it stands, the but-American-culture-is-different-therefore-we-shouldn't-even-try value ranking looks like this: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a = Maintaining tool-loving at the epicenter of American culture</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">b =</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> attempt something to reduce the 30 000 lives/year that are lost.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P: {a>b}</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In plain English,<i> there is more value</i> is continuing to place some kinds of tools at the center of cultural identity than there is value in the lives of the very people who inhabit this community.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To be American <i>means</i> easy access to tools. This matters much more than 10s of thousands of preventable American deaths. Easy access to tools make us who we <i>are</i>. Without our tools and easy access to them we float adrift in a sea of despair with no other possibility of meaning and purpose in sight. Our culture, nay! our very way of life and identity would disintegrate before our eyes without easy access to tools. If 30 000 of us must be sacrificed/year for this end, so be it! We have deliberated and decided what truly matters.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Self-Defense/Protect My Family</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Recall the passage from Reason magazine:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For the vast majority of their owners, guns are no more worthy of banning than any other element of their peacefully enjoyed liberty, one tool among many to shape their chosen life and leisure. Banning something that tens of millions of people innocently value and imposing onerous costs on American citizens, generally downward in socioeconomic terms, is a recipe for disaster.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">People need to chill. All the anti-legislation people are saying is, "hey man, I just want to be able to own tools." Of course, not everyone just wants to own tools merely to love them and hold them and squeeze them. Some people make the argument that owning guns is an extension of their inalienable natural right to self-defense. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For the moment I'm going to ignore that (a) from the right to self-defense it doesn't follow necessarily that you have a right to every means of self-defense and (b) gun control legislation is not the same as gun prohibition. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I want to continue to focus on preferences and their ordering.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's not that people <i>merely</i> want the right to own tools it's that they want the right to ensure the physical safety of their person and family. Guns are merely...uh...<i>tools</i> in this pursuit. Amiright? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's grant that people have this right. It's not unreasonable after all. We can then ask the question: Are you and your family safer with a gun-tool in the house than without a gun-tool in the house? If you and your family are safer <i>without</i> a gun-tool, then if your concern truly is safety, you will get rid of your gun-tools. This is something to which there is an empirical answer. It's a verifiable and falsifiable matter. More on that later...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For now, take my word that as it turns out that you and your family are <i>less</i> safe <i>with</i> gun-tools in the house. So, if you <i>insist</i> on keeping gun-tools in your house then <i>your concern really isn't safety or self-defense</i>. You value <i>having gun tools</i> more than you value you and your family's safety. We can express the preference ranking like this:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Hypothetical: You and your family are less safe with a gun-tool in the house.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">a=have gun tool in the house.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">b=you and your family's safety.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P: {a>b}</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If they hypothetical turns out to be true then the preference ranking says this: There is <i>more value</i> in having a gun tool in my house than there is <i>value</i> in the safety of myself and my family.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This being a hypothetical, for fun let's see what the literature says regarding safety and gun ownership...</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182</a></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force</span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://linda%20e.%20saltzman%2C%20et%20al.%2C%20weapon%20involvement%20and%20injury%20outcomes%20in%20family%20and%20intimate%20assaults%2C%20267%20jama%2C%203043-3047%20%281992%29/">Linda E. Saltzman, et al., Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults, 267 JAMA, 3043-3047 (1992</a>)</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/Jacquelyn%20C.%20Campbell%20et%20al.,%20Risk%20Factors%20for%20Femicide%20in%20Abusive%20Relationships:%20Results%20from%20a%20Multisite%20Case%20Control%20Study,%2093%20Am.%20J.%20Pub.%20Health%201089,%201092%20(July%202003).">Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm</a></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">More than half of youth who committed suicide with a gun obtained the gun from their home, usually a parent’s gun. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">U.S. children and teens made up 43 percent of all children and teens in top 26 high income countries but were 93 percent of all children and teens killed by guns.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In 2010, children and teen gun death rates in the U.S. were over four times higher than in Canada, the country with the next highest rate, nearly seven times higher than in Israel, and nearly 65 times higher than in the United Kingdom.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">U.S. children and teens were 32 times more likely to die from a gun homicide and 10 times more likely to die from a gun suicide or a gun accident than all their peers in the other high-income countries combined. A child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/data/state-data-repository/protect-children-not-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/data/state-data-repository/protect-children-not-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf</a> </blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Huh. It looks like having gun-tools in the house actually makes you and your family less safe than not having gun tools in the house. Obviously, this isn't all the literature there is on the matter but the trend is fairly clear.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I could carry on like this all day but the structure of the argument is the same with each iteration. Every objection to even trying out a piece of gun control legislation that targets a subset of gun violence can be expressed as a preference ranking--an ranking of values.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The anti-even-bother-to-try any legislation position always prefers owning a </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">tool</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> to saving human lives. That is, easy access to a tool is always <i>more valuable</i> than human lives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No irrational emotions needed. This is the cold-hard language of reason.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Loose Ends</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"But legislation can't prevent mass shootings." My reply is simply to copypasta the intro from a <a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/06/gun-violence-and-gun-legislation-and.html" target="_blank">post</a> I made a few years ago:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;">Mass shootings represent only a very small fraction of gun-related homicides (<a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/october/annual-crime-in-the-u.s.-report-released/" style="color: #8b3200; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">about 1%</a> depending on the study you read). Even if we increase this number by a factor of 10 we're still only looking at 10% of gun-related homicides. From the point of view of policy then it makes sense to argue that preventing mass shootings <i>shouldn't </i>be the primary focus or starting point of gun policy. (Not to say it shouldn't at all be the focus of policy, only that there are perhaps better starting points, and lower hanging fruit).</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;">Consider: Suppose policy aims to reduce mass shootings but not other forms of gun violence (primarily from hand guns). Even if that policy reduces mass shootings by 50%, of total gun homicides it's a hollow victory. If however policy reduces other homicides by just 10%, as an absolute number of lives saved, that policy is much more successful. (Assumption: gun violence policy ought to reduce total homicides and injury from guns).</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-51072032352483252672017-07-16T14:06:00.001-07:002017-07-16T15:18:18.332-07:00The Emperor of Fallacies: The Is/Ought Problem<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u>Introduction</u></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It's nearly impossible to understand contemporary ethics without understanding the word 'normative' as it's used in philosophy. Since this post is mostly about a kind of argument in ethics, I'll get the definition out of the way. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Perhaps the easiest way to understand normative statements is to contrast them with descriptive statements. "She hit the dog," is a descriptive statement. There's no judgment--implied or otherwise--of good/bad/right/wrong. Contrast this with "she shouldn't hit the dog" or "it's wrong for her to hit the dog." The latter two are normative statements. They make value judgements about actions or states of affairs.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">You can think of 'normative' as having to do with judgments of value such as good, bad, right, or wrong. Any assertion that takes the form 'X is good', 'X is bad,' etc... is a normative statement. Normative statements can also take the form 'you ought/ought not to do that'. 'Ought' statements imply normativity because if I ought to do something, presumably it's because it's a </span><i style="font-size: 14px;">good/right</i><span style="font-size: 14px;"> thing to do. And if I ought not to do something, presumably it's because it's a <i>bad/wrong</i> thing to do.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">With the definitions out of the way, let's look at some normative arguments, shall we?</span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">1. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 14px;">A survey of Western history, anthropology, and current society reveals that, for the most part, men occupy positions of political, economic, and academic power. Women, on the other hand, are typically in charge of raising children, cooking the meals, and generally attending to her husband's needs. It follows that this is the right way to organize households and society.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 14px;">2. Across time and across cultures,</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"> marriage is between a man and a woman. It follows that couples of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get gay married. </span></span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">3.</span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">The human sex organs evolved for male-female intercourse. That is a scientific fact you can't deny. It follows that male-male or female-female intercourse is morally wrong.</span></span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people reading this blog reject the above arguments. Saying you disagree isn't enough. In philosophy, we're very interested in <i>why</i> arguments fail. Although they appear different, all three arguments fail for the same reason. Let's evaluate them and figure out that reason.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Argument 1</i> concludes that the right way to organize society is according to traditional gender roles because that's how it was typically organized. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the premises are true: i.e., that history and anthropology do in fact support the view that societies, institutions, and power relations are typically organized according to 'traditional' gender roles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Question:</i> Does knowing how power, prestige, and work were allocated in the past tell us the <i>right</i> way to allocate those elements <i>now</i>? Not necessarily. Sure, it's possible that 1950s America stumbled on <i>the one true way</i> to organize society but it's at least as likely that there was also room for improvement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Question:</i> Does knowing how power, prestige, and work are allocated <i>now</i> tell us the right way to allocate those elements <i>now</i>? That would be weird. It would imply that whatever the social arrangement at a particular point in history, that is also the most just social arrangement. There would be no grounds to criticize any social practice or institution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the most general level, Argument 1 fails because it draws conclusions about what <i>ought</i> to the case from what <i>was</i> or <i>is</i> the case. Facts about how the world<i> is</i> (or was) don't tell us how the world <i>should</i> be. Arguing from a description of how things <i>are</i> to a conclusion about how they <i>ought to</i> be is called the Is/Ought Fallacy (also sometimes called the Is/Ought Problem or Hume's Law).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What's the Problem?</span></u></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWzVd9JYK-SrgU46BbvjxL94YnNyoKRcdyD5KKe47N1a4OyDfEeivQzvu3HQzsaNb4r8Cx6QESxoeH3eNWAer8oDnNX_NTREs8Si27IlRvGsbo8xxupxHlsicOyRL_th5ERd__y9z9770/s1600/willy-wonka-tell-me-more-about-how-descriptive-claims-deductively-justify-normative-claims.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="500" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWzVd9JYK-SrgU46BbvjxL94YnNyoKRcdyD5KKe47N1a4OyDfEeivQzvu3HQzsaNb4r8Cx6QESxoeH3eNWAer8oDnNX_NTREs8Si27IlRvGsbo8xxupxHlsicOyRL_th5ERd__y9z9770/s320/willy-wonka-tell-me-more-about-how-descriptive-claims-deductively-justify-normative-claims.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Is/Ought Problem comes from David Hume. He argued that the above general pattern of reasoning--moving to a normative conclusion from descriptive premises--is a fallacious form of reasoning. Facts that </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">describe</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> social, institutional, and interpersonal relations can't on their own support claims for how those relations </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">ought</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> to be. And it's a problem because, "</span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">every system of morality</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, which [Hume had] hitherto met with" commits this error [my italics]. The is/ought problem is a </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">huge</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> problem for moral theory if </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">every</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> system of morality commits it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm gonna make you guys work a bit. Below Hume lays out the nature of the is/ought problem. Read it then I'm going to walk you through it.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. (A Treatise of Human Nature)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's use Argument 3 to see what Hume's talking about in the first sentence. Argument 3 concludes that homosexual acts are wrong (i.e., <i>normative</i> conclusion) from the <i>descriptive</i> premise "human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OPP_In40at4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OPP_In40at4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To make things even more clear I'm going to put the argument into premise-conclusion form:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P1: Human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse. (Descriptive)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">C: Therefore, same sex intercourse is morally <i>wrong</i>. (Normative)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The argument begins by describing facts about the world; that is, by describing how the world <i>is</i>. The conclusion, however, refers to a <i>value</i> judgment. Hume points out, you cannot make a deductive jump from how the world <i>is</i> to whether that aspect of the world is good or bad.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is what Hume means in the first part of the above quote. He'll be reading some <i>descriptive</i> account of how humans behave, how God made the world, etc...then 'of a sudden' the author will jump to a <i>normative</i> conclusion about those descriptive facts. But knowing how the world <i>is</i> doesn't tell us anything about how it <i>should</i> be. Sometimes the way the world <i>is</i> is bad and sometimes it's good. Sometimes what people do is right and sometimes what they do is wrong. Merely knowing how the world <i>is</i> doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about how we <i>ought to</i> behave in it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To move deductively from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion you need what's called a <i>linking premise</i>. A linking premise links descriptive facts to normative judgments:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P2: If something is used in a way other than its evolutionary purpose then doing so is morally wrong.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With the linking premise we have a valid deductive argument:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P1: Human sexual organs evolved for male-female intercourse. (Descriptive)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P2: If something is used in a way other than its evolutionary purpose then it is morally wrong. (Linking)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">C: [Same sex sex uses organs in ways other than for their 'evolved' purpose,] therefore, same sex sex is morally <i>wrong</i>. (Normative)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The requirement for a premise linking the descriptive to the normative is what Hume refers to when he writes:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some <i>new relation</i> or affirmation, <i>'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given</i>, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it [my italics].</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He means that in order to move from a claim about how the world <i>is</i> to a conclusion about the moral goodness or badness of the way the world is, we must <i>justify</i> with a <i>reason</i> why the way the world being a particular way is also a morally good/bad thing or why it justifies what we ought/ought not to do. The heart of Hume's point is a demand for a justifying reason that logically connects how the world is to how we ought to act in it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By adding the linking premise (P2) to Argument 3 we meet this requirement. The above argument with the linking premise is now <i>valid</i> (it has good form)--but is it <i>sound</i> (i.e., are the premises true)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P2 is extremely suspect. Counterexamples are pretty easy to come by. Humans evolved to walk on two legs but no one would think it's <i>morally</i> wrong to walk on their hands. The human skull evolved to protect the brain but few people would think it's morally wrong to use it to redirect an air-born soccer ball. We evolved to live in small tribal communities but few would argue that from this it follows that it's morally wrong to live in a metropolitan city. It would be an odd morality that prohibited the use of your life and limbs from all behaviors except those for which they evolved on the African savannah.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When we draw out the implied linked premise we see that it's not easily defended and admits easy counterexamples.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At this point you might be thinking, "duh, but Argument 3 is an obviously bad argument." However, I submit to you that it's only obviously bad because you disagree with the conclusion. When we disagree with conclusions we're fairly good at identifying weak arguments. However, when we agree with conclusions we're often blind to the weakness of the reasons supporting our view. Hume's point is that this error--not providing or defending a linking premise--is <i>everywhere</i> in ethical thinking:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality,</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here's an example you supporters of Obama's homosexual Muslim agenda have probably made:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">People don't choose their sexual preferences. Gay people are born gay and straight people are born straight. Therefore, gay sex isn't immoral. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Notice the pattern of reasoning:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P1. People don't choose their sexual preferences. (Descriptive)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P2. Gay people are born gay and straight people are born straight. (Descriptive)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">C. Therefore, gay sex isn't immoral. (Normative)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here you might agree with the conclusion but the argument commits the is/ought fallacy. For the argument to go through you'd have to defend the view that being born with a particular preference doesn't <i>on its own</i> imply that acting on those urges is immoral. This is clearly false. Some unfortunate individuals are born with pedophilic desires. That fact that they're born with these desires doesn't exempt acting on those desires from moral scrutiny.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Again, descriptive facts about the world don't on their own imply normative conclusions. If we want to defend the moral neutrality of homosexuality we need to offer reasons that are not mere descriptions of what dispositions people are born with. One alternative is to offer a general moral principle like the harm principle: If a behavior doesn't harm others then, all else being equal, it's morally neutral. Now we have an argument that doesn't depend on mere descriptions of the world.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When to be Alert and Various Subspecies of the Is/Ought Fallacy</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The is/ought fallacy comes in many varieties which I'll cover below. But first I want offer an hypothesis for why and when it's common to commit the is/ought fallacy. When practices, institutions, and beliefs are entrenched in a society or group their human origins are invisible. Entrenched social arrangements and practices are perceived to be 'the natural order of things.'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As such, there's a failure to recognize that these practices, institutions, and beliefs are the product of a combination of habituation, deliberate action, and power relations--amongst other things. Interests are also at stake, especially when one group stands to benefit disproportionately from one arrangement rather than another. As a result the socially constructed nature of institutions, practices, and beliefs is often not only invisible but there are often efforts to avoid, dismiss, and suppress criticism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">History is full of examples but I'll illustrate with the most obvious. For us the practice of slavery is abhorrent. The fact that it was practiced for thousands of years up until recently in our own country is inconceivable to us. More baffling still is that people not only passively accepted it but many people--throughout world and American history--vigorously <i>defended</i> it. And guess how it was defended? Usually by committing the is/ought fallacy:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Some variation of</span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's natural for some people to be slaves.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's the natural order of the universe for some people to serve others.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Slavery has always existed through human history.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The law says that slavery is allowed.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's God's will.</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to Nature/Naturalistic Fallacy</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The first two we might call <b>appeal to nature</b> or <b>naturalistic fallacy</b>. Even if we grant that something is 'the natural order' (rather than a social construction) it <i>still</i> doesn't follow <i>without further argument</i> that that practice is good (or that not doing it is bad).</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P1. It's the natural order of things that some people serve others. (Descriptive)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P2. If a behavior, practice, or arrangement is natural then it is good. (Linking).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">P3. Therefore, slavery is good. (Normative)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Notice that even if we're super charitable and grant P1, the argument still won't work since it also needs P2 to be true. But P2 is false: It's natural for humans to go to war, rape, and pillage, and generally to act shitty to each other but that doesn't make it good nor does it follow that we should do it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The naturalistic fallacy was/is often used to justify traditional gender roles, withholding the right to vote, hold property, pursue an education, etc...</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Knowing what is <i>natural</i> doesn't tell us what is good or what we <i>ought</i> to do. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Anytime you hear someone defend a practice, behavior, or social arrangement by arguing that it's the natural order, poke your finger right in their chest and shout, "it's natural for people to commit the is/ought fallacy but that doesn't make it a good argument!"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Fancy Pants Note:</i> (Arguably) G.E. Moore pointed out another kind of naturalistic fallacy but I'll set that aside for now. My own view is that it's also a subspecies of the is/ought fallacy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to Tradition</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Appeal to tradition</b> is also a common subspecies of the is/ought fallacy. The fact that slavery has persisted through human history doesn't tell us anything about its moral status as a practice. The same goes for any historical practice. The argument from tradition also does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to defending traditional gender roles. As you now know from being in Obama's reeducation camps, the fact that women and men traditionally occupied particular roles tells us nothing about whether those were <i>good</i> arrangements or that we ought to adopt/preserve those arrangements.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">What <i>was</i> doesn't tell us what is <i>good</i> or what we <i>ought</i> to do. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Anytime you here someone saying, "yeah but, that's the way it's been done throughout history," turn your hand into a blade and shout, "oh yeah? In my country it's tradition to judo chop people who make bad arguments so I guess it's right for me to chop you." That'll show 'em.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to the Law Fallacy</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You can't justify a practice's moral value by merely appealing to the law of the land. Laws can be just or unjust. The fact that something is allowed (or prohibited) by a current law tells us nothing about whether it that practice is just or unjust. Obviously, the fact that slavery was permitted by the laws of the day doesn't allow us to conclude that slavery was therefore morally good.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Similarly, the fact that a law prohibits an act; for example, smoking the pot, doesn't allow us to conclude that it's morally bad to smoke the pot.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to the law fallacy is a subspecies of appeal to authority. And you need to respect my authoritah on this cuz I'm a philosopher:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Knowing what the law <i>is</i> doesn't tell us what is <i>just</i> it only tells us what the current law is. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Anytime you hear someone say, "well if it's morally wrong then why is it legal?" or "if it isn't immoral then why is there a law against it?" tell them that they just violated Hume's law and send them these links:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas</span></a></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/ohio" target="_blank">http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/ohio</a> </span></li>
</ul>
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to God/Bible/Religion</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This one might be a bit controversial but I'm going to include it anyway. It goes without saying that holy texts and religion have been used to justify pretty much everything under the sun--both good and evil. Appeal to the Bible was one of, if not the most common <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp" target="_blank">justification for slavery</a> (and subjugation of women and demonization of gays and justification of Jim Crow laws and etc...). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Appeal to religion can take many forms:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">'Cuz it says so in (my One True interpretation of) the Bible.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">'Cuz God designed the universe that way.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">'Cuz God said so.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the first case, we have a hybrid between argument from authority and argument from tradition. The undefended linking premise would be "if (my interpretation of) the Bible says we ought/ought not to do X then we ought/ought not to do x." The Bible, like many holy texts, contains plenty of wise moral prescriptions but there are also a <a href="http://www.evilbible.com/" target="_blank">great many awful ones</a>. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">However, the good moral prescriptions aren't good because they just happen to be found in the Bible; it's not their <i>source</i> that makes them good moral advice. They're good for independent reasons. For example, the Bible recommends we don't kill others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So deep. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Truly the product of divine inspiration. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Surely no human could have come up with this. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But the prohibition on murdering is not a good moral prescription <i>because</i> the Bible said so. Presumably, there are good independent reasons not to murder <i>even if those words were never written into the Bible</i>. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Just as the Bible can offer sage advice it can also be morally bankrupt. Famously, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Infamously, it provides guidelines for purchase and treatment of slaves:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Knowing what a holy text says doesn't on its own tell you what is good or what you ought to do since holy texts contain both good and abhorrent moral advice. Anytime someone says "well, in the Holy book it says..." just find a contradictory passage or interpretation in the same book. You'll always find one...</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Knowing what <i>is</i> written in a book doesn't tell us what is <i>good</i> or what we <i>ought </i>to do.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The appeal to design is just another version of the 'natural order of things.'</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The "'cuz God said so" is just like appeal to a holy text (setting difficult epistemological issues aside).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What Was Hume's Point?</span></u></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There's some debate over exactly what Hume was up to in pointing out the is/ought fallacy. Some people interpret Hume as a skeptic with regard to the justifiability of moral claims. If all knowledge comes from observation of the world and observational statements about how the world <i>is</i> can't justify moral claims then moral claims can never be true (or false).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The standard interpretation, however, is not skepticism but that justifying a normative claim requires reasons <i>in addition to </i>descriptive claims.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So how <i>do</i> we justify moral claims? Unless we have some source of knowledge besides observation, the is/ought problem implies that moral claims can never be justified. So, what is this other source of knowledge?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Classical philosophers along with many of Hume's contemporaries thought that capital 'R' <i>Reason</i> could tell us what we ought/ought not to do or value. But Hume famously argued that reason "is and ought only to be the slave to the passions." Reason can only tell us <i>how</i> to achieve particular ends or values, it can't tell us <i>which</i> ends or values to pursue and realize. That is the job of the passions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are two related issues floating around: The first is meta-ethical: what is the <i>source</i> of value? Second is epistemological: How do we <i>know</i> what to value?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The is/ought fallacy shows that we can't discover values by scientific observation of the world. Science can only tell us what <i>is</i>. It can never tell us what to value or what we ought to do about how we know the world to be. Take what seems to be a straight forward case: People who exercise regularly tend to be happier. For most people it seems like a straightforward inference to "therefore, people ought to exercise." But notice that lurking in the background is an normative assumption about happiness: that we ought to pursue it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It may seem trivial but it's consistent with what Hume is saying. You can't move <i>immediately</i> from descriptive claims to normative conclusions. You always need a premise linking the descriptive claim to the normative claim. In this case: If something makes us happy then we ought to do it. Again, a little reflection reveals that this isn't obviously true in all cases. It doesn't mean that we can't come up with a different linking premise. Regardless, Hume's point stands that we can't move deductively from purely descriptive to normative claims. We must always provide additional (non-descriptive) reasons that link descriptive facts to normative judgments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, if science (i.e., observation of the world) can't tell us what to value, what does? As I mentioned above, Hume also rules out Reason. Reason can only tell us the most efficient ways to achieve our values. So what's left? If value isn't "in" the world (and therefore not discoverable by science) where does value come from? The skeptical interpretation is that since value isn't discoverable by science it doesn't exist in any objective sense and is (<i>gasp</i>!) unscientific. Thus, normative claims can never be justified as objectively true. But Hume suggests another source for value: Our sentiments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Our emotions of approval or disapproval ground value. Wait. So this fancy philosopher is telling me that if I like something it's good and if I dislike it it's bad? That's dumb. That's the answer of a three year old.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As you might expect, Hume's view is a bit more nuanced. The short version is that those traits of character (or actions that exemplify those traits) that we think are 'good' are those that we would approve of. But we have to be careful here because I might approve of someone's action merely because it benefits me. We <i>shouldn't</i> conclude from this that the action is therefore good. Hume marks a distinction between 'interested' and 'disinterested' emotions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Interested emotions are those that I feel when I'm appraising an act/trait from the <i>personal</i> point of view. Disinterested emotions are how I feel about an act/trait from an <i>impartial</i> point of view. When we evaluate an action or trait we must strive to remove our personal interests and affinities toward the agent contemplate the act from<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16.5px;">“some common point of view, from which [we] might survey [our] object, and which might cause it to appear the same to [everyone].” In other words, when we assess the moral qualities of a behavior we carefully introspect on how feel about it from an <i>impartial</i> point of view <i>that can be shared by others</i>. The fact that an act would garner <i>shared</i> approval/disapproval grounds that act's moral properties. If there is widespread approbation from this impartial point of view, then the act/trait is good. The converse is also true.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16.5px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 16.5px;">And so moral knowledge is not grounded in observations of the world, nor is it grounded in Reason. Moral knowledge and knowledge of value come to us through careful introspection of our moral sentiments from an impartial point of view.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u><br /></u></b><b><u>Comprehension Test</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the beginning of the previous section I suggested that the is/ought fallacy is most commonly committed when the socially constructed nature of institutions, beliefs, and practices are invisible to the arguer. These institutions, beliefs, and practices are often "extra" invisible to our criticism when we benefit from them since we actively resist evidence and arguments to the contrary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The testimony of slaves regarding their plight and equal humanity was dismissed as unimportant or plain ridiculous. It was even argued that slavery was in their own best interest. Women's arguments that they had just as much desire and capacity to participate in political and academic life were often waved off. And today still, the experiences of oppressed groups are trivialized, dismissed as mere whining or as unpatriotic: DON'T YOU KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE JUST TO LIVE IN AMERICA? SHUT UP AND BE GRATEFUL!!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So here's a test to see how well I've been able to explain the is/ought fallacy. Run through all the arguments you can think of for why it's morally permissible to raise animals and kill them prematurely for our dining pleasure. How many subspecies of the is/ought fallacy can you find?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Expert Challenge:</i> Here is the argument most commonly overlooked as an instance of the is/ought fallacy:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's OK to raise and kill animals for food because we're human and they're not.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">OR</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's OK because humans and animals are different.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Can you identify why this is an instance of the is/ought fallacy? (I'll post some answers at the end).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Answers</span></u></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2014/06/standard-arguments-for-why-its-ok-to.html" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2014/06/standard-arguments-for-why-its-ok-to.html</a></span><br />
<br />
<b><u>Loose Ends</u></b><br />
A few philosophers deny Hume's view that facts about the world can't on their own justify normative conclusions. If you're interested in this view google "ethical naturalism."<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span>Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-33009555632336179972017-06-21T22:13:00.002-07:002017-06-23T19:50:22.861-07:00Reno Round 1: A Comedy<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I just finished working my ass off renovating an older house I bought earlier in the year. Here are the before, during, and after pictures. </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This post doesn't have any philosophy except for that I wouldn't have finished the project if I hadn't been reading the Stoics in the evening...</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Part 1: </span></u></b></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The house had been sitting unoccupied since 2014. I got the water turned on and there were two leaks (so I thought). Water came gushing though a wall and under the sink. I fixed the leaks then turned the water back on. I double checked my work for leaks. Everything seemed fine.</span></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I came back a few days later and the floor was covered in water. WTF?</span></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It turns out there was a leak AND a drainage problem with the dishwasher. The valve to the dishwasher was leaking water into the dishwasher. Not a problem on its own but a problem if the dishwasher isn't draining. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I didn't identify the problem because with the small leak it takes about 30 min for the dishwasher to fill up and overflow. I didn't stick around for 30 min after turning the water back on...</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I couldn't just replace the laminate flooring because the substrate had been warped by the water.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuUKcPfQDaogdQM8ypEpA3Jh-vQ5b2hZb6z2b7Z2d_jxplhr6egXyrSjx_GndSwu5e_KjfMUGIl8GpLwWKY8ANbqtyJ2ZAkhQUYgngyLpyxzZTKvdtDSRByDyTvfOqT_zH7xZ-RLAkQyU/s1600/20170410_155652.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuUKcPfQDaogdQM8ypEpA3Jh-vQ5b2hZb6z2b7Z2d_jxplhr6egXyrSjx_GndSwu5e_KjfMUGIl8GpLwWKY8ANbqtyJ2ZAkhQUYgngyLpyxzZTKvdtDSRByDyTvfOqT_zH7xZ-RLAkQyU/s400/20170410_155652.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizNenEwhpfUAUVn99Y3PYzLCYHK71OErrYPdJ5l1_LBi8Nu1ZVsGwUiE21AoGJO-ab4ctWIlkHPsP3sI0WM9lqwNiNTWGH4Y1y2CHt1qRCr08bszDIf3L3FDBhnK0xjhqITlfqZZFLOuo/s1600/20170410_155708.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizNenEwhpfUAUVn99Y3PYzLCYHK71OErrYPdJ5l1_LBi8Nu1ZVsGwUiE21AoGJO-ab4ctWIlkHPsP3sI0WM9lqwNiNTWGH4Y1y2CHt1qRCr08bszDIf3L3FDBhnK0xjhqITlfqZZFLOuo/s400/20170410_155708.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCsJ3kfy5JHVvvHUbCBxh_BpJflRrEoe6zN-LCtNzILaOI940RfjijCq11wF13HUFBeRZExsHdxd_-qeXgusowSYLi6Z0JkfoMGkvFDCypVtH8VuJ255nS8pxoWR7g_RP-M6yaViOOq90/s1600/20170410_155727.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCsJ3kfy5JHVvvHUbCBxh_BpJflRrEoe6zN-LCtNzILaOI940RfjijCq11wF13HUFBeRZExsHdxd_-qeXgusowSYLi6Z0JkfoMGkvFDCypVtH8VuJ255nS8pxoWR7g_RP-M6yaViOOq90/s400/20170410_155727.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMdcaFAsPKHZ4s70vShcZEL5cMoHbj8iRk8UmGOyK7Twz9U_n2p4OLqAMjI-V9JpfhjVFQAJwrq014ka5xlvKgr9ZFdT4mZ-m1U16jdD9cPK3mpUzDEVAWMZuw29bYGsnzucS1ZLO2LZU/s1600/20170410_155754.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMdcaFAsPKHZ4s70vShcZEL5cMoHbj8iRk8UmGOyK7Twz9U_n2p4OLqAMjI-V9JpfhjVFQAJwrq014ka5xlvKgr9ZFdT4mZ-m1U16jdD9cPK3mpUzDEVAWMZuw29bYGsnzucS1ZLO2LZU/s400/20170410_155754.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Part 2: Remove the Flooring</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">You can't install flooring on a warped substrate so I had to take that out too. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">SURPRISE! </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Under the substrate there was another floor. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Also wet.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I took that floor out plus its substrate (which was also wet and warped).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn0As75-wPgRimYvuG4QaLHHdjOExXfiN1xVPocy8yxyPSy3OZxgKgT1RJEaGgcmLngYwIi0HMayihcBdkDhIRKaPyHHe8bF65BtkJSpc9laAgWbf0tcrTwbbUKbeiMvRnDc7s18ps_8w/s1600/20170410_164742.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn0As75-wPgRimYvuG4QaLHHdjOExXfiN1xVPocy8yxyPSy3OZxgKgT1RJEaGgcmLngYwIi0HMayihcBdkDhIRKaPyHHe8bF65BtkJSpc9laAgWbf0tcrTwbbUKbeiMvRnDc7s18ps_8w/s400/20170410_164742.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh540qI1S3lyWih7jYsPpj92WJpftLamemmNnDxzLS9wTKiVAxELRtYkxGzPYufH3CvTnRRV0xzt8Xdtmahr0QWoymnJ3PhpVcd5TIOWM_0Mzx7SZ-63s9cQLK77pF5WiMZTAnPBNakeSE/s1600/20170410_164816.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh540qI1S3lyWih7jYsPpj92WJpftLamemmNnDxzLS9wTKiVAxELRtYkxGzPYufH3CvTnRRV0xzt8Xdtmahr0QWoymnJ3PhpVcd5TIOWM_0Mzx7SZ-63s9cQLK77pF5WiMZTAnPBNakeSE/s400/20170410_164816.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB16bSGNpXLoQhYfwegOZ5BoPPbB_IsXeFI7gsD8ZkOjeMXGTDK2YHjuwKGIXYQjedultZ1bLJG9tjWtLiKRkkEEm9-AH3tpDtG9GTjcY0sEIXkc_wpkilk2Bl3EdDzxC2b6KgrsHPmLI/s1600/20170410_164847.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB16bSGNpXLoQhYfwegOZ5BoPPbB_IsXeFI7gsD8ZkOjeMXGTDK2YHjuwKGIXYQjedultZ1bLJG9tjWtLiKRkkEEm9-AH3tpDtG9GTjcY0sEIXkc_wpkilk2Bl3EdDzxC2b6KgrsHPmLI/s400/20170410_164847.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBwb7d8TQDwjEh_c0Qw7uuW_APhdxmG7gkl5P022R3e53ECeWHqyipYihWtzjzIvYUmL8FUwE7zVL7JdLkb65t9uk5tfUtNfHqf0VkqeJJCr_iFK3TPS_elL778CyupPeFokhW6q9wuJI/s1600/20170410_164802.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBwb7d8TQDwjEh_c0Qw7uuW_APhdxmG7gkl5P022R3e53ECeWHqyipYihWtzjzIvYUmL8FUwE7zVL7JdLkb65t9uk5tfUtNfHqf0VkqeJJCr_iFK3TPS_elL778CyupPeFokhW6q9wuJI/s400/20170410_164802.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Otis helping.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQu7fhvPbZkqBZdQXfbdwPhToP9rBPegaYlGtKc9z1faa5WxThDmDK_29lExP0x4JZ59ILLpI7d7kHBOPPAhqP2mrJW2Zp13-nrJOXLjc0uilnx1S-PIqU7_m_Y_HaNgeSPzCrcO8AsBw/s1600/20170410_164912.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQu7fhvPbZkqBZdQXfbdwPhToP9rBPegaYlGtKc9z1faa5WxThDmDK_29lExP0x4JZ59ILLpI7d7kHBOPPAhqP2mrJW2Zp13-nrJOXLjc0uilnx1S-PIqU7_m_Y_HaNgeSPzCrcO8AsBw/s400/20170410_164912.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I took the particle board out only to find another plywood substrate...</span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiM17_xIKm-7q1rL-Bs0_ITubaaqgsuQkmOfUfFn_HpwElQ1sFcsHcZIw3Au1eExn1Wy7ujV2dNgGt4iF-cC_sEr84gkd-axkL5u6N9G_6VqfarguX9uMpfMbW7DUXjxJ0tCAu-ev3Sp8/s1600/20170411_163729.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiM17_xIKm-7q1rL-Bs0_ITubaaqgsuQkmOfUfFn_HpwElQ1sFcsHcZIw3Au1eExn1Wy7ujV2dNgGt4iF-cC_sEr84gkd-axkL5u6N9G_6VqfarguX9uMpfMbW7DUXjxJ0tCAu-ev3Sp8/s400/20170411_163729.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_v62GNcoQB5O1l3liqa_akiMQlsZ5mhFv1H50k_gRT121ui2Noolk5CDeDh8oVXhS5jKlsvpw_TtBiVCaaVkE7n-Alwda5m8wrDQiE-ik2YXRzKPbVcRNnxbaGMejh71LKC_wMAwhe4c/s1600/20170411_165117.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_v62GNcoQB5O1l3liqa_akiMQlsZ5mhFv1H50k_gRT121ui2Noolk5CDeDh8oVXhS5jKlsvpw_TtBiVCaaVkE7n-Alwda5m8wrDQiE-ik2YXRzKPbVcRNnxbaGMejh71LKC_wMAwhe4c/s400/20170411_165117.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Under the plywood was another linoleum floor. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSFXDMShVWbvIbikX6COUzFortgqxSgcQpEwmJNWz8zb1f78raZOhT3XFErjaCll4rF6-Hf3WvuHlBZstsJY2FkQOmKdTD6NVyEV7MzAlIrsh5n_bgYBu1tBcZ_0wmhc_3cVZ8whPQ6M4/s1600/20170427_161015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSFXDMShVWbvIbikX6COUzFortgqxSgcQpEwmJNWz8zb1f78raZOhT3XFErjaCll4rF6-Hf3WvuHlBZstsJY2FkQOmKdTD6NVyEV7MzAlIrsh5n_bgYBu1tBcZ_0wmhc_3cVZ8whPQ6M4/s400/20170427_161015.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGBgKD6itvxsoq_xgOfw32ZFdSNaRbunq0Xc2c3THwvJbZBYkEkgbLg0g230ATu0mU8Or7jD4iCauhtOUxjbA0pX6GtLOm2m9btVUwD9oBHZ-pE9HFJY-Ji6e9_8tlG-mvA800dJ_c4S0/s1600/20170427_161022.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGBgKD6itvxsoq_xgOfw32ZFdSNaRbunq0Xc2c3THwvJbZBYkEkgbLg0g230ATu0mU8Or7jD4iCauhtOUxjbA0pX6GtLOm2m9btVUwD9oBHZ-pE9HFJY-Ji6e9_8tlG-mvA800dJ_c4S0/s400/20170427_161022.jpg" width="225" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And under that floor was another linoleum floor... </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At this point I feel like I'm in some sort of twisted comedy. After several days of removing floors, all I can do is laugh...and say "fuck it." I'm not removing any more floors. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWkKgwrGSjHFOZ0Hi7pU8-a1DLJJilpyNyFKF4FRZ7SM-rztWziBXcF07xdSy_TvRTV6P3p_8xiM9woKEipgGmdaNY3gNyii5_Tn4IMEzHPzDOwjv0ntZqv_We5PQp2c9BDfpfqlxz87A/s1600/20170427_161726.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWkKgwrGSjHFOZ0Hi7pU8-a1DLJJilpyNyFKF4FRZ7SM-rztWziBXcF07xdSy_TvRTV6P3p_8xiM9woKEipgGmdaNY3gNyii5_Tn4IMEzHPzDOwjv0ntZqv_We5PQp2c9BDfpfqlxz87A/s400/20170427_161726.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Part 3: The Bathroom Saga Begins</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I needed a break from dealing with the floors if I wanted to preserve my sanity. I figured I'd move to the bathroom. I can't remember why, but for some reason I dumped a bucket of water into the tub. I then noticed that 30 seconds later the adjacent closet floor was covered in water.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Not good. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So much for my sanity.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I decided to pull up the subfloor next to the tub to try to see what was going on:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX465IyQfMLyvFFjAWaNlew6ma-SUROUgfWBfB0mextv9dtnlGVYViSKnC9dOddza45oIAulPCcyRBAS6sp4kshwOkdHwOi78xptBz-4kJjzfpkLxkzl5SLdabqO70ed0CSLIVxD558kc/s1600/20170504_181615.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX465IyQfMLyvFFjAWaNlew6ma-SUROUgfWBfB0mextv9dtnlGVYViSKnC9dOddza45oIAulPCcyRBAS6sp4kshwOkdHwOi78xptBz-4kJjzfpkLxkzl5SLdabqO70ed0CSLIVxD558kc/s400/20170504_181615.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I'm no expert, but I think there's a leak...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The (correction: "<i>A"</i>) problem was that the tub drain assembly had completely rusted out where it attaches to the main drain<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ8qcsTn87VrYFH5J6_nK-mXMvvYjcM8Wm9cfu2bFrmw5deJGP4iN9sCPfEdeln3bXONLSfs59OJwEigRd723OwQI_OKtMD4aCRhvWtfSn6JPsK5wHTuE_d79w8IvMbtfD7EfBc5u0FpE/s1600/20170504_183208.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ8qcsTn87VrYFH5J6_nK-mXMvvYjcM8Wm9cfu2bFrmw5deJGP4iN9sCPfEdeln3bXONLSfs59OJwEigRd723OwQI_OKtMD4aCRhvWtfSn6JPsK5wHTuE_d79w8IvMbtfD7EfBc5u0FpE/s400/20170504_183208.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If I can just pull out the tub drain assembly and replace it, we're good to go...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpGHijcufiYQ8hRWyI9TEuiCIrL4OwdhC2nZy3ps5_5z8yA2hFrghC__lRGEwrCQPuuKavsxyiX4f_8_f2oTr-Bxq3tcgYTpoFKlqqNXVlJacDaOLYKYD4VQwZoBLlpiwK_ThCSWH4r9Y/s1600/20170508_141956.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpGHijcufiYQ8hRWyI9TEuiCIrL4OwdhC2nZy3ps5_5z8yA2hFrghC__lRGEwrCQPuuKavsxyiX4f_8_f2oTr-Bxq3tcgYTpoFKlqqNXVlJacDaOLYKYD4VQwZoBLlpiwK_ThCSWH4r9Y/s400/20170508_141956.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbknYVyhD8TqoMutPXaat4vPnWk65KQoOFkmNYqmQDW08TLdutnnHGDqGEA8Z_YIcMRn5_IkqSXk_QGw_0T3pTg7ZWc7aDx5qaBRqds9rDxVp34uaWzZrdPyCT6TCmdLBJuNzvtdM5Oxw/s1600/20170508_160559.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbknYVyhD8TqoMutPXaat4vPnWk65KQoOFkmNYqmQDW08TLdutnnHGDqGEA8Z_YIcMRn5_IkqSXk_QGw_0T3pTg7ZWc7aDx5qaBRqds9rDxVp34uaWzZrdPyCT6TCmdLBJuNzvtdM5Oxw/s400/20170508_160559.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
That's not going to work since the threads are completely gone. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I know! I'll cut the cast iron knuckle off, replace it with a rubber one then install a new assembly...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Gonna have to remove some sub-floor first for access...</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMokIo50XRgELYeEvKvwFA2D12p9iPaJc38HpyvUrRALCQV9nN7sNhNI9poNAsN6zgl4Kt_nARFM5AxG-8bLLZnbFhcn44tkSdRD7ahC3jBnkJpWHF-Wr_dAx3s1GSIgg_yf6i4JAxae4/s1600/20170508_185703.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMokIo50XRgELYeEvKvwFA2D12p9iPaJc38HpyvUrRALCQV9nN7sNhNI9poNAsN6zgl4Kt_nARFM5AxG-8bLLZnbFhcn44tkSdRD7ahC3jBnkJpWHF-Wr_dAx3s1GSIgg_yf6i4JAxae4/s400/20170508_185703.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Umm....WTF? This is my drain pipe for the tub....</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZVvE3Ak2deSVcrAdaWcUU3RJghdD6ntf09ht9yc1sbYfH_IQA1PJSt-JnDXHeG_vpBVIuajc7I6pVeJ5YQzLG7NIZbn6Pr8FnmNB5apuaP_P-llHX4ZsgGw_wP8aM9KsKKH_FQ39psmQ/s1600/20170508_195500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZVvE3Ak2deSVcrAdaWcUU3RJghdD6ntf09ht9yc1sbYfH_IQA1PJSt-JnDXHeG_vpBVIuajc7I6pVeJ5YQzLG7NIZbn6Pr8FnmNB5apuaP_P-llHX4ZsgGw_wP8aM9KsKKH_FQ39psmQ/s400/20170508_195500.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicLnpUxsYC2Xn48CKq7Y46yx9qMY0IpR5IhVpYCykveUdbEt9U6Z1Rb3EOyfm44fWeqLos_PLLB4htRFqHiuTopDvNk_WbjFshk4URcZAoeX4SDcMdx4QldvGPuG7oBINAXpGpJtqv6UI/s1600/20170509_161045.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicLnpUxsYC2Xn48CKq7Y46yx9qMY0IpR5IhVpYCykveUdbEt9U6Z1Rb3EOyfm44fWeqLos_PLLB4htRFqHiuTopDvNk_WbjFshk4URcZAoeX4SDcMdx4QldvGPuG7oBINAXpGpJtqv6UI/s320/20170509_161045.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Ok, so I'm going to have to take the pipe out but the only way to do that is to remove the cast iron tub...and the only way to do that is with a sledge hammer. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Some pictures before the demo...</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoFFFR3dEAOc_ApKsikfNPcAubZPJWMe1WbEUP4H9qq4Fqu4RXOif63wct6PpHqFV6yzIGkrUIMmJEmYJmRzNvUrl1YJoRWzNvSDC4gt1zuppqPNzZooHkoatfGKJcnyYEPqEfcCi7Uf4/s1600/20170504_183248.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoFFFR3dEAOc_ApKsikfNPcAubZPJWMe1WbEUP4H9qq4Fqu4RXOif63wct6PpHqFV6yzIGkrUIMmJEmYJmRzNvUrl1YJoRWzNvSDC4gt1zuppqPNzZooHkoatfGKJcnyYEPqEfcCi7Uf4/s400/20170504_183248.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgStzIbkgowUmFXnaxThJYSDA-_0M43k26XbBZXAOyiPofzH6Dc5yJAIc2jBfQScNmwgEWHcchGoxT3LKubLK8nF5JmLdDUvRqbBowOv2jN3oQfS00dLGHCUicZ8eOaMG0sdicdU5rIDi4/s1600/20170504_183254.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgStzIbkgowUmFXnaxThJYSDA-_0M43k26XbBZXAOyiPofzH6Dc5yJAIc2jBfQScNmwgEWHcchGoxT3LKubLK8nF5JmLdDUvRqbBowOv2jN3oQfS00dLGHCUicZ8eOaMG0sdicdU5rIDi4/s400/20170504_183254.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhntmAd7YxLDPRoNncq966u9wFljy64MqAi10ZVwxU_MMpjR_fhRqX5pPaYbaj8X5_9Pqfci8L2HlEm1QBrqyX8VYvnjupaxv9mlNwMEibBHiGOK4ZYjFWWYlojkGYY_KYKt97KUGOOzFc/s1600/20170505_211917.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhntmAd7YxLDPRoNncq966u9wFljy64MqAi10ZVwxU_MMpjR_fhRqX5pPaYbaj8X5_9Pqfci8L2HlEm1QBrqyX8VYvnjupaxv9mlNwMEibBHiGOK4ZYjFWWYlojkGYY_KYKt97KUGOOzFc/s400/20170505_211917.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWfky83KMDYW776nNCEl3obqAtBeAKUPeGQtXQpRKw-PI8LR6ZH3GuFgiM83iwTlCwP31wAkLkdF3jxvGe3e08yZTJXOyHZvGD-OfTmMt6-S_UnK0GS4Ef0MJH3XkPHdGFgpnWZToLMAw/s1600/20170505_211934.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWfky83KMDYW776nNCEl3obqAtBeAKUPeGQtXQpRKw-PI8LR6ZH3GuFgiM83iwTlCwP31wAkLkdF3jxvGe3e08yZTJXOyHZvGD-OfTmMt6-S_UnK0GS4Ef0MJH3XkPHdGFgpnWZToLMAw/s400/20170505_211934.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">So beautiful...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlUHb-Uh6oAE0rQ_epUJg6qgdq0HTnu0qq9rqAuewW38PIw7mJ9koe-Me0VS0AbnvpWojdZrZI568ZYIiDcmRI0W2BALlmE_mNP8VdYlONEYcbMjwRPG2OJ0tzq6RFOVa9cL46QyOI0l8/s1600/20170505_211946.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlUHb-Uh6oAE0rQ_epUJg6qgdq0HTnu0qq9rqAuewW38PIw7mJ9koe-Me0VS0AbnvpWojdZrZI568ZYIiDcmRI0W2BALlmE_mNP8VdYlONEYcbMjwRPG2OJ0tzq6RFOVa9cL46QyOI0l8/s400/20170505_211946.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA4Y9X6ATu149_6dK2H22gqWvcqGCuCreN2k3XjnPFF_AKZ6Y0fdG7Qpg65AK_2JPxNfzJdCqh3LX2raQWGiMyaMjG-xDdVRPRc-vgBEmT4nr0CJibSW8GrbB_smxgtx08CkINT0akU-4/s1600/20170505_212005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA4Y9X6ATu149_6dK2H22gqWvcqGCuCreN2k3XjnPFF_AKZ6Y0fdG7Qpg65AK_2JPxNfzJdCqh3LX2raQWGiMyaMjG-xDdVRPRc-vgBEmT4nr0CJibSW8GrbB_smxgtx08CkINT0akU-4/s400/20170505_212005.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAQJ-wFZs0aCHMVAYNCL61yT3oTftqqRbRj7vMlbZFTvggxmJXtL4fviBuXiVXV4rgPPY1NN2l9DBThWe7EGoaN3zdwr5CqAMtLr12p-arb4nA4xeh7nLtW0HA9mboDSMIhH2gqh9ZZ1g/s1600/20170505_220557.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAQJ-wFZs0aCHMVAYNCL61yT3oTftqqRbRj7vMlbZFTvggxmJXtL4fviBuXiVXV4rgPPY1NN2l9DBThWe7EGoaN3zdwr5CqAMtLr12p-arb4nA4xeh7nLtW0HA9mboDSMIhH2gqh9ZZ1g/s400/20170505_220557.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My helper...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0a_D9Yxj014navZ9untMQtcyJ9rQxQp75fIhry9xggP5vK0ArWPHp80BkR3lNkMPDYjJKTJN7ueYs1tQPHiNVjtxAwd5UZBwg7_Lzr0A0KSqhwZDrR9HLjkigteKyHSN2s1FRjdNKgWc/s1600/20170505_225538.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0a_D9Yxj014navZ9untMQtcyJ9rQxQp75fIhry9xggP5vK0ArWPHp80BkR3lNkMPDYjJKTJN7ueYs1tQPHiNVjtxAwd5UZBwg7_Lzr0A0KSqhwZDrR9HLjkigteKyHSN2s1FRjdNKgWc/s400/20170505_225538.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Ok, pipe's out. New rubber sleeve installed.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcnhKOOM08dBj9UyZIMFD-bgQDLEWn4IuHRe7N9EKpgz_EML5NP_-cI3b8ol7OFTp3SRyvzUWsL72G8Rs43cPpImO7P2Nnc55gb7wDdNVluPxrdINWcVFnz-yjza6WtmqmExXKK942KQk/s1600/20170510_123819.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcnhKOOM08dBj9UyZIMFD-bgQDLEWn4IuHRe7N9EKpgz_EML5NP_-cI3b8ol7OFTp3SRyvzUWsL72G8Rs43cPpImO7P2Nnc55gb7wDdNVluPxrdINWcVFnz-yjza6WtmqmExXKK942KQk/s320/20170510_123819.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The problem now is that no modern tubs fit in the space. It's too small. I'm going to have to build a custom shower...</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdCS-FXHYPNdbIDrsfIqL2xyAkDf1gR2LcTeS942tiwwdq9vTTSgcwlDxe5yla2JN6cW6xEjJ0XF-Bxgad5KM9RTn21KViFmuvTZv7ipE6yqH8g80LoL1vcmv3nXR6RtdFfhclUCUVkkQ/s1600/20170510_123837.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdCS-FXHYPNdbIDrsfIqL2xyAkDf1gR2LcTeS942tiwwdq9vTTSgcwlDxe5yla2JN6cW6xEjJ0XF-Bxgad5KM9RTn21KViFmuvTZv7ipE6yqH8g80LoL1vcmv3nXR6RtdFfhclUCUVkkQ/s400/20170510_123837.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pex water lines for shower.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Put in new subfloor, drain, and OSB board...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmDpmbs7MD7sUi842jndsdjZOaKvdxhr-SD63W0lq3s-SeM90JhsFFZOLGpxdvbcMop4Bgk9YfpJ5QzMCtQyTDtflYZ3tMMMgiy2MlUhanMOfcjq9U6sds02V7nTlr-APJW4B0PAOD9gk/s1600/20170511_210923.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmDpmbs7MD7sUi842jndsdjZOaKvdxhr-SD63W0lq3s-SeM90JhsFFZOLGpxdvbcMop4Bgk9YfpJ5QzMCtQyTDtflYZ3tMMMgiy2MlUhanMOfcjq9U6sds02V7nTlr-APJW4B0PAOD9gk/s400/20170511_210923.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Put in proper frame. For a shower you need to use 1/2" concrete board on the wall. That plus the weight of the thinset and tile requires you secure studs to the concrete wall.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhihCsV6eoqKeGyXgOF5KwvMxPgMGft2Q6bPBhNXdi1ySXWZXY4op5oe3TSM6T5P-DJGOCpr-s6LXp6oPL1sT7PqSSq6H42zxB6rqEQrgm0M_C6SyWt-X0NRTXKR2b-8S7ml1t-MDIrNTo/s1600/20170512_213426.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhihCsV6eoqKeGyXgOF5KwvMxPgMGft2Q6bPBhNXdi1ySXWZXY4op5oe3TSM6T5P-DJGOCpr-s6LXp6oPL1sT7PqSSq6H42zxB6rqEQrgm0M_C6SyWt-X0NRTXKR2b-8S7ml1t-MDIrNTo/s400/20170512_213426.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0D2D_tWjxgtdcu9dBbwn2lYFnCGF8pg3v7QzCxO42uEPnFNgokg1sXpw8q6yX1hRt27WXIOfWuMKPX0gijoSCKV2TBd4tYwfZm4j8svYUGzO4NCfVkzbudKui2O9y-ks2e3JK41GcXFE/s1600/20170512_213433.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0D2D_tWjxgtdcu9dBbwn2lYFnCGF8pg3v7QzCxO42uEPnFNgokg1sXpw8q6yX1hRt27WXIOfWuMKPX0gijoSCKV2TBd4tYwfZm4j8svYUGzO4NCfVkzbudKui2O9y-ks2e3JK41GcXFE/s400/20170512_213433.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiv2hglrFHwM0eczk4hBqZQVxXYZLxviicIbpBbvS336QzcMRNJRn3yl8qblDZAkyhdZGWS2ntLc0OaI346A6lfOApA_ooS46Px9OMHYukIvA4uFChEYAN5sKT0b0XeJGyj5A3dwE7gb8/s1600/20170512_213529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiv2hglrFHwM0eczk4hBqZQVxXYZLxviicIbpBbvS336QzcMRNJRn3yl8qblDZAkyhdZGWS2ntLc0OaI346A6lfOApA_ooS46Px9OMHYukIvA4uFChEYAN5sKT0b0XeJGyj5A3dwE7gb8/s400/20170512_213529.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Otis just sleeps while I work. He's not bothered by anything. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Tar paper to absorb the moisture from the concrete. Chicken wire to give the concrete extra support. The key to a long-lasting tile shower is that there be no movement. Any movement means cracks in the grout which leads to water penetration followed by the undoing of your shower.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtVcrxW9IzPa8UoojMLq9e9Sg3xMJOzqjtVoJ9upXwDokEvBijuXOCv9Qdyfbc3n8e-VUdjxurHG_ir_KUGCtKjamBnhzI34sbTafFEWcEtD-MXEyAze6GczIsYU4azpiHeDDEpC5Ob9g/s1600/20170512_224903.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtVcrxW9IzPa8UoojMLq9e9Sg3xMJOzqjtVoJ9upXwDokEvBijuXOCv9Qdyfbc3n8e-VUdjxurHG_ir_KUGCtKjamBnhzI34sbTafFEWcEtD-MXEyAze6GczIsYU4azpiHeDDEpC5Ob9g/s400/20170512_224903.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is called a pre-slope. It's the "pre" shower pan. If water makes it through the shower pan, this layer will direct water to the drain rather than have it sit and accumulate. The concrete slopes toward the drain weep holes.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-hbK5PGQSxmnXNGNl9UO5AI3gXc8ZWqao6yiRBuTa5E2wFsVFkKxcrgft_Bv7X1WpEDBLGEdpzCwfkFgZ2p0XKLYZPSjwzXM1lZ-5Oofn8MAA0T_RR2vOSNYP-yXw8mcPetXCnEWCczg/s1600/20170513_003230.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-hbK5PGQSxmnXNGNl9UO5AI3gXc8ZWqao6yiRBuTa5E2wFsVFkKxcrgft_Bv7X1WpEDBLGEdpzCwfkFgZ2p0XKLYZPSjwzXM1lZ-5Oofn8MAA0T_RR2vOSNYP-yXw8mcPetXCnEWCczg/s400/20170513_003230.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Below is the shower pan. On top of the pre-slope you install a shower pan liner. Over the liner you pour concrete and slope it 1/4" per foot to the drain. It should be about 3/4" thick at the drain so slope up from there.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoc2p05M3WUMppDnMxENDo3VGj4F3ah6NQvLeGiKh5-WaeA2PVinaqFK0pcFBbqtHS90rGtnDS_a9_IcloNmdNDbFfa8aT1SWmhQ1aMQO33VmuJJQDQbZeYMQVMRarYEuqJavDIR-eQlA/s1600/20170516_175940.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoc2p05M3WUMppDnMxENDo3VGj4F3ah6NQvLeGiKh5-WaeA2PVinaqFK0pcFBbqtHS90rGtnDS_a9_IcloNmdNDbFfa8aT1SWmhQ1aMQO33VmuJJQDQbZeYMQVMRarYEuqJavDIR-eQlA/s400/20170516_175940.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Installing the concrete board.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwrZRfNcwsYRYNZOTKt3Y0UMFRKxHsB6cxfZOjyKKSo2tCW-o8Oa527TfH0E5H1QIznoRG8Y0H0sgNNShKXAlCncTcgSz5v6fHCK8wfHD7KVsEWO_79M5m0FHHQdpu7Pe_kS9w2Zvze4/s1600/20170519_205033.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwrZRfNcwsYRYNZOTKt3Y0UMFRKxHsB6cxfZOjyKKSo2tCW-o8Oa527TfH0E5H1QIznoRG8Y0H0sgNNShKXAlCncTcgSz5v6fHCK8wfHD7KVsEWO_79M5m0FHHQdpu7Pe_kS9w2Zvze4/s400/20170519_205033.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Don't let the walls sit on the pan. If water makes it through to the pan and the walls are sitting on the floor, they will suck the water up. Leave about an inch gap.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are at least 3 ways to make a shower curb. Most start by stacking three 2x4s. I've covered my curb in mortar which will eventually be covered in waterproofing then thinset then tile. Shower curbs are a weak point. Have multiple layers of protection.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3fJp3uo1lnMvmWsSaANCmZIHj4rluzs9BkPQ5ThK2ecNRmcnOBSW2B6Iug-NRDX9PgdAngnxQ1KDX7y0f9iuDJRFbXP93SlAG_H-UC50NAEM-CwkEmqe3b06eB6x7M9Jj-esPFbIBR0o/s1600/20170519_205044.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3fJp3uo1lnMvmWsSaANCmZIHj4rluzs9BkPQ5ThK2ecNRmcnOBSW2B6Iug-NRDX9PgdAngnxQ1KDX7y0f9iuDJRFbXP93SlAG_H-UC50NAEM-CwkEmqe3b06eB6x7M9Jj-esPFbIBR0o/s320/20170519_205044.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Put concrete board on the rest of the bathroom floor. Current building codes require all areas near water to have concrete board as a substrate. Unlike in drywall, mold can't grow in concrete.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyeZ1lEf1kRcsNoBUTXNvJvv74W_EzFpC8fJHbz3kLaSxrg6YQ9i7ptlxafYY2IM9EoSl61hyphenhyphenYnv4rcbWHfdIrb721T3ZWFRlFgoCJK0LWcr3b0IN8_eiQSExNfXKXHT6xyBGoQMY_psA/s1600/20170519_205112.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyeZ1lEf1kRcsNoBUTXNvJvv74W_EzFpC8fJHbz3kLaSxrg6YQ9i7ptlxafYY2IM9EoSl61hyphenhyphenYnv4rcbWHfdIrb721T3ZWFRlFgoCJK0LWcr3b0IN8_eiQSExNfXKXHT6xyBGoQMY_psA/s400/20170519_205112.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Waterproof all the seams and screws with waterproofing product. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjawkBBv4G9mIg5Fv7KfRcoocJtbhe79HAyhLTz4J7x3YIMOoARH-ESv0Wx0BCazNXCYF1_6SS6Xs27dXMn59lyGHVOcKUzvyOo4ucRRbuWofPeVwD3LurcOBCg-Vkc9c3E5DNyPmqTUfs/s1600/20170521_142916.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjawkBBv4G9mIg5Fv7KfRcoocJtbhe79HAyhLTz4J7x3YIMOoARH-ESv0Wx0BCazNXCYF1_6SS6Xs27dXMn59lyGHVOcKUzvyOo4ucRRbuWofPeVwD3LurcOBCg-Vkc9c3E5DNyPmqTUfs/s400/20170521_142916.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Tile the middle wall first. Don't tile the bottom row. (I'll explain later). I've used a leveling system to ensure my tiles are perfectly flat. Any imperfection will cause your shower to fail. If there is "lipage" between tiles, that's where the water will get behind the wall eventually causing your tiles to fall off.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPj9RvpOaHYQGwFLYAUaoIq2BdS3eFShC200Vdri6QJhFengwwCcKGxP5JyrydId8f7EvBxyrMhA-Cqa8foSPg-vj3T-ldJwTA5TFDGs0_vav0Zv2v_cZ1NLNOQfunumMScW84JkFG_OM/s1600/20170606_195856.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPj9RvpOaHYQGwFLYAUaoIq2BdS3eFShC200Vdri6QJhFengwwCcKGxP5JyrydId8f7EvBxyrMhA-Cqa8foSPg-vj3T-ldJwTA5TFDGs0_vav0Zv2v_cZ1NLNOQfunumMScW84JkFG_OM/s400/20170606_195856.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8dNa9Qte-EZDYeCL7dlOTUg42QUTbBUoWEI2O_jzjlILtJvnVqgZgsDB4Y1oTPjNvPGCKiVt1o5mcZ0KJfOuMEVbnJH6upMELYIHTRh6jTko8NBXzuGE_UMs7NlJlBneawJia6gwO_o/s1600/20170606_195914.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV8dNa9Qte-EZDYeCL7dlOTUg42QUTbBUoWEI2O_jzjlILtJvnVqgZgsDB4Y1oTPjNvPGCKiVt1o5mcZ0KJfOuMEVbnJH6upMELYIHTRh6jTko8NBXzuGE_UMs7NlJlBneawJia6gwO_o/s400/20170606_195914.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4JGApPhnTq9eMuGkRoBNoKcoSBspP8nwURo7LAqaVLG7YV_hzw0JmoD6c8-QJRX1l2sTpTj6qtyDHZs7hBdKWyLxOJMSMPrUGfLyIbw8HRQLkdcRCujUOy8dl8ULNpCYcMhBkAe6ueCI/s1600/20170606_195924.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4JGApPhnTq9eMuGkRoBNoKcoSBspP8nwURo7LAqaVLG7YV_hzw0JmoD6c8-QJRX1l2sTpTj6qtyDHZs7hBdKWyLxOJMSMPrUGfLyIbw8HRQLkdcRCujUOy8dl8ULNpCYcMhBkAe6ueCI/s400/20170606_195924.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixNTSp-DJtPI6AOsy0P2rPpVGyMBAeLZ9-eGKBgU_a-kqRJDRYp-h9A9O2qlk5JICqcLoCsifsiCGHzzrFo6obpErPFUZOjqE2yhzjC5ZTKS9HvKcMOdRT1WtR3xzhv2GtQirCFETzDf4/s1600/20170607_205100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixNTSp-DJtPI6AOsy0P2rPpVGyMBAeLZ9-eGKBgU_a-kqRJDRYp-h9A9O2qlk5JICqcLoCsifsiCGHzzrFo6obpErPFUZOjqE2yhzjC5ZTKS9HvKcMOdRT1WtR3xzhv2GtQirCFETzDf4/s400/20170607_205100.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitkjF9fCN1C_DCMSoOQgFb71uKIIwXoiTKbESpGP2SOf_TUW1I6U41HK-ywuF6gq3GLRt6lFRory1PI2GvydcGaD3DpmMG-ddVfG9Aq2Wyag1jeS4Q2v3TGAuwhSlrjTmiED0f6ToAS7M/s1600/20170607_205107.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitkjF9fCN1C_DCMSoOQgFb71uKIIwXoiTKbESpGP2SOf_TUW1I6U41HK-ywuF6gq3GLRt6lFRory1PI2GvydcGaD3DpmMG-ddVfG9Aq2Wyag1jeS4Q2v3TGAuwhSlrjTmiED0f6ToAS7M/s400/20170607_205107.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Install the floor <i>before</i> doing the bottom row. The reason for this is that the shower floor is often uneven due to the slope. If you align your first row with the floor then all you walls will be off. Using a level, I temporarily attach a strip of drywall above my shower liner. I build my first row of tiles from there. Once the walls and floor are done then I custom cut each tile on the bottom row to conform with the contours of the floor.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgzqQToBozWFat-WgOXqRyV6kdGySR3DfKjiIumIrs2FGoYXmHShzpxUHHYjmfE4urSY5sGXImBTWtkgiqDrN4yXYS2J2rcjsYMP7sUt7nSnhOzbE1pXGkyDK8Z8P-5zRu6fqAzGS1vFw/s1600/20170611_193234.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgzqQToBozWFat-WgOXqRyV6kdGySR3DfKjiIumIrs2FGoYXmHShzpxUHHYjmfE4urSY5sGXImBTWtkgiqDrN4yXYS2J2rcjsYMP7sUt7nSnhOzbE1pXGkyDK8Z8P-5zRu6fqAzGS1vFw/s400/20170611_193234.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
After grouting and sealing, here is the finished product:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Part 4: Completed Bathroom:</u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I installed the pedestal sink. Let me just note that pedestal sinks are absolute hell to install but I didn't have room for a cabinet.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZQmwLZasY5C8qBCQGL05uHaRfvWHKL0CIIQzQUkcYWwfXFh-NdVsvkkkODZVQSZljuEkGLnC7jN5D6DktSmROVH54JM_6u4bn23077OXP2yTjk9qq-t2qnUwE4YtRYzVeUQqWa616eV0/s1600/20170621_005317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZQmwLZasY5C8qBCQGL05uHaRfvWHKL0CIIQzQUkcYWwfXFh-NdVsvkkkODZVQSZljuEkGLnC7jN5D6DktSmROVH54JM_6u4bn23077OXP2yTjk9qq-t2qnUwE4YtRYzVeUQqWa616eV0/s400/20170621_005317.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPUnyyxK9Swg4eii6JTV9QA0TRsqvNnx9o4xWUytIE3Lc8B5XwrmnbRp6dwFvKBw68cXLt8nA60N1oTT2uGfwBy2p6NMqacpaDn-6JyoMr1fI68DFLnIiZk7_jzGr5pXAt7cK0lIffrx8/s1600/20170621_005339.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPUnyyxK9Swg4eii6JTV9QA0TRsqvNnx9o4xWUytIE3Lc8B5XwrmnbRp6dwFvKBw68cXLt8nA60N1oTT2uGfwBy2p6NMqacpaDn-6JyoMr1fI68DFLnIiZk7_jzGr5pXAt7cK0lIffrx8/s400/20170621_005339.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That's a good lookin' shower. Bushed nickel....</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJtMbZ701-CNsJaovx7nwy4JnAvXKNi7sktAKXRNsesO7O9WL7v6AvVDChLcrPnA94nfJRQ0Nhu_PbJPbGRFUa0bF7SEBxS1qUSJ3GUM3-pgwYvVDYYCSeDebdUUAbhleQ1OG-oewCDd8/s1600/20170621_005402.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJtMbZ701-CNsJaovx7nwy4JnAvXKNi7sktAKXRNsesO7O9WL7v6AvVDChLcrPnA94nfJRQ0Nhu_PbJPbGRFUa0bF7SEBxS1qUSJ3GUM3-pgwYvVDYYCSeDebdUUAbhleQ1OG-oewCDd8/s400/20170621_005402.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAn_WA1-6hREIqbFrpbUUQDlqVd-ueScQnFIcp1ZRuf2F9VaxZZR0CcdMg3LobaUi7gOSm4IDwDl6nKE2NlFHwMXw4KEt0ETDYtFiwbULZ9v7P1Hf17mhyIr50wUzSu5qvHEzp4yL_mz8/s1600/20170621_005435.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAn_WA1-6hREIqbFrpbUUQDlqVd-ueScQnFIcp1ZRuf2F9VaxZZR0CcdMg3LobaUi7gOSm4IDwDl6nKE2NlFHwMXw4KEt0ETDYtFiwbULZ9v7P1Hf17mhyIr50wUzSu5qvHEzp4yL_mz8/s400/20170621_005435.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tired but victorious</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV0NxfFYbfi99b_anTI5mKvJvUPxeDijoaksz2LYet1of89KQ_RjzD6AScYAtxyTiKHus23C_Hed5aiu44v2qClU1UKnHtbRy46Bq4h_wV-TXl0whVsX9XWABTRZ4Nr7ukHZqANRrywoI/s1600/20170621_005512.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV0NxfFYbfi99b_anTI5mKvJvUPxeDijoaksz2LYet1of89KQ_RjzD6AScYAtxyTiKHus23C_Hed5aiu44v2qClU1UKnHtbRy46Bq4h_wV-TXl0whVsX9XWABTRZ4Nr7ukHZqANRrywoI/s400/20170621_005512.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">New toilet. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRRdbKKNTgwCxQ5STlXYtlrBasqOcM1VyA2cqVQ8cZBqw8gPXJ-yebaBieryyd-7kp0MycX9QguX2vJ8bGyeLnVqCbORsLo5dQQxnMJ5cc6U_LMSsh4hTAvFmie7h-ZTUmf_-Nxxb7qRo/s1600/20170621_005532.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRRdbKKNTgwCxQ5STlXYtlrBasqOcM1VyA2cqVQ8cZBqw8gPXJ-yebaBieryyd-7kp0MycX9QguX2vJ8bGyeLnVqCbORsLo5dQQxnMJ5cc6U_LMSsh4hTAvFmie7h-ZTUmf_-Nxxb7qRo/s400/20170621_005532.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sink from Hell</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPdKkFy5YWZQFrfevsqhS7MpMhu80kzsKslx-_7vLI5fuPQJH0IPrbH56S-b6VuAO43REJk4QwEnkiRD3OMpuMC2DMPt-EbUhyNts_4XDMsv6FXizClHdSQerCKm65QSgo3bz5hpTEVQk/s1600/20170621_155855.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPdKkFy5YWZQFrfevsqhS7MpMhu80kzsKslx-_7vLI5fuPQJH0IPrbH56S-b6VuAO43REJk4QwEnkiRD3OMpuMC2DMPt-EbUhyNts_4XDMsv6FXizClHdSQerCKm65QSgo3bz5hpTEVQk/s400/20170621_155855.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Part 5: The Kitchen</u></b></div>
<div>
For the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry room I installed 18x18 inch tile. Next year I'm putting in black countertops with grey speckles plus a backsplash. The appliances will all be black.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYNwh84pNk0jnwKNuqcEXo39gkQRLp4CIyeBUkszUgdgIzr3lyUYwEdrtYHJgn78jmdUA4THN_hPcBItY7Y2UT6JPXtdkOlK-X2c8g7j3hsxUv14dwXaZmrHv1MsmZKZ3W5ReaShC7Cd4/s1600/20170621_155744.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYNwh84pNk0jnwKNuqcEXo39gkQRLp4CIyeBUkszUgdgIzr3lyUYwEdrtYHJgn78jmdUA4THN_hPcBItY7Y2UT6JPXtdkOlK-X2c8g7j3hsxUv14dwXaZmrHv1MsmZKZ3W5ReaShC7Cd4/s400/20170621_155744.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMir947WOZxrLSic1mHEMMKfs21z693eA-NOdlNC34VXbdNAQedjxS0hIF3OGFfLv3hhEci19loOPpR1qWwVQvsQ8jvU_CYjr-BCZVBd-lNFO-mKqw-cBy15_2kHoUk20sNs-sZG7sOHU/s1600/20170621_155759.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMir947WOZxrLSic1mHEMMKfs21z693eA-NOdlNC34VXbdNAQedjxS0hIF3OGFfLv3hhEci19loOPpR1qWwVQvsQ8jvU_CYjr-BCZVBd-lNFO-mKqw-cBy15_2kHoUk20sNs-sZG7sOHU/s400/20170621_155759.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXlTp4E6MLuFlVvOguDQhvUS-45kUv-JasqPrSHACuwu0ehXx3cFMVNAHdklglgbb9HwR_QSbAH-CO4iyflu1cXHAxsn3nHE_7Vy8eeVdpVswRUNZw55ytOvctLLV4h2kpeeuHC8irs4A/s1600/20170621_155806.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXlTp4E6MLuFlVvOguDQhvUS-45kUv-JasqPrSHACuwu0ehXx3cFMVNAHdklglgbb9HwR_QSbAH-CO4iyflu1cXHAxsn3nHE_7Vy8eeVdpVswRUNZw55ytOvctLLV4h2kpeeuHC8irs4A/s400/20170621_155806.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9gQ7sc3xk0TZQ9O_sxMNZNHM2fLXMFDv0WEi5h6K28GR_pDxEJJNFwJ0J9l-34h_vR4LT_QHQgtj9mLobfuLCB9vPK60a2-1ZLEK_9GxH_o1-ghjcByTA0blQpMwdhYW5ST_J0fMvS8s/s1600/20170621_155815.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9gQ7sc3xk0TZQ9O_sxMNZNHM2fLXMFDv0WEi5h6K28GR_pDxEJJNFwJ0J9l-34h_vR4LT_QHQgtj9mLobfuLCB9vPK60a2-1ZLEK_9GxH_o1-ghjcByTA0blQpMwdhYW5ST_J0fMvS8s/s400/20170621_155815.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1uceLjiqE7AcD2rINgswDaIc6-OhTczcWWGOG7IHfNzpdW5agT_nalu0qZDTB9kU86Psh1C3i5X4aQhJU7a9_m3jWC0f4oF6cfp3E__4A9PGMkVhkwfi1IKIz90Fk3mZKMClRVU8s-y0/s1600/20170621_155826.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1uceLjiqE7AcD2rINgswDaIc6-OhTczcWWGOG7IHfNzpdW5agT_nalu0qZDTB9kU86Psh1C3i5X4aQhJU7a9_m3jWC0f4oF6cfp3E__4A9PGMkVhkwfi1IKIz90Fk3mZKMClRVU8s-y0/s400/20170621_155826.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhciSSrboN26M7b5HQEGcZuHcyrSaw1iVf2uDLBAGx_GEAQ9oHUZmxGSklzrW7JvzJ-UX7WxPy5XOvXvOrgVcy7kudDRZKkzq9l4CqGOM6RKUYZSv52zrOXRK5w12-VRugC350sdF5QwFE/s1600/20170621_155841.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhciSSrboN26M7b5HQEGcZuHcyrSaw1iVf2uDLBAGx_GEAQ9oHUZmxGSklzrW7JvzJ-UX7WxPy5XOvXvOrgVcy7kudDRZKkzq9l4CqGOM6RKUYZSv52zrOXRK5w12-VRugC350sdF5QwFE/s400/20170621_155841.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheCncD1rD8eGinAZRNbqtOEa45iRXX8_W5AzfklTGOPsCnGsq_7odUZDR42dQ8TF9e97dA69J1rBlij-vxXnzwDgY7PP1ChwBqcRD1zdTf2kMsIIlmvOUHxaYoU76cW9JlfuCUpbzWcxI/s1600/20170621_155907.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheCncD1rD8eGinAZRNbqtOEa45iRXX8_W5AzfklTGOPsCnGsq_7odUZDR42dQ8TF9e97dA69J1rBlij-vxXnzwDgY7PP1ChwBqcRD1zdTf2kMsIIlmvOUHxaYoU76cW9JlfuCUpbzWcxI/s400/20170621_155907.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8yX1Yj6gpBPUrESTXh3OlHsi4AJ41t4F_IQx8UhTNvHH-T9vCpcaDey_jgBz2k0zOtn74JTDvl1f23RcGaYYkbgi7sSYrOHX1KTk-h62iozHkBhIpEKPiRTvQyeojcQsTqRRVVNzor4I/s1600/20170621_160015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8yX1Yj6gpBPUrESTXh3OlHsi4AJ41t4F_IQx8UhTNvHH-T9vCpcaDey_jgBz2k0zOtn74JTDvl1f23RcGaYYkbgi7sSYrOHX1KTk-h62iozHkBhIpEKPiRTvQyeojcQsTqRRVVNzor4I/s400/20170621_160015.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjui-sVnwtdmXLzczDxD2x02Y3-BvZ-VBaeV7p6Im6iPJBHQ2nEnuw0FgZiBmkW78z-bPxDp91jIvtEJ1Okcmhu8J-83FYEyq_szX8OdKotFBMEZZ6PE4cGjt3Cug5hww-YQLWDE2rZJlw/s1600/20170621_005236.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjui-sVnwtdmXLzczDxD2x02Y3-BvZ-VBaeV7p6Im6iPJBHQ2nEnuw0FgZiBmkW78z-bPxDp91jIvtEJ1Okcmhu8J-83FYEyq_szX8OdKotFBMEZZ6PE4cGjt3Cug5hww-YQLWDE2rZJlw/s400/20170621_005236.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Part 6: Final Walk-Thru</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IwGLN8-69gs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IwGLN8-69gs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-56930144178054492872017-06-04T20:15:00.000-07:002017-06-05T20:13:45.662-07:00Grinding and Loving: Two Approaches to Installing Plumbing<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
A few months ago I bought an older house. I knew it would need a bit of work before I could rent it out. As is the case with any old house, it's turned into even more work than I'd originally thought. Although not part of the original plan, I've had to rip out the entire downstairs bathroom: Walls, floor, plumbing, fixtures, and all. And, to access the bathroom plumbing, I had to rip out the kitchen plumbing which is on the other side of the bathroom wall.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd9lh5HIC5qfSSA1I44OtlK43cMlz-K5E8YUrscB3ja4egkjC9SAMmaFd886cOesCnKnCdzEnDoOcqkrK3nbJQl7SlqZkgtV6Tu1ka0oyLQ02t_B1hSxjn05sIEOZLF6tniR-MqMyKsYw/s1600/20170509_153010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd9lh5HIC5qfSSA1I44OtlK43cMlz-K5E8YUrscB3ja4egkjC9SAMmaFd886cOesCnKnCdzEnDoOcqkrK3nbJQl7SlqZkgtV6Tu1ka0oyLQ02t_B1hSxjn05sIEOZLF6tniR-MqMyKsYw/s320/20170509_153010.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Area formerly known as the bathtub and shower.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMIroQc6X_pRQibmYnUzd80pzZsyk3blBSXXtwNFxCpH0c2nvzH8wl5ntl7UGsJcWNeI1ex9SAtkFZzNfbgVlm1ayUjywsrvke2TQ_U9HY4_yPEMrrOVBthBrJZBpq_Vo-9ZfkPgql72g/s1600/20170504_181622.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMIroQc6X_pRQibmYnUzd80pzZsyk3blBSXXtwNFxCpH0c2nvzH8wl5ntl7UGsJcWNeI1ex9SAtkFZzNfbgVlm1ayUjywsrvke2TQ_U9HY4_yPEMrrOVBthBrJZBpq_Vo-9ZfkPgql72g/s320/20170504_181622.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Water under the subfloor due to leaky bathtub drainpipe (conveniently located under the cast-iron tub).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhStnrPi7_XVNvsTGncx3SLSSzl8O5Js6EHaghuA9ntyMvWOx7MTbvm_PF3dC2835PL70HAqU_ARbmtQaAHEV_wv_9wjYGFzJKzWTZUffEqF0FQfbLdBcXsX80wt_GcvbzNPgcqh5ftbe8/s1600/20170510_123819.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhStnrPi7_XVNvsTGncx3SLSSzl8O5Js6EHaghuA9ntyMvWOx7MTbvm_PF3dC2835PL70HAqU_ARbmtQaAHEV_wv_9wjYGFzJKzWTZUffEqF0FQfbLdBcXsX80wt_GcvbzNPgcqh5ftbe8/s320/20170510_123819.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Drain pipe for the bathtub.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Anyone who owns a home will attest that plumbing problems are the most expensive and stressful. They're stressful because, unlike many problems, they usually need to be addressed immediately. If your toilet or shower drain is plugged or leaking, you're not going to wait a few weeks to call someone. This is in part why they're so expensive to fix.<br />
<br />
Plumbers know that you need the problem fixed NOW and as such, when you call them they can pretty much charge whatever they want. In most cases, it's not like you're going to call two other plumbers, wait for them to fit you into their schedule just to give you a quote, <i>then</i> pick the one you want. You need your toilet <i>now</i>. Also, plumbers charge an upfront service fee just for showing up (likely to prevent bargain hunters taking up their time)....All this feeds back into the stressfulness of having a plumbing problem. Anyhow, you get the point:<br />
<br />
Plumbing problems=baddo baddo.<br />
<br />
As a landlord, the majority of my annual expenses are for plumbers. I'm tired of paying plumbers so I've decided to learn how to do it. It's not like I never tried before. I've tried to handle plumbing problems several times but it rarely goes well. I always end up with a small leak in one place or another no matter how many times I try to readjust the pipes and fittings.<br />
<br />
This time, however, I've <i>vowed</i> to learn how to fix household plumbing problems.<br />
<br />
At this point you're probably wondering what the title of this post has to do with anything.<br />
<br />
Bear with me. We're going on an a philosophical ramble about plumbing and the meaning of life...<br />
<br />
<u><b>So, Like, What's Your Philosophy?</b></u><br />
Anytime a philosopher, anywhere in the world, answers the question, "so, what do you do?" the inevitable follow-up is, "so, like, what's your philosophy?". I'm going to set aside the fact that to an academic philosopher this is a bit like asking a chemist what their chemistry is. I'll go, instead, with the colloquial interpretation.<br />
<br />
I can't say I have a coherent life philosophy but aside from a variety of extrinsic factors, I believe succeeding at anything worthwhile requires a substantial exercise of will. In fact, I believe this to be the single most important intrinsic variable. You must be willing to struggle, to persevere--in short--to <i>grind</i> if you wish to achieve anything of significance.<br />
<br />
You commit yourself wholly to one end and you don't deviate. Your goal is to <i>overcome</i>.<br />
<br />
Nietzsche was the ultimate grinder. For him, the good is "whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself." Happiness is "[t]he feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome." (The Anti-Christ)<br />
<br />
Outwork and out-suffer. When other people quit--don't.<br />
<br />
See the path to every goal as a war of attrition.<br />
<br />
Overcome.<br />
<br />
Grind.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Battle of the Kitchen Sink</b></u><br />
The kitchen has a double sink. Not only was the P-trap leaking but one sink leaked too. Water had made a small path between the drain fitting and the sink itself. Fixing the sink would require removing the drain fitting.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrBCXhgWaA__Ks2tQUfSAsi2N76ufxMjt_yJ5kkt1rnhFkmtz6159XJoVHrWy-fJoNP5TwARcF0sBMwDxReT0jFXnFBFHBqtl4aRnt6O36WhXBKtFigfjlUfAuUMGUeMn8xAKdfQPCSRU/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-05-21+at+12.49.19+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrBCXhgWaA__Ks2tQUfSAsi2N76ufxMjt_yJ5kkt1rnhFkmtz6159XJoVHrWy-fJoNP5TwARcF0sBMwDxReT0jFXnFBFHBqtl4aRnt6O36WhXBKtFigfjlUfAuUMGUeMn8xAKdfQPCSRU/s320/Screen+Shot+2017-05-21+at+12.49.19+AM.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A drain fitting.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This was before I'd made my vow.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I called a plumber. I needed a drain pipe unclogged anyway so I thought while he was there I'd get a quote on changing the drain fitting and installing a new P-trap assembly.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMGQqL3qWO2LWj6TYwH1iwhoPC-rARvg8vOpA0x-IzPHfa_Ah1sZ-W3GSKFvYtQF7ZFIGutb_JjgtXqQgK-SPVBoZYkhlpOShhSQeNUda4elo36BO4YSG4oMdPG5DfwAa1dk7CQerXYk/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-05-21+at+12.53.44+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMGQqL3qWO2LWj6TYwH1iwhoPC-rARvg8vOpA0x-IzPHfa_Ah1sZ-W3GSKFvYtQF7ZFIGutb_JjgtXqQgK-SPVBoZYkhlpOShhSQeNUda4elo36BO4YSG4oMdPG5DfwAa1dk7CQerXYk/s320/Screen+Shot+2017-05-21+at+12.53.44+AM.png" width="284" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">P-Trap Assembly</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The plumber quoted me $320.00.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Admittedly, for a variety of reasons, the P-Trap assembly for my kitchen wouldn't be as straight forward as the one pictured above. But still...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Fuck</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>That</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That was the moment of commitment. I'm tired of paying plumbers hundreds of dollars for things that I see them do in under an hour. In that moment, I focused my will on learning how to fix household plumbing. I don't care how long it takes me to fix this gottam sink. I'm going to work on it until it's fixed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let me pause to say that the people at Home Depot plumbing department are awesome. I brought in pictures and asked them what to do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It turns out you need a special tool to remove or install a drain fitting. I bought one. You need plumbers' putty. Check. P-Trap assembly with extension. Check. Coupling to transition from 1" pipe to the 1 1/2" main drain pipe. Check. PVC glue. Check. Various connectors and washers. Check, and so on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I sat down under the sink and resolved not to leave until I fixed it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was slow, frustrating, and smelly.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And I kept bumping my fucking head on this fucking pointy knobby thing on the bottom of the sink basin.<br />
<br />
<i>Fuck!</i> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It didn't take long before I remembered why I stopped trying to do plumbing and instead called plumbers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>What About Love?</u></b></div>
<div>
We're often advised to "dig deep" and "persevere" if we want to succeed. Like I said above, success is often a matter of being willing to grind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there's a (perhaps) more enlightened view I sometimes espouse. We've all heard the expression "it's about the journey not the destination." In other words, learn to fall in love with the process and you won't have to suffer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why should I see plumbing as an obstacle to overcome? Why not immerse myself in the experience. Find pleasure in acquiring a new skill. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Approach challenges playfully. When your first attempt to assemble the P-trap still leaks, smile: Here is an opportunity to learn the finer points of plumbing--to <i>discover</i>! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
People don't assemble puzzles to self-inflict suffering. The process of solving a puzzle itself is <i>fun</i>! Treat life's challenges as puzzles to be solved. <i>This</i> is the key to success!</div>
<div>
<br />
Like all advice, it's easy to give to others. Not so easy to apply to one's self in the heat of battle (under a sink).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wisdom consists in recognizing what we can and cannot control. I can't control much of what happens: i.e., whether the P-trap needs replacing or if my first attempt leaks. But I <i>can</i> control my attitude toward it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not doomed to suffer for my goals, nor to merely endure. It's my <i>choice</i> to adopt that attitude toward my challenges. I have the power to approach my challenges as opportunities to learn and to grow!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Barf.</i> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Grinding vs Loving</u></b></div>
<div>
"Focus on the journey not the destination" :) :) :)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"See this as an opportunity to grow and learn!" :) :) :)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Getting angry and frustrated isn't going to help. Just relax and see it as a puzzle to be solved" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yay! So much fun!<br />
<br />
It's so easy to say. Especially when it's someone else who's suffering to overcome something.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I am struggling to achieve a goal--be it in school or fixing plumbing--I catch myself grinding. It's my default way of being. My instinct, in the face of adversity, is to see it as a test of my will. I grit my teeth and grind through it. But we're all different psychologically. I know people who are natural lovers. They're usually engineers or computer programmers. They love problems. Or maybe just certain kinds. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Life throws all sorts of problems at us and we rarely get to choose the kinds of problems we get. If you end up with one that can't be made 'fun', what are you going to do if you never learned to grind? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the other hand, if gritting your teeth is the only way you know how to deal with life's challenges, what kind of life is that? Sure, it's romantic to suffer for what you love but a life of suffering doesn't seem like one we should aspire to. At the end of the day, you might have an impressive list of accomplishments but did you enjoy your life?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Obviously life isn't all about pleasure but certainly more is better than less--all else being equal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Grinding and Loving</u></b></div>
<div>
So how should I live my life (or plumb, for that matter)? Should I be the ends-oriented grinder who, like a Nietzschian, says the<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
"[t]he formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, a goal"?</blockquote>
<br />
Consider another view: For Aristotle, habits are central to character formation and the overall quality and nature of our life. Of course, knowing which habits to choose is not always so easy. We criticized the enchanted process-lover because there will be times where she encounters challenges that likely can't be faced with a smile. Without having practiced tenacity and perseverance she might fail in the face of long-term or extremely demanding challenges.<br />
<br />
But the enchanted process-lover has a reply.<br />
<br />
By repeatedly <i>practicing</i> to carefully select our emotions as we face challenges we become better at it. So, it is true that the <i>un</i>practiced 'lover' will likely encounter challenges in the face of which they can't modify or maintain their attitude. But this isn't true of someone who has a lifetime of practice doing so. If every time you've encountered a problem you consciously selected a positive or playful attitude then it will come naturally in a variety of circumstances. You'll also be able to sustain it over long periods. </div>
<div>
<br />
You are what you do repeatedly; i.e., you are your habits. When I approach a challenge by grinding or see it as a battle of wills, I'm further entrenching this pattern into my character. When I approach a problem playfully this too is further reenforces a behavior and becomes part of my character. So, when I face a problem, challenge, or goal I'm not just choosing my approach for this challenge, I'm also choosing how I'll face my future challenges.<br />
<br />
This is a key insight from both Plato and Aristotle. There are no individual acts. Every act is an act of creation. You are creating your character. And your character influences future behaviors in response to whatever life throws your way. Actions are <i>parts</i> of a life-long process of character creation (and destruction).<br />
<br />
Your behaviors emerge from your character. The arrow points the other direction too: Your behavior influences the nature of your character. And finally, the nature of your character determines the quality of your life.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Plumbing and Living Wisely</u></b><br />
<br />
The long-term character-forming effects of how I approach a particular challenge are an important consideration for the the nature of one's life. Ok, but this still doesn't tell me how I should approach any <i>particular</i> problem or goal. Certainly, not <i>all</i> goals can or should be approached playfully, and even if they could, not all circumstances allow for it. One must also know when to put their head down and grind through a difficult challenge...like a major plumbing project or a dissertation.<br />
<br />
Wisdom consists in knowing when to grind, when to love, and when to love to grind. </div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u>Pictures of my Plumbing</u></b></div>
<div>
<br />
I maked a complicated P-trap...<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocccj5JyeF8arlOTQUpCt-8SrM-xUouEWiIMStev0K3jxVGi5Ch7Ch8qupOMShatev9GJSNkUSbQ6JrIPrkSlJdhu5n-Tbzq1VKkVFFDPZy0Dx3-VUbgffj7lna5nALxP2Qc3lUNf9XI/s1600/20170521_142810.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocccj5JyeF8arlOTQUpCt-8SrM-xUouEWiIMStev0K3jxVGi5Ch7Ch8qupOMShatev9GJSNkUSbQ6JrIPrkSlJdhu5n-Tbzq1VKkVFFDPZy0Dx3-VUbgffj7lna5nALxP2Qc3lUNf9XI/s320/20170521_142810.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not so simple double-sink P-trap to drain.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwT5T5UBqJXY5RxhO_I7VpfkLbZXrpbqZolc9YFCVv7V4xq_9q4w_L1GXace4aKnDJfDlnRdXysk4BAYXCC8LByZKSnGwZ5Z3sDiPLfZgkk7YbnlrhwA3TuDON-bDuwrgIYet82TGDsw/s1600/20170521_142823.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwT5T5UBqJXY5RxhO_I7VpfkLbZXrpbqZolc9YFCVv7V4xq_9q4w_L1GXace4aKnDJfDlnRdXysk4BAYXCC8LByZKSnGwZ5Z3sDiPLfZgkk7YbnlrhwA3TuDON-bDuwrgIYet82TGDsw/s320/20170521_142823.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">P-trap to PVC.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA8EUzkZ4bvMxRP9cKxAVY-5Yew7cU6z1wNyHP_QVhuZPrENwYU62AE-iUl23IrJIdejctcrtIjNqHBx_D2NPCM9VjrSzbVoSBvjefvV9qRN5HVYQlhted-tYEU5878LZejHlEqSr2tZw/s1600/20170521_142836.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA8EUzkZ4bvMxRP9cKxAVY-5Yew7cU6z1wNyHP_QVhuZPrENwYU62AE-iUl23IrJIdejctcrtIjNqHBx_D2NPCM9VjrSzbVoSBvjefvV9qRN5HVYQlhted-tYEU5878LZejHlEqSr2tZw/s320/20170521_142836.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">PVC to drain.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA33M3LyIKnz_WeUgW8WXE025pKZPSBCo9-NBE0d3sWxQrVjLwj0vpITeiCbG0dKug79BQSdXFbSokiqW4RGZR_SE6lbSEIs-VFRRGLSj58fHPcCnjkIPUipqBN3amUOi9-B5ZNyV51yU/s1600/20170504_183355.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA33M3LyIKnz_WeUgW8WXE025pKZPSBCo9-NBE0d3sWxQrVjLwj0vpITeiCbG0dKug79BQSdXFbSokiqW4RGZR_SE6lbSEIs-VFRRGLSj58fHPcCnjkIPUipqBN3amUOi9-B5ZNyV51yU/s320/20170504_183355.jpg" width="180" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source of the leak.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY4bJ0Co5PVRG3nX8y24hoiogrg6mcIEYFVs1B7VljwZTwznNn9QvmuiOsQU3Rk1MDPZH6z2NVU1SnJO2AoIZTZqNBWId2CZ4STxpadoYJGVBapyT6pnaYJbDiZPPgjD45YhmzN7ujBaA/s1600/20170508_141902.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY4bJ0Co5PVRG3nX8y24hoiogrg6mcIEYFVs1B7VljwZTwznNn9QvmuiOsQU3Rk1MDPZH6z2NVU1SnJO2AoIZTZqNBWId2CZ4STxpadoYJGVBapyT6pnaYJbDiZPPgjD45YhmzN7ujBaA/s320/20170508_141902.jpg" width="180" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I thought I might just attach a new drain assembly but the threads were all gone...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizCDWh3KGMZl-xWdO4DYo69tajfLTRUNAU7ABiqlhGXTIS8-CufEL5CFcXp4CQIFilz_1ds7DyuMXzdqPxGr696x7GwX4AqClzngzTecofOW5NlaR5yAqqg93mwBzNB-Lkbp5OrLfpoEA/s1600/20170508_195500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizCDWh3KGMZl-xWdO4DYo69tajfLTRUNAU7ABiqlhGXTIS8-CufEL5CFcXp4CQIFilz_1ds7DyuMXzdqPxGr696x7GwX4AqClzngzTecofOW5NlaR5yAqqg93mwBzNB-Lkbp5OrLfpoEA/s320/20170508_195500.jpg" width="180" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">So I cut of the elbow hoping to replace it with a rubber elbow...but this was the inside of the pipe. Pipe's gotta come out.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGAAAnzeYHf9sdTd9CxdcnQA1BsafaNQnnZqlwEcQ89lsvtIx1xNi8m80rc7cnC_xcfUeuW_nvz2UgSd24L6mXog8yOFev9BM0wmKLMbWy6MZjdIwC8D8oNvwjcxoGEYdmmId5Ys-1aRk/s1600/20170509_153010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGAAAnzeYHf9sdTd9CxdcnQA1BsafaNQnnZqlwEcQ89lsvtIx1xNi8m80rc7cnC_xcfUeuW_nvz2UgSd24L6mXog8yOFev9BM0wmKLMbWy6MZjdIwC8D8oNvwjcxoGEYdmmId5Ys-1aRk/s320/20170509_153010.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Which means the bathtub has to come out...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYIZbpPpDBFqNlRclOnK2vj7dz_gDJR2yxRYCGk4znKrEGw-uEuvKiJPyy_-ndhU1KF864BLuzRjSgJls03iMMRagf0tiwjGL7-RczOLZPmB2KTMLrMZCI3Uw4ZRp9MWBUQT14W4c_E50/s1600/20170510_123819.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYIZbpPpDBFqNlRclOnK2vj7dz_gDJR2yxRYCGk4znKrEGw-uEuvKiJPyy_-ndhU1KF864BLuzRjSgJls03iMMRagf0tiwjGL7-RczOLZPmB2KTMLrMZCI3Uw4ZRp9MWBUQT14W4c_E50/s320/20170510_123819.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">And so does the floor.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
Well, that was just one of the plumbing challenges. I'm almost done with the custom tile shower I'm building. I'll post pics when it's done.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-44022116684035692162017-04-10T21:51:00.000-07:002017-04-12T19:13:41.315-07:00Internet Warrior's Guide to Surviving a Level 7 Tu Quoque Attack<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
The comments section of the internet is the battleground of the future; thus, in my critical thinking course I like to give my students advice on how to be great internet warriors. In any combat sport, pattern recognition facilitates a quick and effective response. And so, with internet battles, being able to recognize and understand common argument structures and their associated flaws allows you to effectively respond. The analogy ends there. Unlike combat sporting events, the best way to win an internet battle is to never compete in the first place. However, if you've got an evening to kill and little concern for your mental health, this entry will teach you how to neutralize and defeat a Level 7 <i>tu quoque</i> attack.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Technical Terms</u></b><br />
The <i>tu quoque fallacy</i> (aka hypocrite fallacy) occurs when one party defends their position by suggesting the accuser has done the same. [I have cultivated a page full of tu quoques plucked from the media, <a href="https://reasoningforthedigitalage.com/table-of-contents/tu-quoque-examples/" target="_blank">here</a>].<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Example 1:</u><br />
A: You should do your homework instead of procrastinating.<br />
B: Oh, yeah? You didn't do <i>your</i> homework.</blockquote>
In political discourse, partisans rely almost exclusively on <i>tu quoques</i> to deflect criticism against the actions of their party or a member of their party by suggesting that the other party did the same.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Example 2:</u> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A: Trump seems to have financial ties to foreign interests.<br />
B: Oh, yeah? The Clinton Foundation was connected to foreign interests too!</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
or</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Example 3:</u> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A: Trump's policies in the Middle East are causing a lot of civilian deaths.<br />
B: Oh, yeah? Obama's policies caused a lot of civilian death's in the Middle East too!</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
or</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Example 4:</u> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A: Trump unilaterally decided to bomb Syria!!!<br />
B: Oh, yeah? So did Obama!</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
or </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Example 5: </u></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUnSuZT8O9j1c9lZeCKoAKpmeBWcJzF2rjr4zKm5jHdFfa5hBZNm66VsKZZjXq5N6AjwM1L0XY3u_pbW-jmA4nD0gy54HJMJypdR-8HPGcjvVNViV0jDqqNLptdK1W31iuEpyMyoz3mmA/s1600/tu+quoque+trump.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUnSuZT8O9j1c9lZeCKoAKpmeBWcJzF2rjr4zKm5jHdFfa5hBZNm66VsKZZjXq5N6AjwM1L0XY3u_pbW-jmA4nD0gy54HJMJypdR-8HPGcjvVNViV0jDqqNLptdK1W31iuEpyMyoz3mmA/s320/tu+quoque+trump.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
etc... </blockquote>
<br />
A Level 7 troll attack is one that irritates you such that your first instinct is to respond to the <i>tu quoque </i>but you still have <i>just enough</i> emotional control not to gratify your impulse. You're teetering on the edge of being sucked into the vortex of a futile comments war but on most days good judgment prevails.<br />
<br />
<b>Key Structural Elements of a <i>Tu Quoque</i></b><br />
An analogy is a claim that two things are alike in some respect. To understand how to deal with a level 7 <i>tu quoque</i> attack we need to understand that the underlying structure of a <i>tu quoque</i> is an <i>argument </i>by analogy. An argument by analogy seeks to do two things.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. Establish (or suggest) that two things are alike. (I.e., the analogy)<br />
2. Suggest that if A and B are alike then whatever judgment we apply to A we must also apply to B. (I.e., the argument)</blockquote>
The person launching a <i>tu quoque</i> attack seeks to draw your attention to the fact that you are judging two similar things inconsistently. As such you are a fool and hypocrite who richly deserves the scorn of the internet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Two Methods for Counterattacking A Level 7 Tu Quoque</u></b><br />
There are two basic methods for countering a level 7 <i>tu quoque</i>. One easy, one hard. Each relies on addressing one of the two basic parts of the <i>tu quoque</i>'s structure.<br />
<br />
<b>The Hard Way: Deny the Analogy</b><br />
Since a <i>tu quoque</i> relies on an argument from analogy, one tactic is to simply deny the first step: i.e., deny that there is an analogy between A and B. If A and B are different in some important respect then there's no inconsistency in judging them differently. Of course, your opponent won't accept you merely stipulating a disanalogy; so, you must provide an <i>argument</i> for the disanalogy. This means you'll have to point out an important difference between A and B with respect to how they should be judged.<br />
<br />
Let's use Example 4 to illustrate. I might argue that when Obama sought military engagement in Syria after Assad's first used chemical weapons he sought Congressional approval whereas Trump didn't.<br />
<br />
The opponent has two possible responses: (a) Dismiss this difference as relevant to the final appraisal or (b) argue that, despite the dissimilarity, the relevant similarities are greater in number and of greater weight than the differences. In either case, consistency demands that we still apply the same judgements to both A and B. For example, they might say that what <i>really</i> matters is that innocent civilians died unnecessarily in both cases or the US shouldn't involve itself in foreign civil wars. Since both cases are alike in these respects, one ought to judge them similarly.<br />
<br />
This back-and-forth over whether the similarities outweigh the difference or <i>vice versa</i> can go on for a while. It might turn out that we fundamentally disagree about how much to weigh the relevant similarities and differences. Arguing for a disanalogy is time consuming and frustrating. It also usually involves doing some research. You're already regretting your decision to engage but backing out will be interpreted as conceding. Your internet cred is in jeopardy. You must now devote the rest of the evening to proving the disanalogy or be forever shamed.<br />
<br />
We need a quicker strategy...<br />
<br />
<b>The Easy Way: Accept the Analogy</b><br />
Wait, what? You're telling me to just concede the analogy? Why didn't you tell me before I gave up my entire evening? And how in holy hell am I going to win the internet by giving concessions to trolls?<br />
<br />
Patience, young grasshopper...<br />
<br />
Recall that a <i>tu quoque</i> relies on an <i>argument</i> from analogy. That is, it has<i> two</i> fundamental components. The first is to assert that A and B are alike. The second is to apply to B whatever <i>judgment</i> we make of A. That is, if A and B are alike and I say that A is <i>good</i> then consistency requires that I also say that B is <i>good</i>. Similarly, if A and B are alike and I say A is <i>bad</i>, then consistency requires that I also say that B is bad. A <i>tu quoque</i> merely points out an inconsistent appraisal of two things that ought to be appraised similarly. I commit a tu quoque anytime I approve of A but not of B or <i>vice versa</i>.<br />
<br />
Herein lies the key. Notice that in most presentations of a<i> tu quoque,</i> the arguer hasn't committed to whether A is good or bad. They've only tried to point out an inconsistency. To see why this is important let's recreate the typical situation in which we encounter a <i>tu quoque</i>:<br />
<br />
Feeling outraged at the Trump administration's latest actions with regard to hiring from the Swamp, you post an angry condemnation on your social media account. Someone in your network who supports Trump comments,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Oh yeah? Where was your outrage when Hillary was going to have a bunch of corporate heads in her administration? Huh?</blockquote>
<br />
Notice, again, that the arguer has merely pointed out a potential inconsistency in your view in how you judge A and B. In doing so he has also assumed that the analogy is a good one. Importantly,<i> he hasn't said what the correct judgment ought to be for both cases.</i> Now, we get to play Socrates:<br />
<br />
<b>Sub-strategy 1: </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<b>Troll:</b> HA! You didn't have a problem with corporate appointees under Shillary but now that Trump's doing it you're all against it. Logical inconsistency! Ha! Ha! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>You</b>: You're right, I seem to have an inconsistent view on the matter. How should I judge Hillary's close ties with corporate heads that she would have placed in important governmental positions? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
At this point your opponent faces a choice. They can say 'it's bad' or 'it's good'. Since you've <i>granted </i>them the analogy, whatever they choose must <i>also</i> apply to Trump. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Troll:</b> It was bad.<br />
<b>You:</b> Oh! I see. And as you've pointed out, the two cases are analogous. So, by your own reasoning it must follow that it's also bad in Trump's case. You must be really upset that you voted for him.</blockquote>
A low-level troll will leave you alone at this point. But an intermediate to advanced troll will not concede defeat so easily: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Troll:</b> Ah! But you didn't say it was bad when Hillary did it. That must mean you thought it was <i>good</i>! Ha! Ha! Ha! But now you are saying it's bad just because Trump's doing it. You are inconsistent! Ha! Ha! Ha! </blockquote>
[At this point, the wise move is to agree, let's see why...]<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>You:</b> You're right. I was blind but you have since brought me into the light of reason. I now agree with you that it was bad when Hillary did it, and since the two cases are analogous (as you, dear troll kindly pointed out to me), it follows from your own reasoning that what Trump is doing is also bad. You must be sad you voted for him.</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Substrategy 2: Flip it and Reverse it, Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup I</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Troll:</b> HA! You didn't have a problem with corporate appointees under Shillary but now that Trump's doing it you're all against it. Logical inconsistency! Ha! Ha! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>You</b>: You're right, I seem to have an inconsistent view on the matter. How should I judge Hillary's close ties with corporate heads that she would have placed in important governmental positions? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Arguer:</b> [Seeing the trap they've fallen into]. It was<i> good</i>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>You: </b>Oh, then why did you cite that as a reason against her during the election cycle? I hope you weren't being inconsistent...because you don't seem to mind that Trump is doing it...</blockquote>
<b><u>A Couple More Thoughts on Tu Quoques</u></b><br />
<br />
I don't mean to pick on one party's supporters here (well, maybe a little bit). The fact is both parties and their supporters do this all day, e' eday. However, it's usually whatever party is in power (and their supporters) that does it the most since they feel most compelled to defend their actions. So expect a daily diet of <i>tu quoques</i> from Trump supporters. In fact, I think much of political discourse today has been reduced to launching tu quoques back and forth.<br />
<br />
Relatedly, notice also that <i>tu quoques</i> often function as an admission of guilt. Since whatever group is in power is forced to defend their policies and actions, instead of <i>defending</i> the policy they'll often just point out that the other side did it too. You'll notice that lately the right-wing media and social media are producing a continuous stream of <i>tu quoque</i> infused articles and memes.<br />
<br />
<b>Trolls vs Philosophers: End the Madness!</b><br />
A <i>tu quoque</i> merely points out that one party has inconsistent attitudes toward two purportedly similar things. It doesn't make any claim about the attitude we ought to have toward them (supposing the analogy is a good one). The argumentative techniques I gave you don't attempt to figure this out either. They only seek to either defuse or reverse the troll attack.<br />
<br />
The philosophical question regards what our actual attitude toward the analogous cases ought to be. We ask, "supposing these two (or more cases) are indeed relevantly similar, what ought our attitude toward them be? Are they defensible, wise, praise-worthy, blame-worthy, etc...?"<br />
<br />
Instead of seeking to win the next internet battle, it may turn out that deliberating on the philosophical question is more fruitful than defeating even a Level 7 <i>tu quoque</i> attack. Engaging philosophically with your interlocutor might even make the internet comments section a more tolerable place.<br />
<br />
Nah. I'm dreaming.<br />
<br />
Trolls gonna troll.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-49931834891283057972017-02-25T13:06:00.002-08:002017-02-27T11:59:06.215-08:00Democracy and Free Speech in the Age of Ignorance: Google Delists Natural News from Search Results<div class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b style="text-decoration: underline;">EDIT:</b> <i>After I wrote this post, <a href="http://searchengineland.com/natural-news-not-banned-google-fake-news-269998" target="_blank">Google tweeted a statement</a> clarifying why Natural News had been delisted. It had nothing to do with the content, rather they were using redirect techniques prohibited Google's webmaster guidelines. Regardless of why Google delisted, my arguments still apply but should be interpreted as a policy going forward.</i></span><br />
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></u></b><b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Situation</span></u></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here's the dealy-yo. The Google just delisted Natural News (a purveyor of medical misinformation, pseudoscience, and science denialism) from its search results. Natural news is quite a popular website and often ends up in the first few search results on medical and health searches. This is no coincidence. The founder of the website/store is primarily trained in web design and search engine optimization. The problem is that most of the information on the site is extremely misleading--and that's being nice about it. A sweet innocent googler, not knowing any better, could easily end up being mislead.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's get one thing off the table. Delisting isn't a violation of freedom of speech as it is described in the US Constitution. The First Amendment (second only in importance to the right of all Americans to own bazookas) concerns <i>government</i> restrictions on free speech--not private restrictions. Since the Google is a private company, the First Amendment does. not. apply.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, as Dr. Steven Novella points out in his <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/natural-news-delisted-from-google/" target="_blank">excellent blog pos</a>t, things aren't so simple. We can think of search engines like Google as public utilities. As such, perhaps we ought to be skeptical of excluding sites from results:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Google is by far the most popular portal to the web, which is now an invaluable general resource. Private utility companies are regulated by the government (or in some countries even nationalized) because they provide an essential service to the public. If Google is viewed as an essential utility, you can argue that they should not discriminate in this way.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The idea is that since Google has become somewhat of an essential service, we ought not exclude people or organizations from it perhaps in the same way we wouldn't exclude unsavory business from a telephone book.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Real All-Natural Truth!!11!!1</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My own view is that it doesn't matter two bits whether Google is considered to be a public utility or not. It's beside the point. <i>The purpose of a search engine is to provide information that is both accurate and relevant to the search terms. </i>Natural News fails on both counts.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If someone wants to know how to treat a particular cancer, turmeric is not the answer. And if someone needs antibiotics, oregano oil is a poor choice. And, (this will shock you!!!!) coconut oil doesn't provide relief from HIV or cancer.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhH3UyvvJFxVWg6pDgckfmHLWcTeORK18RD_97Ajp2oWo7WpOaPvG17EV_5FAnyNj_3JD7gId_qfmyTTEa4QVZmRr4vyhmaXO078x-nchnqTTn2W4kGhy1TjZFPU8C4aSPpeaq3Y5dIN0/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+12.52.32+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhH3UyvvJFxVWg6pDgckfmHLWcTeORK18RD_97Ajp2oWo7WpOaPvG17EV_5FAnyNj_3JD7gId_qfmyTTEa4QVZmRr4vyhmaXO078x-nchnqTTn2W4kGhy1TjZFPU8C4aSPpeaq3Y5dIN0/s320/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+12.52.32+AM.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM4lIro20-a-hrJ5RMNA5mZDuMeGrwJ8OqCT1XtyoB5G2sQm8Z7AVbiMCIENm7QTRZLBD4T3U_CSO75XA2XuiSK4I_INUgj0pUIhhBc3g8FP4jZsOhS0t9wl_SXvUDp6klovzrOu0juSk/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+12.56.43+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM4lIro20-a-hrJ5RMNA5mZDuMeGrwJ8OqCT1XtyoB5G2sQm8Z7AVbiMCIENm7QTRZLBD4T3U_CSO75XA2XuiSK4I_INUgj0pUIhhBc3g8FP4jZsOhS0t9wl_SXvUDp6klovzrOu0juSk/s320/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+12.56.43+AM.png" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDq2gz2yMoalBZBG54yV2HSnES4MeT-vEpwQ63vrLk3_8Fxu6rEb_sKXWXGI7LkQvsQuvl4L7vfrSVW7jm5cURKgQEbGFfYN9tsY_nFnkvTnnUS_7MQGKscDkuKdD8gvcABnhyphenhyphenjEC8r-M/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+1.41.05+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDq2gz2yMoalBZBG54yV2HSnES4MeT-vEpwQ63vrLk3_8Fxu6rEb_sKXWXGI7LkQvsQuvl4L7vfrSVW7jm5cURKgQEbGFfYN9tsY_nFnkvTnnUS_7MQGKscDkuKdD8gvcABnhyphenhyphenjEC8r-M/s400/Screen+Shot+2017-02-24+at+1.41.05+AM.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, I know what you're thinking (I hope). How could anyone believe this stuff?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My sweet innocent child. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My little lamb. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That is precisely the problem. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Famously, P.T. Barnum said that there's a sucker born every minute. That was before the internet. In the internet age, that is a gross </span><i style="font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">under</i><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">estimation. </span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For a variety of reasons people are remarkably credulous. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You might think, "Meh, so what? If people want to make stupid decisions, that's on them. Health care freedom!!!11!!!1 U. S. A! U. S. A! U. S. A!"</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Perhaps. But this doesn't undermine my claim that NN fails to fulfill the criteria for being a relevant and accurate search result for the likely query. If I genuinely want to know how to address my health problem, a site that peddles misinformation (deliberately or not) should not show up in the results. It undermines the very purpose of making such a query in a search engine. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Furthermore, the harms of believing that coconut oil cures cancer are real. Here is a <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/" target="_blank">running list </a>of what were <i>avoidable</i> deaths caused by belief in pseudoscience and misinformation of the kind peddled by NN. When people forgo science-based treatment for<a href="http://whatstheharm.net/chelationtherapy.html" target="_blank"> chelation therapy</a>, <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html" target="_blank">faith healing</a>, <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html" target="_blank">homeopathy</a> people die unnecessarily. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The Real Problem</span></u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But wait! There's more! All this is small potatoes to the real problem. A liberal democracy is committed to the idea that policy ought to be justifiable, in some sense, to everyone subject to it. Contemporary liberal democracies are, by definition, replete with diverse ideas about what we ought to value and the ordering of those values. These disagreements aren't going away any time soon. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Agreeing on how we ought to address particular public health problems is difficult enough when there is disagreement over values and their relative priority. When you add in disagreement over basic scientific facts, any hope of agreement evaporates.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And this is precisely the problem with sites like NN. They deliberately mislead people with regard to the basic science on issues such as vaccines, cancer treatment, water fluoridation, and more. They also undermine trust in epistemic authorities by publishing inflammatory and misleading "exposees". In effect, they undermine the capacity for science-based public health care policy. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When you tell people that vaccines cause autism or that vaccines are part of a depopulation plot by the Illuminati-Rothchild elite, they won't sign on unless you coerce them. And coercion is something we try to avoid in democracies. The problem is that people who read NN only have to be coerced because NN misrepresents the science. I'm not going to go into it here but, no, vaccines do not cause autism. And no, vaccines are not part of a world depopulation scheme by some shadowy world government. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Check out articles on <a href="http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/" target="_blank">http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/</a> or <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/" target="_blank">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/</a> if you're a fence-sitter and are interested in hearing what medical researchers have to say.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let the People Decide!</span></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At this point you might say something like we should "let the people decide" or "the solution to misinformation isn't censorship (which this isn't, anyway), it's critical thinking." </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Oh! My sweet babe!</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My pure unsullied child!</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You think the average person can detect bullshit? How quaint! You are the well from which hope springs. Let me drain that well with--what else?--statistics about the general public in the US. </span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">44% of the American adults do not read a book in a year </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">6 out of 10 households do not buy a single book in a year </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Source: National Institute for Literacy, National Center for Adult Literacy, The Literacy Company, U.S. Census Bureau)</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Education/Scientific-literacy">US ranks 14th </a>in scientific literacy in OECD countries. However, just about every country's rate of scientific literacy is low. So it's kind of like being of average intelligence relative to a group of high school drop outs. Think Not Sure in Idiocracy.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fJIjoE27F-Q/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fJIjoE27F-Q?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">That's not the standard one should be aiming for. 70 percent of Americans cannot read and understand the science section of the New York Times. Approximately 28 percent of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate (<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm">Source</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Add to the above these statistics on health care literacy:</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Only 12 percent of adults have Proficient health literacy, according to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. In other words, nearly nine out of ten adults may lack the skills needed to manage their health and prevent disease. Fourteen percent of adults (30 million people) have Below Basic health literacy. These adults were more likely to report their health as poor (42 percent) and are more likely to lack health insurance (28 percent) than adults with Proficient health literacy. (Source: Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All this to say: Yes, in an ideal world we could let people's critical thinking sort things out but this is wildly unrealistic given the educational deficit in the general population. Worse yet, is that those who are most vulnerable are most likely to be duped by false claims since they are most likely to not have received a good education:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3 out of 4 people on welfare can’t read </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">20% of Americans read below the level needed to earn a living wage </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">50% of the unemployed between the ages of 16 and 21 cannot read well enough to be considered functionally literate </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Between 46 and 51% of American adults have an income well below the poverty level because of their inability to read </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">3 out of 5 people in American prisons can’t read </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">85% of juvenile offenders have problems reading </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Approximately 50% of Americans read so poorly that they are unable to perform simple tasks such as reading prescription drug labels </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Source: National Institute for Literacy, National Center for Adult Literacy, The Literacy Company, U.S. Census Bureau)</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When a policy, institution, or practice disproportionately adversely affects the most vulnerable members of society there are good reasons to make changes such that they don't suffer these effects. Currently, search engines make it all-too-easy for unwitting people to be mislead and they are often the ones who can least afford to waste money on ineffective treatments.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There's a strange irony here. The lower the general level of critical thinking and education the more people will probably yell and scream about how such screening amounts to a violation of freedum. However, such populations are the ones most in need of screening results. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Conversely, the higher the level of reasoning and education, the less such screening policies will matter. Such people already have the critical reasoning capacities to dismiss sites like NN as the steaming mound of manure that they are. In such populations, NN will drop out of the search results on their own. No one will go there aside critical thinking instructors like myself who use the site as a valuable source of case studies in reasoning errors.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yeah, But....</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One last possible objection to delisting such sites: From the perspective of True Believers, delisting only lends credence to their claims that such sites are dispensing information that <i>THEY</i> don't want you to know about. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To this I say, we aren't concerned with the True Believers. They are impervious to reason and evidence. They're a lost cause. If you don't believe me, spend a few minutes in the comments section of one of their articles. You'll have as much luck changing their mind as you will converting Alex Jones to Islam. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Our policies concern those that are genuinely looking for accurate information who have yet to completely fall prey to systematic misinformation. If NN and similar sites don't come up in a search, the innocent Googler is better off and they lose nothing. Besides, all they wanted to know was how to treat a particular medical condition. They didn't want to get pulled into some grand conspiracy about Big Pharma in conjunction with Bill Gates poisoning their children and that the True cure to what-ails-them is colloidal silver or powdered twigs from the Himalayan foothills (all conveniently available for purchase on the site). </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The lost causes who have already been sucked into the epistemic black hole of conspiracism can hoot an holler all they want about "censorship." Nothing is stopping them from typing in the web address of their favorite crank website to get their daily dose of misinformation. Delisting doesn't make NN and similar site inaccessible. It just prevents the further spread of misinformation into the public domain. And this is a massive public good.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><u>Yeah but Slippery Slope</u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Some people might worry that having someone else determine which sites come up in our search is somehow how bad or is a slippery slope to objectionable censorship. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A) No matter what (including now), decisions have to be made regarding the ordering of websites in response to search terms. There is no neutral ordering unless Google's algorithm is a results randomizer. Popularity isn't necessarily a good one either. I'm going to be wildly controversial and say accuracy ought to be the primary ordering criteria of search results.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">B) Yeah but who determines what's accurate?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(1) An algorithm can give/remove points based on the credentials of the people running the site. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(2) For some domains of knowledge there won't necessarily be a consensus but where there is, use that as a standard. To the degree that a website deviates from that standard, to that degree they get points.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><u><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Conclusion</span></u></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let me conclude with one of my favorite recent quotes: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise.” Robert Proctor, science historian. </span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Agreement on public health care policy is difficult enough as it is. But when large segments of the population believe wild conspiracies about the CDC, vaccines, and the efficacy of various treatments, democratic policy-making becomes all-but-impossible. To function, a democracy <i>needs</i> trust in our experts and institutions, and possess a shared set of facts from which to work. Sites like NN <i>unjustifiably </i>undermine each of these critical elements with outright false claims, innuendo, and distortion. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If we value what's left of our diminishing ability to form effective and mutually justifiable public policy, search engines like Google should--nay! MUST!--diminish the visibility of those sites that contribute to the radical ignorance of the world we currently inhabit. Democracy itself is at stake. </span></div>
</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-50552966685416695372017-01-26T16:12:00.000-08:002017-01-26T21:00:23.475-08:00Thinking Critically about Politics: Executive Orders and Executive Overreach<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Article II of the Constitution allows the POTUS to bypass Congress and issue orders that are binding on federal administrative agencies. Lately, we're hearing about--and should continue to hear about--the issue of "executive overreach". The general claim is that the executive branch's exercise of power through executive order is used excessively.</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Currently, liberals and liberal-leaning media are all up in arms with regard to Trump's deluge of executive orders. Previously, Republicans made quite a ruckus about Obama's executive orders and <em>decried the legitimacy of the practice itself</em>. As with most things in politics, people support whatever procedures bring about their favored outcomes and rail against those that don't--when they don't. In justifying a particular process they forget that when the opposition is power, the same means will be available to the opposition. This is the point that libertarians have been making all along. We need to pay attention to the legitimacy of a process rather than focus on our like or dislike of an outcome.</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
There are two points we can make here with regards to critical thinking. The first is has to do with <em>consistency</em>. If you claim a process is illegitimate then you should hold that it is illegitimate regardless of who uses it.</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
In politics, outcome ought not to be the only concern. As I mentioned above, you should also be concerned with how an outcome is achieved. It's hypocritical to scream about executive overreach when your team isn't getting what it wants yet say nothing when it works to your favor--and vice versa. Doing so would be <em>inconsistent</em>.</div>
<div class="mceTemp" style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px;">
<dl class="wp-caption alignnone" data-mce-style="width: 900px;" id="attachment_229" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 16px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; text-align: center; width: 900px;">
<dt class="wp-caption-dt" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; overflow: hidden;"><img alt="tu-quoque-trump" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-229" data-mce-src="https://reasoningforthedigitalage.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/tu-quoque-trump.png" height="900" src="https://reasoningforthedigitalage.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/tu-quoque-trump.png" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; border: 0px none; display: block; height: auto; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px;" width="900" /></dt>
<dd class="wp-caption-dd" style="-webkit-user-drag: none; background: rgb(243, 246, 248); color: #4f748e; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.7; margin: 0px; padding: 16px;">A beautiful specimen of a tu quoque.</dd></dl>
</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
One of the four core concepts in my critical thinking course is Relativity. By this I mean that for every evaluative claim we must ask, "compared to what?". Republicans had tantrums over Obama's executive orders in regards to their quantity suggesting that the number met the standard for "executive overreach". To evaluate whether Obama met the criteria for executive overreach we must look at the average annual number of executive orders he signed and <em>compare</em> that number to other presidents. We must ask, "Did Obama, on average, issue more executive orders compared to past presidents?"</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
It turns out that Obama signed an average of <a data-mce-href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/" href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/" style="color: #00aadc;">35 executive orders per/year</a>. Compared to other US presidents he had the<em> lowest</em> average number of executive orders than any other president in 120 years. 120 years ago, Cleveland also averaged 35/year. If Obama engaged in executive overreach then it follows that either</div>
<ol style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px;">
<li>all presidents engaged in executive overreach OR</li>
<li>we have defined our term incorrectly.</li>
</ol>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Trump, (in less than a week) has signed twelve executive orders. Suppose someone opposed Obama's use of executive orders on the grounds that 35/year met the threshold for executive overreach. Consistency (an often bothersome concept) suggests that that same person should be extremely concerned with Trump.</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
We have noted that someone might also have opposed Obama's use of executive orders on the grounds that <i>all</i> executive orders--no matter the number--are illegitimate. It follows that (consistent) Republicans who supported their arguments against Obama with this reason should also be up in arms over Trump's affinity for the executive order. I'm extremely confident Republicans will start ranting and raving about Trump's executive overreach any moment now. Social media's about to asplode! Here it comes...Wait for it....Wait for it...</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 24px;">
To be fair, Democrats had nothing good to say about executive orders when Dubya was president (I never thought I'd say this, but we miss you!). But when Obama used them, nary a peep was heard from democrats. Incidentally, Dubya averaged only 1 more executive order/year than did Obama.</div>
<div style="color: #3d596d; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 15px;">
To the credit of libertarians, they have (generally) consistently opposed executive orders whereas Democrats and Republicans generally seem only to scrutinize them when they don't yield the outcome they want. It's interesting to consider if libertarian consistency is merely a consequence of the fact that libertarians typically opposed the <em>outcomes</em> of executive orders on both sides. It will be interesting to watch hardcore libertarians if Trump, via executive order, defanges (or outright dissolves) the EPA and other regulatory agencies that libertarians generally oppose. Will they too put on the ideological blinders? Given what we know about cognitive biases and social psychology, I'm not going to hold my breath. But for now I'll give them the credit they're due.</div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-780949167120643032017-01-05T00:29:00.002-08:002019-01-11T20:07:42.382-08:00Annual Fitness Post: How to Be Aristotle in the Gym<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u><br /></u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgii3ypXdYZOHBGtQmv8_GEFGiDaI7wDCVBbGJhu87Nmicz6wj1kXt5AvwU523e3pVe5ORm3a9sokTY0kgxeY_wEDkQ880n9NoqFZQ6URm1AYiBeNYSWbLgl1lgBhygABucGfZiPApylxc/s1600/stupid+smart+phone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgii3ypXdYZOHBGtQmv8_GEFGiDaI7wDCVBbGJhu87Nmicz6wj1kXt5AvwU523e3pVe5ORm3a9sokTY0kgxeY_wEDkQ880n9NoqFZQ6URm1AYiBeNYSWbLgl1lgBhygABucGfZiPApylxc/s400/stupid+smart+phone.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u><br /></u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>Introduction</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I always enjoy writing my annual fitness post. I’m frequently surprised by how much I learn about fitness each year even though I’ve basically been involved in it my whole life. Before we get started here are my past fitness posts for future reference:</span></span><br />
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/01/injury-prevention-in-gym-without-giving.html" target="_blank">Injury Prevention without Giving Up Intensity or Gainz</a></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2016/07/you-can-make-friends-with-salad-giving.html" target="_blank">How to Be a Vegetarian, Low-Meat, or No-Meat Athlete</a></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.com/2015/01/annual-fitness-post-most-efficient.html" target="_blank">The Most Efficient Workouts</a><br /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2014/01/annual-fitness-post-injury-prevention.html" target="_blank">Injury Prevention through Powerlifting Breathing Technique</a></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2013/01/annual-fitness-advice-post-using-social.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">How to Deal with Motivation Problems</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-size: 14.85px;" /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2012/01/no-nonsense-fitness-guide.html</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-size: 14.85px;" /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/10/nutrition-rant-simple-vs-complex-carbs.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/10/nutrition-rant-simple-vs-complex-carbs.html</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-size: 14.85px;" /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/06/i-was-planning-on-attacking-some-recent.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/06/i-was-planning-on-attacking-some-recent.html</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-size: 14.85px;" /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-2.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-2.html</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-size: 14.85px;" /><a href="http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-3-hopefully.html" style="background-color: white; color: #8b3200; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/2010/07/health-and-nutrition-part-3-hopefully.html</a></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">I often like to mock click-baity headlines in my posts. However, in this year’s post I find myself actually believing that what I’m about to discuss in this post IS the “one weird trick” that will allow you to achieve your fitness goals. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>Let’s Start General…</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Across many life activities distraction from connected devices is a major problem. This shouldn’t be a revelation to anyone with a smart phone. I spend a significant amount of time contemplating how to avoid digital distraction in my own life and have only met moderate success. In my teaching I also try to establish classroom culture and conventions to minimize the possibility of digital noodling. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The way I see it, digital distraction is a genuine threat to quality of life. It pulls us out of the activity we are doing and prohibits the deep engagement necessary to make that activity meaningful and, hence, worthwhile. Also, genuine learning requires deep engagement and concentration. In short, if you’re doing something while your mind is elsewhere, you’re only getting a fraction of the benefit: You’re leaving money on the table.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>Distracted Fitness: You’re Losing Precious Gainz!</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The implications of digital distraction for fitness should be obvious. Depending on the gym I’m in I’ll often see up to 2/3rds of people texting and scrolling between sets. And while on the cardio machines, it’s even worse. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I won’t go so far as to say it’s the only ingredient for success, but <i>you simply cannot make worthwhile progress in your fitness if your mind and body aren’t working together when you train</i>. Every top bodybuilder, fitness model, and athlete I’ve ever trained with will talk about the importance of the mind-body connection when they’re training. (Bodybuilders will say ‘mind-muscle’ connection—same, same).</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Try imagining for a moment an Olympic athlete checking their social media while they are in the middle of a training session. This would be insane. Even if they're catching their breathe between intervals, they need to be focussed on what's next and assessing what they just did. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Success requires <i>total engagement</i>. Every time you glance at your digital device you’re pulling your mind out of what you’re doing. This constant engagement, disengagement, and reengagement never permits the deep emersion necessary for worthwhile results.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Of course, <i>you</i> aren’t training for the next Olympics but you are training to get particular results, aren’t you? I mean, why the heck are you there if you’re not? And if you don’t have any goals, <i>get some</i>! </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The bottom line here is <i>intensity </i>or as some philosophers have called it, <i>passion</i>. You are at the gym for a reason and that reason isn’t to check your social media account. Take a just one measly freakin’ hour away from your phone to fully engage in training your body. Commit to it. I see so many people essentially wasting their time in the gym.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">If you want to get more out of your gym time, practice mindfulness. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>But How?</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Let's begin with the painfully obvious: Leave your freakin' phone in the locker room. ("But I need if for my music." <i>Buy a freakin' ipod, you maroon!</i>). </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C_Kh7nLplWo/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C_Kh7nLplWo?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Moving on...</span></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When I’m lifting weights I’m doing several things. First, I’m paying attention to my breathing. Second, I’m paying attention to what each muscle is doing. Do each repetition with a <i>conscious and deliberate</i> contraction of the target muscle(s): squeeze at the top and stretch at the bottom. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Slow down. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Pause at the bottom of the movement and make sure you have the correct muscles engaged before you begin the repetition. Focus your mind on contracting those particular muscles. At the peak, squeeze; then <i>pause</i> just enough to stop the momentum of the movement. If you can't feel which muscles are contracting, you're just moving the weight up and down. It's not the same thing.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Make everything deliberate. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Fitness is a form of meditation. Just because lifting weights or doing cardio isn’t steeped in Ancient Wisdom woo, it <i>should </i>be just as meditative as yoga. At its best it is discovery and contemplation of your physical self. You are learning and creating what’s possible for your body to do and become. You are forging and strengthening the connections between the mental and physical aspects of your self. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">On the cardio machines, I like to do interval training or set the machine to random. Regardless of which one I’m doing I set goals for my <i>rate</i> (rpm or steps/minute). If I don’t set goals I can never push myself beyond my comfort zone. In the long term this means I can never improve my fitness level; or if I do, my improvement will be far below what it could have been. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">At the ‘random’ setting I like to give myself a minimum rpm that I don’t allow myself to go below regardless of the resistance. When I can achieve my time interval at that rpm, I either raise my target rpm or increase the overall level of resistance. I want to know how far I can push and develop my body. I treat my training time as a journey of self-discovery and creation.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Aimless and distracted training rob me of this fruit.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I also pay close attention to my breathing and posture: Doing so is yet anther way of developing and achieving knowledge of my physical self. So many people have no awareness of what their body is doing or how it is positioned.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>Aristotle in the Gym</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Aristotle is probably the most plagiarized philosopher in history. Most self-help and management books are basically cheap rip-offs of his ideas.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">At the core of Aristotle's <i>Ethics</i> is the idea that you become what you do repeatedly. Otherwise stated, you are your habits. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The lesson here is simple and familiar, but invaluable. To change aspects of yourself, change your habits. Find people who you want to be like and adopt their habits in respect to those aspects you want to become. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Aristotle’s philosophy doesn’t just apply to particular skills or professions but—and most importantly—to <i>character</i>. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">If you want to become courageous you have to <i>do</i> courageous things. If you want to become generous, you have to do generous things. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">I see a lot of people<i> generally unwilling to push themselves. </i>These individual surrenders accrue over time to form a <i>habit </i>which manifests, in the long term, as satisfaction with mediocrity.<i> </i>No one should be content with mediocrity. It's a waste of a life.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Sadly, when done repeatedly, mediocrity becomes a habit and part of one’s character. I see so many students unwilling to push themselves mentally to produce truly excellent work. I see people in the gym satisfied with merely showing up and going through the motions. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Aristotle and the ancient Greeks would have had a fit. A good life—one worth living—is one that is lived <i>excellently</i>; that is, in the pursuit, development, and actualization of our human virtues (i.e., excellences)… </span></span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">This tendency toward mediocrity has many causes--some blameworthy, some not. But I contend that distracted living is a big one and, fortunately, one we can legitimately control. People will say they want to be great at <i>x</i>, <i>y</i>, or <i>z</i> but when it comes time to do the work they can’t get themselves to do it. The more they fall prey to distractions the more engrained this trait—this un<i>willing</i>ness to push—becomes in their character.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>It’s the Small Things</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">There’s a happy flip-side to all this. We aren't stuck with poor character traits. We can practice toughness and become tough. Frankie Edgar, a UFC fighter, is known for his mental toughness. He has a reputation for being the mentally toughest fighter in the entire organization. He’s undersized for his division but still became the champion. He has an indomitable will. No matter how badly he has been losing a match he <i>never</i> quits. When asked what makes him so mentally tough, he replied that “[he] practice[s] mental toughness every single day.”</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">He suffers no delusion that he can train in the comfort zone; i.e., quitting whenever training gets a bit too hard, and then on fight night magically become mentally tough. This kind of thinking is <i>pure fantasy</i> and only happens in movies.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Edgar, the unwitting Aristotelian, offers us some great advice for all aspects of life—whether it’s to a student who wants better grades, someone looking to get in good shape, a musician who wants to become great or whatever. Every time you quit mentally you are contributing to the formation of a habit <i>which in turn becomes part of your character</i>. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Habits are default behavioral responses. They eliminate deliberation. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Developing mental toughness requires practicing mental toughness <i>every day</i>. In a fight, Edgar doesn’t decide that *now* he’s going to be tough. There’s no decision to make. He already<i> is</i>.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In Book 2 of the <i>Ethics</i>, Aristotle explains the nature of and relationships between virtue, habit, and character:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes both its birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit, whence also its name (ethike) is one that is formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit). From this it is also plain that none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. For instance the stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times; nor can fire be habituated to move downwards, nor can anything else that by nature behaves in one way be trained to behave in another. Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit. </span></span></blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The idea is that no one is born with particular moral virtues of character or of intellect. True, people have dispositions but this doesn’t undo the central claim that our character is mostly cultivated through habit.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Back to the Gym: </b></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">If you want to be mentally tough you must practice mental toughness.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When you’re on the cardio machine and your rpm drops below the minimum rpm you set for yourself, you are faced with a choice: You can say to yourself, “waaah! this is hard, I’m going to slow down” or you can say to yourself, “challenge accepted.”</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">We all experience such moments of choice. It may seem like a small insignificant choice. You’re just riding a damn cardio machine. How can slowing down possibly affect your life in any significant way?</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">But, if there is any truth to what Aristotle says, it is precisely these small choices that affect, nay, <i>generate</i> the nature of our lives and character. <i>Every</i> action, positive or negative, contributes to habit formation. Which habit are you going to cultivate? Mental toughness or resignation and satisfaction with mediocrity? There are no neutral actions.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The more we quit, the easier it is to quit. The more we rise to the challenge, the easier we are able to. Habit removes deliberation and replaces it with character. We <i>are</i> the habit. That is, the virtue or vice comes to constitute our character.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The challenge to live excellently appears great but do not despair: Rejoice! Aristotelian philosophy offers us <i>hope</i>. Moral virtues like courage and mental toughness aren’t <i>generated </i>by infrequent momentous acts nor are they genetically determined. Instead they are cultivated through the small <i>seemly</i> insignificant choices we make every day. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Excellence is easily within everyone's grasp. </span></span></span><br />
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">[Ok, Aristotle would have disagreed with universal claim the last sentence but who cares...I'm trying to leave you feeling hopeful and sell you my new Quantum Spirit Inspiration book and seminar!)</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><u>Summary</u></span></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The above lessons have both wide and narrow application. Broadly we can apply the following lessons to live better:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">1. Eliminate digital distractions.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">2. Don’t multitask. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">3. Set up your environment such that deep immersion in your activity of choice is possible. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">4. Identify the character traits you want to have and do small things <i>every day</i> that embody that trait. </span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>For the gym:</b></span></span></div>
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">Leave your phone in the got-tam locker room.</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">Make every action conscious and deliberate.</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">Pay attention to your breathing and posture.</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span class="s1"></span><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>For School (things I do and am trying to do better):</b></span></span></div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px}
li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font: 12.0px Helvetica}
ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}
</style>
<br />
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">When doing a writing assignment unplug your <i>modem</i>.</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">If your writing requires online sources, download them into PDFs then unplug your modem. </span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="s2"></span><span class="s1">Put your phone in another room while doing work.</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><u>Qualifications</u></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some times life throws a lot of shit at us and merely surviving another day is a feat in itself. In times like these, pushing yourself to the limit could be counter productive. It might rob you of the energy you need to get through your day. On the other hand, winning small battles is a way to rebuild our self-esteem. Fitness usually takes place in a controlled environment where success is a simple equation: More effort=more success. Outside of the gym, all sorts of confounding factors creep into this otherwise simple formula. If you're looking to regain a sense of control over your life, doing so in a controlled environment might be a good way to go. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A final qualification has to do with the nature of your work day. Some people have extremely demanding jobs--periodically or consistently. They have to be at 100% intensity all day. For people with these sorts of jobs, the gym is often a place to relax. It's an escape from the intensity of work. If your job requires long and intense days, pushing yourself extra hard in the gym might make working out unpleasant for you. If that's the case, it's better that you're showing up without maximizing than not showing up at all. Aristotle famously advocated the doctrine of the mean. That is, any trait in excess is harmful.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-58301566446367646682016-12-10T17:11:00.000-08:002016-12-11T18:48:12.725-08:00RRAR! A Four Step Method for Critical Thinking in the Digital Age<b><u>Introduction</u></b><br />
In philosophy it's often said that there are 'lumpers' and 'spliters'. Lumpers try to unify discrete kinds under one category while spliters argue for maintaining (and insisting on more) distinctions between kinds. When it comes to critical thinking, I tend toward the former. Especially at the end of a semester, I always find myself obsessing about the best way to distill an entire course into as few basic principles as possible. Some textbooks explicitly do this (see Robert Shanabs and Sharon Gould's excellent <a href="https://www.amazon.com/TLC-Approach-Reasoning-Robert-Shanab/dp/1634873165" target="_blank">TLC method</a>) while others approach critical thinking from the point of view of discrete modules.<br />
<br />
Here is my latest distillation.<br />
<br />
<b><u>RRAR! Method: Critical Thinking for the Digital Age</u></b><br />
<b>Preliminary Step: Set Up</b><br />
Before we begin any evaluation we need to put the subject of our evaluation into premise-conclusion form. I'm not going to fully explain it here but if you're interested, here is the unit from the beta version of the <a href="http://criticalthinkingexamples.wikidot.com/wiki:basic-concepts:argument-components" target="_blank">textbook</a> I'm writing (I'm still editing it so don't scream at me about layout and the typos n' stuff!). Basically, identify the conclusion (i.e., what the author is trying to persuade you to believe) and the main premises (the reasons and evidence used to support the conclusion). List the premises with the conclusion at the bottom.<br />
<br />
<i>E.g.,</i><br />
(P1). The activities and decisions that most affect your well-being require you to be able to think well in order to make the right choices.<br />
(P2). Critical thinking is a systematic method for thinking well.<br />
(C). Therefore, you should study critical thinking if you want to increase your well-being.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1: R=Reliability of the Source</b><br />
When we approach an article, video, meme, and so on, our first step should be to evaluate the <i>reliability of the source</i>. Dismissing an argument outright based on its source is an instance of the <a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic" target="_blank">genetic fallacy</a>, so we should be careful not to do that. However, if an argument comes from a source known to be heavily biased or unreliable this tells us that we need to be extra skeptical during our investigation. Importantly, this means we should be on the look out for <a href="http://criticalthinkingexamples.wikidot.com/wiki:obstacles-to-good-reasoning-2:confirmation-bias-and-fal" target="_blank">slanting by distortion or omission and the fallacy of confirming evidence</a> (see the third section in the link).<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2: R=Relevance of Each Premise</b><br />
In the context of arguments, the definition of relevance is <i>the degree to which a premise increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true</i>. Relevance comes in degrees. To understand the concept of relevance let's look at some common fallacies: The argument from tradition and the naturalistic fallacy. They are both fallacies because their main premise is irrelevant to the conclusion.<br />
<br />
<b>Example 1: </b>Women should stay home and raise the children since that's what they've always done.<br />
<br />
<i>Standard Form:</i><br />
(P1) Women have always stayed home and raised the children.<br />
(C) Therefore, woman should stay home and raise children.<br />
<br />
Notice that even if (P1) is true it doesn't meaningfully increase the likelihood of the conclusion being true. What women have done is the past has no bearing on what they should do now. Someone might point to other reasons (e.g., having mammary glads) for which women should raise children. But that's a separate argument--whatever you think of it. Merely pointing to what women used to do isn't <i>on its own</i> relevant to what they should do now.<br />
<br />
If you're not convinced, let me give you another example using the exact same reasoning (appeal to tradition)<br />
<br />
<b>Example 2:</b> Humans have always murdered and raped therefore humans should murder and rape.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Standard Form:</i><br />
(P1) Humans have always murdered and raped.<br />
(C) Therefore, humans should murder and rape.<br />
<br />
Again, while (P1) is probably true it isn't <i>relevant</i> to whether we should murder and rape now. It doesn't meaningfully increase the likelihood of the conclusion being true. Some bleeding-heart liberals might even suggest there are reasons against murdering and raping [<i>GASP!</i>]. Some traditional human behaviors are good, some are bad, and there's everything in between. Merely knowing that something was done traditionally doesn't tell us either way whether it's good or bad or whether we should do it.<br />
<br />
<b>Example 3:</b> This snack is natural therefore it's good for you.<br />
<br />
<i>Standard Form:</i><br />
(P1) This snack is natural.<br />
(C) Therefore it's good for you.<br />
<br />
Whether something is natural or not doesn't tell us whether it's good for us. There are probably more poisonous things in the world than non-poisonous, so <i>merely</i> knowing that something is natural doesn't increase the probability of it being true that it's good for us.<br />
<br />
A more advanced way of evaluating relevance is to <a href="http://criticalthinkingexamples.wikidot.com/wiki:principles-of-logic-2:enthymemes-and-making-inductive-a" target="_blank">identify the enthymeme</a> but that's another lesson. We'll just stick to basics here.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 3: A=Acceptability of the Premises</b><br />
By 'acceptable' I mean something close to 'true'. Suppose it turns out that all the premises in an argument are relevant to the conclusion. That doesn't mean a hoot if they're all false! In critical thinking I don't like to use the word 'true' for many reasons which I'll skip over here. Instead I use 'acceptable'. Here I mean simply that <i>a premise would be accepted to a reasonable audience without further evidence</i>. At Step 3, I apply the reasonable person test to <i>each premise</i>.<br />
<br />
If we answer "not sure"or "there could be disagreement" to a premise then we get on our google machine and investigate. Also, this is where the Reliable Source criteria comes in: If the source of the argument is known to be unreliable or heavily biased, we should--nay! must!--verify <i>each</i> premise. The reasonable person test won't suffice.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 4: R=Relative to What?</b><br />
Step 4 is going to be applied at all stages of the evaluation. It makes me cringe to say this but with respect to a lot of things, "everything is, like, relative maaaaaaan."<br />
<br />
With respect to the source of the argument, reliability is relative. Suppose <i>Source A</i> is considered to be reliable. It contains an argument that X is false. However, I encounter <i>Source B</i> that argues that X is true. The relative reliability of B and A will inform my evaluation. Even though A is a reliable source B could be<i> more</i> reliable, just like it could be less so. All things being equal, I should go with B over A if B is more reliable <i>relative to</i> A.<br />
<br />
Relevance also needs to take into account relativity. Suppose an argument presents relevant evidence in favor of a conclusion. I need to weigh that evidence against the relevance of the evidence against the conclusion. For example, there might be a preclinical trial that shows that X cures cancer. Pre-clinical trials have very small sample sizes and rarely have control groups or blinding. They are low quality evidence. However, there's a Phase II trial (blinding, control group, larger sample size) that shows X doesn't cure cancer. The strength of the evidence that X cures cancer is weak compared to the evidence against the claim. The Phase II evidence is more relevant to the conclusion <i>relative to </i>the pre-clinical trial. Claims rarely have all and only evidence in one direction. To repeat, I must consider the relevance of positive evidence relative to the relevance of negative evidence.<br />
<br />
The same goes for acceptability. Some premises will be more easily accepted by reasonable people than will other premises.<br />
<br />
Both relevance and acceptability require we apply the concept of relativity in another respect. Very often arguments (and conclusions) will make claims that include words like increase, decrease, good, bad, effective, ineffective, cheap, expensive, risky, beneficial, harmful, and so on. In order to even interpret claims that contain these words we must know the appropriate comparison class.<br />
<br />
For example, if I say that the stock market increased, before I can even evaluate whether that's relevant or acceptable I need to know relative to what? To yesterday? An hour ago? Ten years ago? To the Japanese stock market? To the bond market? To interest rates?<br />
<br />
If a policy causes some people to pay higher taxes I need to know relative to what? Relative to last year? 40 years ago? Relative to another group? Which group? It's vitally important to know what the comparison class is. Without it we can't evaluate either relevance or acceptability.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Worksheet</u></b><br />
I'm thinking about creating a worksheet for students that looks like this for each argument they must evaluate:<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Set Up: Put the Argument into Premise-Conclusion Form</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>P1.</b><br />
<b>P2. </b><br />
<b>P3.</b><br />
<b>P4.</b><br />
<b>C. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Step 1: Reliability of the Source</b><br />
Score: /7 1=Very low reliability 7=very high reliability<br />
Explain why you gave the source the score you did:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2: Relevance</b><br />
For each premise assign a relevance ranking of low, medium, high then in a sentence explain your ranking. Identify any claims that might be comparative and identify the comparison class or write "ambiguous".<br />
P1. Low/Medium/High because:<br />
<br />
P2. Low/Medium/High because:<br />
<br />
P3. Low/Medium/High because:<br />
<br />
P4. Low/Medium/High because:<br />
<br />
*If premises are low relevance, their acceptability won't matter. A true but irrelevant premise doesn't increase likelihood of the conclusion being true.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 3: Acceptability</b><br />
For each premise state whether it is acceptable, unacceptable, or unsure. If unsure because of language problems look for contextual clues. If unsure because you don't have enough information, google it then reassess. Cite your sources. If unsure because of ambiguous comparison class, try to identify the author's implied comparison class.<br />
<br />
P1. Acceptable/Unacceptable/Unsure because:<br />
<br />
P2. Acceptable/Unacceptable/Unsure because:<br />
<br />
P3. Acceptable/Unacceptable/Unsure because:<br />
<br />
P4. Acceptable/Unacceptable/Unsure because:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Step 4: Relative to What?</b><br />
With respect to the conclusion, identify the correct comparison class. For example, if the conclusion is that a certain policy is bad, compared to what alternative policies? Make the appropriate comparison of <i>both</i> costs and benefits.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Conclusion</u></b><br />
Well, there you have it. The most recent incarnation of a critical thinking system based on as few principles as I can get away with. If for every argument you apply these four steps, you'll soon find yourself to be a beast of critical thinking, RRAR!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.com1