The Power of Witchcraft 8 November 2009
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, media, philosophy, psychology, religion, sociology, witchcraft.Tags: witchcraft
add a comment
John Stossel, a reporter for the show 20/20, did a great 1 hour documentary on the power of belief. Essentially, his point was that people’s desire to believe in things, even if they are not real, had incredible power. This is essentially circular reasoning with a conscious avoidance of critical thinking. I would like to take it one step further, specifically in the areas of witchcraft and satanism. Even if these are not real forces (I am not suggesting they are or are not), the belief alone is sufficient for these tradecrafts to have some effect. As a great example, see this video. This video is also a great example of another current trend – media sensationalism. The show makes a big build up claiming that something incredible happened to this scientist that changed his mind, when nothing REAL happened at all.
It Can’t Take A Village 30 September 2009
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, economy, law, sociology.Tags: babysitting, stop babysitting
add a comment
I love the idea of neighborhood friends taking turns watching each others’ children. Instead of paying high price for low quality day care, everyone who has children and lives near people they know and trust (which is not always the case) simply exchange time with each other in a manner that allows their children to play with their neighbors. That’s how I grew up. In such an environment, the concept of, It takes a village to raise a child, can actually be implemented – people watching over each others’ children, and the children benefiting from multiple adult and peer influences.
However, a recent news item discusses how our degrading level of common sense in this society has finally impacted this ancient concept described above. A woman in MI who watches other neighborhood children for a few hours each morning has been asked to cease citing that she is in violation of day care laws.
I guess if she charged money, no one would have said anything.
Ban on Spanking 26 September 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, child abuse, law, psychology, religion, sociology.Tags: Proverbs 13:24, spank, spanking, spanking ban, spare the rod
add a comment
Finally, there was an article today on Slate entitled Spare the Rod -Why you shouldn’t hit your kids. Yes, we are including spanking here. This was a great article, partly because seldom is the science behind this topic discussed. There was also an apsect left unanswered in this article that I would like to address. The article points out that the US is still reluctant to ban spanking in the home since many feel, “…it would undermine American parents’ authority as well as U.S. sovereignty…”. In other words, do we have the right to tell parents that they cannot spank their own children in their home? I have heard this argument before. Well, there is an obvious analogy – does an adult have the right to hit their own spouse in the home? The answer is clearly no. So why don’t children have the same rights?
I also like the fact that the article adressed another argument for spanking I here often. Many believe that spanking is not hitting and so it is OK. I have yet to figure out the difference, but it is apparent that sometimes such behavior escalates, not only in intensity of punishment, but also frequency as the parent uses it for more and more (and less severe) situations. In this case, it is similar to a gateway drug. If spanking is OK, then a little slap on the face is not much different, etc., etc., etc. This progression does not happens with everyone, and that is the reason why if I know someone who believes in spanking there children, I don’t feel the need to argue, unless it turns out that their definition of spanking is quite broad.
The third argument I often hear regarding hitting children is a quote from the Christian Holy Bible that supposedly states, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. Well, the actual quote is from Proverbs 13:24 (NIV) that states, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him”. I find it interesting that the “careful to discipline” phrase was conveniently removed from the slang saying. The first clause could be interpreted many ways and is quite ambiguous. I would also like to point out that the Rod was a symbol of rulership around this time, so it did not necessarily mean a stick with which to beat someone. It is more likely it meant that you rule your children with authority, which can be done without hitting them.
Finally, one more analogy. If I walked up to a strong, full grown adult and lightly slapped them on the face, I could be arrested and charged with assault. If some hillbilly spanks their tiny, defenseless 2 year old repeatedly until they are red, blistered, and cannot sit down, then that is OK. Hmmm!?
The concept is really pretty simple. Without spanking, you are building a relationship of learning what is right and wrong behavior through a trusting friendship, albeit this can be quite difficult in the early stages of language development. When you spank, the parent can sometimes be seen as an “enemy” due to self-preservation. Therefore, it will only cause the to perform the negative behavior when they are not being observed to avoid being spanked.
Also, it was interesting to read in this article that we are at the same level of social evolution in this regard as Somalia.
Overpacification 13 August 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, law, politics, psychology, sociology.Tags: offensiphobia, overpacification, tyson, wright state university
add a comment
I have been thinking about this obvious problem for a while, but wanted to wait until I could come up with a good word for it. This is the best I could do right now, but I am open to suggestions.
There is another social trend plaguing this country (it seems to be more prevalent in the US, but this may just be a perception due to my proximity to US media). It is the irrational drive to appease smaller minority special interest groups even at the expense of larger special interest groups. In other words, the needs of the loud few outweigh the needs of the obvious many.
Such incidents are probably due to a combination of current social trends as well as pressure from these minority special interest groups, and possibly offensiphobia.
A recent example is when the Tyson company decided to give up Labor Day as a paid work holiday in exchange for a Muslim holiday. I am not saying that they should not allow Muslims to observe their holidays as well, but this is silly for two (2) reasons.
- Labor Day is a national holiday available to most workers regardless of religion.
- I would guess that Muslims are a minority within the company, so why should non-Muslims give up their Labor Day for a holiday they don’t celebrate?
The fact that we are currently at war with several facets of the Islamic religion suggests that overpacification might also be due to either of the following:
- Fear of retribution from the minority group
- An uber liberal sense of sympathy
Giving everyone a specified number of holidays / year to take as they see fit would have completely solved this problem for everyone.
Another example was when I was a graduate student at Wright State University (WSU). Many US students (including myself) had been asking for years to turn the 3 credit hour classes with 0 credit hour labs into 4 credit hour classes because 4 credit hours were required to be considered part-time and deferred payments on your student loans. WSU always refused. Following 9/11, there was a new federal (or possibly state) law that if foreign students on student visas were less than part-time, they could be deported (or investigated, I don’t recall). So, to assist the foreign students, WSU decided to change all 3 credit hour graduate classes to 4 credit hours. Not only is this overpacification, but it circumvented and defeated the whole purpose of the new law.
I hate to have to quote Spock, but there is ridiculously simple rule of thumb. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
Racism 30 July 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, biology, evolution, sociology.Tags: ethnicity, genetics, prejudice, race, racism, stereotyping
add a comment
So we have written a series of posts and comments lately discussing racism. I think I would like to write one more defining racism. I think that writing such a post would not have been neccessary 10 years ago – that the average adult had a decent understanding of the concept. However, recent events (e.g., 9/11, the subsequent war, and the immigration problem) have caused a rampant misue of the word and improper application of policies and subsequent fear. Hence, I feel it is currently neccessary to clarify.
Racism is the belief that a certain race is biologically inferior (or superior depeding on the context of the sentence). Now let’s break down this statement.
Race = an ethnic groupd defined solely by their genetics (i.e., not locale or culture) and sharing distinct geneotypes and phenotypes unique and common to that group. These physical traits (e.g., hair type, shapes of facial features, etc.) are distinct within these races. Skin color varies broadly within each and across each such that there is great overlap and is therefore not a distinguishing feature. There are three (3) and only three (3) races on this planet. The technical terms are caucosoid, negroid, and mongoloid. In slang terms, white, black, and Asian. This means the following ethnic groups are not races: Hispanic, Native American, East Indian, Pacific Islander, Inuit, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. They are ethnic groups within one of the 3 races defined above.
Biologically implies that the differences are genetic and inherent with the group and therefore not attributed to culture, environment, upbringing, etc.
The inferior / superior term has an obivous connotation, but is not defined or scoped in this context. What is meant by inferior when comparing two populations? Does it refer to physical ability, intelligence, size, behaviour, etc? An indivual can be superior or inferior when compared to another individual at a specific task; but to suggest that all memebers of a group are superior or inferior across all tasks is silly if not impossible to prove. But it is not neccessary to attempt to define a component of a theory that is flawed to being with, and I say so for the following reason. Is the inability to get along with others a superior trait? Obviously not.
In addition, it should be noted that racism is different from stereotyping and prejudice, although they are related, and I will write separate posts defining these concepts as well. To relate, stereotyping is a psychological mechanism that normally serves a positive purpose, but can also cause racist beliefs. Racism is a belief that causes prejudice behavior. Ethnic groups are divisions of peoples based on any of the following criteria: race, culture, geographic location, religion, other genetics.
In addition, there is an inherent logic within many people based on binary thinking that assumes that if two groups are truly different (e.g., with respect to a trait), then one group is inferior and the other is superior. The truth is that groups can be different and neither be wholly inferior or superior because there are many traits that define a race, and all of those would have to be weighed and compared – which is essentially impossible. Not to mention that the variance in most traits across individuals within a group is probably greater than across groups.
Racism Detection 24 July 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, media, philosophy, politics, psychology, sociology.Tags: bad science, ethic food, national children's bureau, racism, racist toddlers, young children and racial justice
4 comments
Ah, I found a case in point of raciphobia.
I heard this news story about a week ago, and I honestly thought it was a joke because it is so insane, but today I found another blog talking about it at detecting racism in your toddlers. The original news article can be found here (it may take some time to load).
Apparently, the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) in the UK wrote a guide (over 300 pages) for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice. It contains some very outlandish concepts for identifying racism in young children, and recommendations for how to react.
Every now and then, something so ridiculous comes along that you just don’t know where to begin.
First, not liking certain ethnic foods cannot be an indicator for racism (even in people old enough to like everything you put in front of them). Despite the fact that toddlers are picky eaters ANYWAY, food is a CULTURAL artifact, and not a by product of any race. If you don’t know the difference between culture and race (and how they have absolutely nothing to do with each other), then you are too stupid to be talking about the subject at all. The recommendations are not even based on science. The fact that it urges child care facilities to REPORT and DISCIPLINE this so called “racist” behavior is quite disturbing.
Second, children are learning about the world. Racism is a structured concept (that does not mean it is something to be proud of, I just mean it relies on a multi-level propositional network, albeit a flawed one) that preschoolers are not yet equipped to formulate. This begs me to write a post on the definition of racism.
Third, it is quite normal for a young child to be apprehensive towards people that are different from them. They usaully grow out of this after learning how alike we all are and that skin color is just skin color. Racists are adults that don’t reach that level of cognitive development.
Finally, it always disturbs me when we are harder on our children than we are on adults. I can’t imagine what people would say if you “punished” an adult in a restaurant that didn’t like an ethic dish. Would people call them racist?
Hmmm, so if I didn’t like Taco Bell, since it is not authetice Mexican food, would I be a racist towards fake Mexicans. Oh wait, Mexican is not a race…
Raciphobia 23 July 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, media, sociology.Tags: ethnocentricism, raciphobia, racism
add a comment
Unfortunately, there is still racism in this country. This country has evolved considerably over the last 200 years, but there is still a little ways to go. But, there is so much talk about racism these days, and all too often, people don’t really know what they are talking about (e.g., confusing it with ethnocentrism). I believe that this slippery slope has led to a new trend – raciphobia (my word, noun: fear of racism). To elaborate, there is a great and very reactive fear of racism to the point that if anyone says anything about race (or even ethnicity), then it is considered by many to be a racist statement.
Heroine Addiction 12 June 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, arts, biology, entertainment, evolution, movies, sociology.Tags: chivalry, heroics
2 comments
Although I support the now outdated concept of women’s liberation, there is a new disappointing trend lately in the arts that is distally related. You see it in many movies and television shows. A strong woman coming to the rescue of a helpless man. Although this makes a good story, there is a clear trend evident from the abundance of such scenarios – almost ubiquitous and expected. Now, before any female reader starts typing their nasty reposte, let me explain my stance. It is not the strong female character to which I object, it is the helpless man, waiting to be rescued by some fair maiden. Yuck. There is something inherent in the very definition of man – a male of the current human species – that includes being able to not only stand up for oneself, even if it means sure defeat, but to also protect others. Men are evolutionarily designed for this, it’s called testosterone. So, while I think strong females are great, and helpless females are just as fun, helpless men are hard to stomach. Can there be a more obvious sign that chivalry is dead?
Race and Intelligence, Once Again 2 June 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology.Tags: crick, dna, intelligence, race, watson
add a comment
Apparently there is renewed discussion on the correlation between race (genetics) and intelligence, and the nature vs. nurture debate (I prefer to call the seed vs. soil debate). This time the discussion is based on some alleged comments by the famous Dr. Watson of the great Watson and Crick duo that discovered DNA. The concept that we are a product of our genetics and our envrionment is explained in most BIO 101 classes; however, this concept seems to be forgotten, or at least downplayed, when someone wants to propose a controversial theory on the subject. To my knowledge (and I am not up on the latest news on this topic), no one has derived the proportions of these 2 factors. So I would like to take a shot based on deductive reasoning.
First, in most cases, without significant physical or mental disabilities, we have great latitude in our range of possiblilities, capabilities, and accomplishments from both. This typical case is a product of our genetics. While these genetics strictly dictate our hair color, eye color, or even more complex traits, they also grant most of us with the trait of accomplishment – the ability to be many different things at a wide range of levels of ability. Hence, it is most likely, if not obvious, that the variance within a life is greater than the variance between racial groups.
Second, it should not be a surprise at all that if we don’t spend time thinking about certain topics or performing certain skills (essentially training) that we will not excel in those domains (hence, the basketball argument). But, it is not just what we think about, but also how we think. If your most complex thought of the day is how to get a ball in a circle, then you are not exercising your brain as much as you are your body.
Hence, I argue that one’s environment most likely plays a much larger role in intelligence than genetics. But do not forget that culture is part of environment. Many people, surprisingly, still think culture is genetic.
Bill Maher and the Pope 21 April 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, child abuse, media, religion, sociology.Tags: bill maher, catholicism, fox news, hitler youth, pope
add a comment
OK, this is my second time referring to the story of The Emporer’s New Clothes, but it such a relavent parable these days, especially in politics. Did no one read this story growing up? Bill Maher made a statement recently about the Pope’s tour of duty as a member of the Hitler Youth. I keep hearing excuses about this, such as it was against his will. Bill Maher supposedly later made an apology recently, and although I agree it was not an apology, I think it was a brilliant statement where he contrasted the Pope’s history and stated that if he were a CEO of such an organization, he would be in jail. Many are condemming his statement, including Fox news.
I can understand members of the Catholic faith not enjoying hearing these statements. However, it is clear that people who want him to recant are not saying so because these statements are not based on fact, they are only outraged because they don’t like to hear it. Now people are calling for Bill Maher to be fired. Two things scare me about this. First, do we not have free speech in this country? Second, do we not care more about the safety of our children than the over dramatic feelings of some adults? Have we come to the point that if someone says something people don’t like to hear that society can force them to shut up, without any regard to whether it is factual? That gives me the chills!!!!!!
The position of Pope is the highest humanly attainable position of authority in the Christian (not just Catholic) faith. Should we expect that person to have a clean record – of course, why not. It is not acceptable that they were a member of the Hitler Youth.
In addition, how long is the Catholic church going to keep sweeping the molestation problem under the rug. I don’t think the Catholic church is all bad, I just expect the leadership to step up and police its own.
It’s funny that we seem to be more forgiving of crimes committed by priests, police officers, and politicians when I believe it should be the other way around. We should have higher expectations of them to not break the law, to be just, to have integrity, and to be trustworthy. If that does not make sense to anyone, then think about it this way. I am sure there are a lot of cardinals out there that were not members of the Hitler Youth. Do you mean to tell me that none of them could have been Pope?
