Scott Adams' BlogAre You a Fiction-Thinker?
If every new idea you encounter reminds you of a movie, song, or novel that you have consumed in the past, it might be holding you back.
0 CommentsThe Effrindibulum Maneuver
Our bodies have too many parts. I can’t be expected to remember all of them. That’s why I created the word effrindibulum. Now when someone points to their ear and asks “What is the name of this part?” I can answer confidently that it is called the effrindibulum.
0 CommentsRobots Read News - about Russia
———————————————————————————
Check out the latest news on 3D camera, Haptics, HIV scanner, and alarming thermometeron on Paul Worthington’s Top Tech Blog.
See Tamra Teig’s Berkeley Start-up Review blog for the most interesting start-ups coming out of the Berkeley start-up ecosystem (second only to Stanford in number.)
And don’t miss Vivian Giang’s post on the dangers of smiling :-)
———————————————————————————-
0 Comments
My book on success: “…the best business book I have read in the last decade.” (Amazon 5-star review Feb 26, 2015)
Skeptics Say Science Has No Obligation to Communicate Clearly
I was just alerted to an odd podcast called The Skeptics Guide to the Universe in which a panel of unpleasant people take things out of context and get angry about them. Apparently I was in their cross-hairs on Episode 502, about 16 minutes in. I can’t link to it directly but the main page is here.
Keep in mind that this is a panel of rational, science-loving skeptics. That’s what makes observing the irrationality extra fun. The psychology of it is fascinating. I’ll walk you through it.
[Updated 3/2/15 at end]
If you feel bored enough to listen to the podcast, you’ll first hear a bunch of angry skeptics AGREEING with what I wrote in this post while pretending they are DISAGREEING with it by adding an angry and dismissive tone to it. As a hobbyist hypnotist, I recognize that as a “tell” for cognitive dissonance that will likely worsen.
And it does.
At one point in the podcast they start imagining that I wrote about a conspiracy theory in which science and the media intentionally mislead the public. (Remember, these are rational, scientific, skeptical people. And they were ready to believe I wrote of a grand conspiracy between science and the media to mislead the public for…fun? Money? The motive was left off the conspiracy theory.)
How do super-rational people turn into chimps in under a minute? The fields of hypnosis and psychology explain it. This is quite normal. You need the following set-up, which they had:
Bias: The Internet has a persistent rumor that I don’t believe in science because I don’t understand how it works. The rumor started the usual way, with some acts of outragism in which stuff I wrote was taken out of context so I could be held up as an example of a dumb Creationists and (ironically) crucified for the benefit of science. Since I haven’t believed in God since I was eleven, the claim that I am a creationist supporter feels odd to me. But hey, this is the Internet.
Violation of the Bias: To generate cognitive dissonance you need a violation of bias. I provided that trigger when I wrote a critique of how science has communicated to the public, and how the media makes things worse. The skeptical panelists agreed with every point I made, and clearly said so.
Now the skeptics had a dilemma. How could their opinions be identical to the opinions of the guy who famously (they think) holds exactly the OPPOSITE opinion? Opposites can’t be the same.
So the brain punts. It cooks up a delusion to patch the break in mental cohesion. It makes the discomfort of misunderstanding go away.
My rational readers will be quick to point out that I might be the one experiencing cognitive dissonance, and I accept that possibility. I wouldn’t even be surprised if it turned out to be the case.
Shall we test it?
And by we I mean you. If I’m in the grips of my own delusions, new data probably won’t change things for me. But you are relatively uninterested in this situation so your biases are probably less hardened than mine. See what you think.
I offer this unscientific test of who is experiencing the bigger delusions – the angry skeptics or me.
If you were one of the skeptics on the panel, please paraphrase in your own words (in the comments below) what you think I said that is different from what you believe. And I will confirm whether your summary of my words is accurate or not. To keep things simple, please put my alleged point of contention in one sentence, as in:
“You said the moon is made of cheese!”
I predict there will be zero points of disagreement, at least about science. And I hope you find it interesting that an entire panel of skeptics thought I said a number of disagreeable things.
Also, please let me know if my title to this post seems fair based on the podcast. It sounded to me as if they are saying science doesn’t have an obligation to communicate to the public. I agree with that, as there is technically no legal or professional obligation to do so. But if letting the media do the talking for science is leading to the end of the civilization (climate change, the Singularity, etc.) I think I would try to step up my game in communicating. But that’s just me.
I wonder if they realize I’m trying to help.
An interesting update:
Here’s an example of how science’s lack of credibility with the general public has a big impact on the issue of gender discrimination in the workplace.
0 CommentsThe Two Biggest Problems in the United States are Food and Marriage
Here’s the problem with food:
Broccoli is food.
Cake is food.
Those two things are not the same. Broccoli is good for your body and cake is not. When you have two items that are almost opposites, they probably should not have the same name. Would it make sense to have only one word to cover both criminal and victim?
0 CommentsNobel Prize Winning Physicist Accidentally Agrees With Idiot
When you have a minute, and some headphones, this recent TED talk by Nobel Prize winner George Smoot on the high likelihood we are computer simulations is fascinating.
Then read the same ideas from an idiot, written a few years earlier, here.
0 CommentsTop Republican Gets the Outragist Treatment from Mother Jones
Ever since I introduced the word “outragist” a few weeks ago I have been waiting for the perfect example in the headlines to drive home my point. And thanks to the fine people at Mother Jones, we have a great one.
0 CommentsCan you Measure Workplace Sexism?
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy for one sort of unpleasantness or another. It is not intended to change anyone’s beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
Let’s get to it…
Has society trained men and women to approach the question of blame in different ways? If so, it’s a big deal.
Flag Hill: Goal or System?
Dateline: February 19, 2015. Sunol, CA.
My third attempt to reach the top of Flag Hill.
Background: I tried hiking to the top of this hill in mid 2014. Halfway up I was exhausted and defeated. My younger, better-looking hiking partner was not impressed. She could have sprinted to the summit while texting at the same time. With my manhood in tatters, I slunk down the hill. But I vowed to someday come back and beat Flag Hill. Now it was personal.
0 CommentsRobots Read News
I am experimenting with a web comic about a robot with a bad attitude reading the news. I decided to triple-dip today and use my comic strip practice as a blog post while also pointing to the new bloggers on this site. Efficiency!
0 Comments
