Thursday, November 22, 2012

Critical Thinking: Self-Evaluation

For previous installments go here, here, and here.

I had a couple of conversations recently with friends who expressed curiosity on how I remain abstinent from drugs without relying on a supernatural 'Higher Power,' as they say in the 12 step programs.

Information on the 12 steps is widely available online, so I'll avoid a lengthy explanation. There should be a search bar in the upper right hand of your screen. The amazing thing about that search bar is that you can type in any subject you happen to be interested or curious about into it and it will, seemingly through magic, return a host of results pertinent to your query.

As I explained to one friend, I came to the conclusion that supernatural forces were not only not active in my life, but that by believing that they were I was, in fact, actively inhibiting my growth and progression as a person by waiting for 'signs' before taking any risk, or by seeking 'guidance' when confronted with a tough decision. These behaviors invariably prevented me from taking any action at all, and in waiting for burning bushes or seemingly portentous events to manifest the needed instruction my decisions usually wound up being made by default.

The conclusion was reached, oddly enough, by use of one of the tools of the 12 step program itself: self-evaluation (personal inventory, in 12 step parlance).

Critical and skeptical evaluation of different claims, evidence, opinions, or positions, while undoubtedly useful, can only be applied to the extent that a person applies it to his- or herself.

I've spoken before about my awareness of my liberal bias, politically speaking, and my obvious bias against the supernatural. I became aware of these biases through self-evaluation.

By working to become more aware of these biases and my other personal presuppositions, limitations, and tendencies I find that I become more aware of them when they crop up.

To give a recent example: GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms.

There has been a pervasive thread of outrage against Monsanto in recent months, at least in liberal circles. Monsanto is a multinational agriculture/biotech company, and, as such, belongs to the Dark Side of the Force as far as I'm concerned.

For months I had been mindlessly 'liking' any anti-Monsanto propaganda that appeared in my Facebook news feed, including anti-GMO memes. I did this while being well aware that I had not even a cursory understanding of what GMOs even were or entailed.

My anti-corporate, anti-capitalist bias was doing my thinking for me.

Instead of withholding judgement until investigating the claims that GMOs were evil, I had fallen prey to the poisoned well fallacy.

A few weeks ago, when I couldn't, in good conscience, continue condemning a science I knew nothing about, I decided to investigate GMOs. The information is freely available online, if anyone's curious. What I found, of course, was that genetic modification doesn't mean Frankenstein monsters or H.R. Giger drawings springing forth from cornfields. Nor does genetic modification imply mad scientists haphazardly rearranging genetic codes in an attempt to stumble across a real-life Pandora's Box.

A summary can be found at http://www.herbogeminis.com/IMG/pdf/reuters_monsanto.pdf.

Genetic engineering, like any science, is morally neutral, and the claims that GMOs are carcinogenic or cause pod people seem to have been either a result of mistaken causal inference (the pesticides the plants were modified to resist have been linked to increased cancer rates in the tests, but the plants themselves showed no significant correlation,) or completely made up, since liberals can be just as unreasonable and superstitious about science as conservatives.

Now, admittedly, I have only a layperson's understanding of genetics, but I also do not have a layperson's tendency to assume that it means that tampering with genetics will mean that the 1995 film Proteus will become a terrifying reality. Which is good, because I don't even know where to get shark-monster destroying heroin from these days. So I've revised my stance on the matter. Monsanto is an evil company, but just because Monsanto uses genetically modified organisms does not mean that genetically modified organisms are evil.

One of the most effective ways of evaluating myself that I've found is to merely list which labels I'm willing to accept for myself, and then reading all of the arguments against those positions, and to be aware that when someone or some piece of information I identify as friendly towards my position (as an atheist, or a socialist, or a skeptic, or a metal-head, or whatever,) then I will be more likely to accept it without questioning it. As such, I find that it is helpful to occasionally re-evaluate the positions I already hold, to test them against any new evidence, to try to disprove them, or to investigate opposing positions with the same openness I grant to my own.

Sometimes I'll find that I'm really, really wrong about something. That used to bother me quite a bit. Especially since it was along the lines of 'My entire life is a lie!' or 'I've wasted a good portion of my life championing a fairy tale!'

Those kinds of admissions can be extremely painful. In some cases they can even lead to the kinds of psychotic breaks that require therapy or hospitalization.

But it gets easier. We just have to keep in mind that, historically, most people have been wrong about most things most of the time. I'd argue that it would be the acme of hubris to assume that anyone, anywhere, is 100% right about anything, at any time.

Even systems as seemingly settled and flawless as mathematics or gravity should not be accepted as 100% truth. Even now, quantum physicists may have to modify Einstein's theory of relativity, and as computers become ever more important for modern civilization then math must become ever more complex. I mean, do you know what a Poincare Conjecture is? I don't, but they solved it recently. Or proved it. Or whatever you do with math problems that involve three-dimensional objects in four-dimensional space.

Or you could try this tactic.

Finding out and admitting that we're wrong about something, even something major, is a great thing. It's a wonderful opportunity to learn something new, to find a new way to see the world, to let go of inaccurate, misguided, or damaging beliefs and embrace new ones.

Yes, your whole life may be based in a lie. But if it is, wouldn't you rather know about it?

Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Poverty of Affluence (pt. 1)


It's on Facebook! It must be true!

Okay, I've been seeing this for months and I had to say something. As near as I can tell it started here: http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/11080/rep-mary-franson-compares-food-stamp-recipients-to-animals-and-mngop-pulls-the-video.

A friend of mine reposted this and it finally broke part of my brain off. I know for a fact that this friend has been on government assistance for an extended period of time. And I'm not judging or faulting them for that. I'm judging them for reposting anti-themself propaganda. I mean, like 96% of Americans have received some form of government assistance, right? So who, exactly, is supposed to be ashamed of that?

I mean, it's not like we're being duped into shaming poor people for needing help so that when those lifelines get cut no one will complain, right?

The text of the meme runs:

"The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals."
Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.


 First: the only known strong correlate for welfare dependence is drug addiction, which is a different problem, which is also not being addressed. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508566/pdf/amjph00023-0022.pdf

Second: the 'Culture of Poverty' theory is largely a myth. Poor people are not lazier, stupider, less motivated or more prone to addiction than the well off. Source: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

Third: the reasons for 'Do Not Feed The Animals' signs is only to prevent dependence in the young who may not be able to locate food when they leave their parents area. Because they're animals and will assume that if there are humans feeding them Snickers when they're young that there will always be humans and Snickers everywhere. Other reasons that this meme fails to mention: human food is not nutritionally complete and can cause health problems. The animals may lose their fear of humans, be mistaken as rabid/aggressive, and killed. It can lead to overpopulation. It can cause an influx of other animals, leading to the spread of disease. Source: http://www.paws.org/feeding-wildlife.html

Fourth: Yes, one in six people needing food stamps is a problem. But the problem isn't 'Why are these people lazy/dependent?' The problem is 'why does no one have enough money for food these days?' Corporate profits are at record highs (Thanks to corporate welfare,) and the stock market is setting record highs (thanks to government assistance). http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6 So if we have more money than ever, why does a third of the country not have enough to eat?

Fifth: I've been trying, for days now, to find the source of not only this supposed newspaper clipping, but also for the reports both from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior that were 'used' as 'sources,' but, like most right-wing propoganda, they don't seem to exist.

This ends today's lesson