4/3/2013 Conspiracy theories

This Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing conspiracy theories. 

While we mostly accept our thirst for meaning and intention behind each event or situation that we experience, we likely also come across explanations that seems too intricate, complicated, and implausible.

Conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on the extraordinary, the more implausible the theory, the more they seem convinced to have the inside knowledge that other people do not have, and everyone else is just naive and taken.

Just as quickly as some of these theories are rebuffed, they are replaced by something even more outlandish.

Is this all the result of reading too many detective thrillers and science fiction, fueled by our desire to explain everything ?

Perhaps our egos thinking that we are the minority in the know among an ignorant crowd?

The evolving nature of conspiracy theories makes them impossible to dispel. It involves secrets that we can't possibly know.  How can we show that all the recent presidents of the United States are not puppets of several powerful man somewhere in the eastern US that meet from time to time in secret to tell what the presidents should do?

How do we know that the current theory about dark energy is true when it is only a term that is required to make Einstein's equation work?  Maybe the equation isn't right and we shouldn't be thinking about dark energy?  Perhaps it is really an electromagnetic universe out there instead of the current understanding?

What about fluoridation of our drinking water.  Is that the sugar industry's way of making us continue to feed our sugar fix without having to worry about rotting teeth?

When does what sound like conspiracy theories become plausible enough for us to pay more attention?

How to evaluate plausibility?  From our past experience?  Is that the definition of closed-mindedness? 
 
We may have difficulty believing that aliens really control us earthlings, that they have visited us before and knows about everything that we do.

What if that alien is god.....are religions conspiracy theories or variations there of?

Finally, while conspiracy theories can be whimsy, do they poison trust in our institutions?

Come Wednesday and share some of the conspiracy theories you have heard and how you determine its plausibility!

Meeting on sarcasm

We had our meeting at the Ideas Cafe on sarcasm yesterday and it was an interesting one.

There were examples of the positive and negative sides to the use of sarcasm and also speculation on why sarcasm is used.

Bruce mentioned that teachers refrain from using sarcasm in the classroom with their students as this is a bad example for the students who can pick it up quickly.  Sarcasm can be cutting, usually not complimentary and often can be a put down for the target.

Parents who are overly sarcastic with their children are not delivering a loving message. Sarcasm is an interrupter, generally discourages intimacy, and better used occasionally rather than as a normal mode of conversation. 

This makes me think of why serial situation comedies on television can be so tiring as they are often one line sarcastic comment after another and good thing that real people do not converse like that.

But that is also the reason why sarcasm can be tempting.  We all look for that one phrase, like a punch line at the end of a well prepared joke, that will summarize the situation succinctly.  It is like poetry in conversation.

Done successfully, a sarcastic remark can impress and improve the speaker's social standing among the social group that he/she is in and that is always a tempting target for social animals like us humans.

But a lot of sarcasm, like a lot of jokes, is at the expense of someone else within the group.  This is when it is akin to bullying but by a more verbally skilled person rather than physical bullying by a person of strength.

Sarcasm often involves saying something opposite to what words in the message indicate.  Why don't we just deliver a plain message as is?

Sometimes it is social norms and courtesy. It is generally impolite to address someone as obese, but perhaps a fun term like "horizontally endowed" may lighten the situation?

Teresa offered that sarcasm allows us to express anger without losing control.

It seems there are just various social situations when the direct comment may be too flat and inflammatory and sarcasm is the next best thing if a humorous phrase do not come to mind. 

Sarcasm can also be used to improve bonding within a social group.  It is something that you can do with people you are familiar with knowing that they will not be offended.  Outsiders may not understand the remarks but that adds to the cohesion of the social group insiders.

Wait a minute,  didn't we just say that sarcasm discourages intimacy? Yet sarcasm is used for bonding?

Coming out of the discussion, I can't help but feel that sarcasm is one of those complicated, constantly conflicting, and nuanced human social behaviors like humor, fashion, social norms, and others that can be impossible to write rules for but are very significant to how we socialize with others.  It can communicate like poetry, cut deeper than direct criticism, and yet build even tighter bonds among those who are already close.

It will be a big step forward in understanding humans if someone comes up with a computer that can be good in humor and sarcasm.

3/27/2013 Sarcasm, is it useful? why do we do it?

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing sarcasm.

It must be very challenging for computer scientist trying to program a computer to make sense of human speech containing sarcastic remarks.  The machine has to know when we say something while meaning the complete opposite.
 
Yet our brain seems to pick it up, even when it happens in the middle of an otherwise normal exchange, and detect its usage through tone of voice, facial expression, body language, and context.

Even humans get it wrong sometimes, not knowing all the time when the speaker really mean what they say or whether it is meant to be funny, or sarcastic.
 
Not to mention the times when life throw its curves at us with ironic situations which also tend to illicit sarcastic comments from us.

Do we use sarcasm to break the monotony of speech?  To hide something that may be too harsh to say directly?  To give us an out if the listener responded very negatively to it?

Does sarcasm lighten the conversation or poison the exchange?

Do we feel closer or more distant to someone who uses sarcasm in their conversation exchange with us?

Would it be more useful to avoid it altogether in order to lessen confusion in communications?

Does it massage the ego of the speaker to use sarcasm? Are they assuming the superior position when they become sarcastic?
 
Then there is sarcasm in literature and art.  Do they highlight the author's message or hide the author's inability to make their prose interesting?

Are caricatures and political cartoons helpful?  Do they call our attention to the situation or do we risk skewing the overall picture by impressions from these cartoons?

You may find this link helpful in looking more into sarcasm in relationships:  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/communication/valerie.htm 

Looking forward to your remarks in our discussion on Wednesday.

Meeting on Freedom versus consumer protection

Perspectives matter!

We had our meeting a couple of evenings ago on individual freedom versus consumer protection.

The recent court reversal in New York over mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban on super-sized sugary drinks provided the starting point.  Should government stop us from having too much sugar now that the statistics show sugar consumption as the cause of a lot of the developed worlds health problems?

The discussion continued with vaccinations and whether health workers should be mandated to take flu shots.

Dan said that he is thankful that there are health inspectors checking on the conditions of restaurants, temperature of their refrigeration and warning if items like raw oysters are not fit for consumption.  It will be practically impossible for him as an individual to determine the safety of food establishments otherwise.

Mano suggested that the regulatory authorities, knowledgeable in the area of expertise involved are the right mechanism to serve the public from a non-political environment.

Whether it is water safety, nutritional information, prohibition on drugs, the behavior of professionals, the average citizen rely on these regulatory agencies to monitor and notify the public of potential hazards and irregularities.

It is difficult to argue against the wisdom of having health inspection, fire prevention inspection and other forms of monitoring involving expertise and specialized knowledge.  How else can we benefit from prior experiences if we do not have these regulatory bodies to carry on the knowledge and experience from past failures and lessons learned?

If we agree on having regulatory agencies, then do we have a regulatory agency to regulate the regulatory agencies?  Citizens often fear government agencies expand and get into self preservation mode at the expense of tax payers, especially when these agencies claim specialty knowledge.

Dan said that we already have the auditor general reviewing the value for tax dollars spent in the various government department and agencies and that acts as monitoring for the various arms of the government.

Mano suggested that there is a "poisoning of the well" recently in the way government initiatives are seen as invasion to individual freedoms.

By casting the issue in this light, we are shifting the attention for what cooperation and collaboration is benefiting the public good to the discussion of whether individuals have the freedom to go against government's action to promote the public good.

Vaccination is a typical example of where the avocation of the individual's right to not get vaccination is cast as a freedom issue when in fact the non vaccinated individual is free riding on the rest of the people who get vaccinated and in turn improved the group immunity to an infectious epidemic.

Individual freedoms are always compromised when living with others.  However, we agree to participate in this social contract with others and compromise our freedom in order to get the benefits of cooperation when living in a social group.

We may call it spin but it really matters how the question is posed.  Whether it is an issue of big brother coming down on the individual,  or do the individual have the right to endanger or cost economic harm to the rest of the group.

The other aspect of this question is not that we should or should not have regulation, but that we should or should not have good regulation.  It is all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater by objecting to the status quo and looking for a new start.

As in all matters, the answer is seldom a black and white yes or no.  It generally requires human intervention with careful balancing of the various considerations involved.

I am happy not to have to constantly test my water and food myself and have an auditor general to have oversight over government.

If only I can have some oversight of the auditor general, and oversight of the overseer..........  

3/13/2013 Free choice vs consumer protection

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe,  we will be discussing free choice versus consumer protection.

In an increasingly complicated world, it is difficult for us to understand everything we are involved in.  Whether it be cars, baby products, prescription drugs or food, it is impossible for us to be vigilant on quality of these goods and services without some standard and expertise from government or industry organizations.

Labeling laws on foods gives us nutritional information, air bags and seat belts improve our chances of surviving accidents,  these are all improvements from how things were years ago. 

All these practices came at a cost and different degrees of objections were raised when they were first brought in as mandatory standards.

How far should we go with this?

It is generally accepted that vaccines go a long way in preventing the spread of disease and its benefit vastly overwhelm the small amount of risk that it poses.  Why are we not mandating compulsory use of vaccines, not even for health workers?

Tobacco have been shown to be harmful, why is it still free choice for its use?

But of course we have to be free. 

While most people will accept helmet requirement for cycling and motorcycling, it would seem too much infringement on our freedom to forbid us from riding motorcycles just because the mortality and injury rates are higher than riding in cars.

We do not insists on people taking airplanes instead of driving across the country even when airplane travel have been shown statistically to be much safer than driving on a per mile basis.

What about the consumption of sugar, fats, salt, and other possibly unhealthy but tasty foods?

Is it enough just to show in labels that a particular food item contains unhealthy levels of trans fats or should the food be banned or taxed heavily?

Some say that individuals should be able to make their free choice for things that impact only on their own lives and no one else's.

But we live in an interconnected society. 

Can parents make personal choices without concern for their children's welfare if something happens to the parents?

Do we not all have ongoing commitments and obligations to fill that we are completely free to do whatever we want?

Then there are issues such as vaccination against infectious disease where society depends on a high participation rate for the disease not to spread.  While any one individual can opt out of the vaccination,  their well being is dependent on the majority of the rest of society to keep the disease from becoming an epidemic.  So it is not only their health but the society's health that is hanging in the balance of their "free" decisions.

What individual freedoms should be curtailed?

Meeting on the arts and making decisions

We had our Ideas Cafe meeting last night.

As usual, we had a delightful diversion from the topic.

After my introduction of how the arts appeal to the emotional side of our consciousness while we typically think that we decide with our rational side, Shula quickly pointed out that the two need not exclude each other.

If we are truthful with ourselves,  we very often make decisions based on our urges and inclinations and use our rationality to justify the decision afterwards.

We decide to have chocolate because we like the taste and want to.  The argument that dark chocolate is healthy for us usually come a bit later.  Not that many of us force ourselves to have dark chocolate for medicinal considerations.

I have read in some of the brain science books that people who suffered damage to certain parts of their brain that create emotion and compassion in us actually have a lot of difficulty making decisions.  They forever go back and forth between the pros and cons of minute matters like what to have for lunch and cannot make up their minds.

Rationality is more suited to analysis rather than synthesis.  If there is a proposal in front of us, we can take it apart and debate the pros and cons of each aspect rationally.

However, sitting on our own and wondering what to do next,  there is a world of possibilities and we need motivating forces to narrow our focus for us before the analytical side of rationality can drill into.  Emotions and urges motivate us.

Art is such a wide topic and I define it as something that evokes an emotional response from the person perceiving the art.  Some in the discussion would not include advertising as art because it is intended to persuade us towards a goal.

We acknowledge the complicated intertwining nature of art, emotion, and decision making but Mano's question of how do we guard ourselves against external manipulation and influences in our decisions turned the discussion.

Shula pointed out that education is manipulation but perhaps in a good way.  A sure way to construct effective filters for undesirable outside manipulation in our decision making is to use our past experience as feedback for the next time we decide.

Sam and Colin pointed out the subtle use of colours in places like McDonald Restaurants to encourage their customers not to linger and in prisons to calm inmates to minimize riots.  These are subtle subconscious influences that we likely do not know unless we search them out.

Then there is the lack of something as an influence. The absence of certain information will certainly change our decision making.  How do we know something should be there if it is not there?

The word manipulation is so loaded with negative meaning that we ended the discussion with our resident linguist's explanation that the word "influence" came from the sense of the river flowing into us.  Manipulation, on the other hand, tends to be acted on us by other humans with intention.  Thus the weather influence what we do but not manipulate.

We did not spend that much time on the arts,  it will have to be revisited at another discussion!

3/6/2013 Do the arts help or hinder our decisions?

Next Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe,  we are discussing whether the arts facilitate or bias our decisions.

We think our best decisions are made rationally, with information from as many credible sources as we can find.  We make tradeoffs based on the importance of competing considerations and make the best optimized solution there is.

The arts, whether it is books that are on the subject, documentary on television, newspaper or magazine articles are the medium through which we get a lot of the information we need to decide.

Are we more persuaded by a skillful and engaging writer versus someone who is less gifted but have more important facts in their argument?

Do political cartoons, bold posters, and memorable slogans, endear to or repulse us from certain positions?


Propaganda that is crafty enough to appeal to our subconscious insecurities and prejudices make us uncomfortable without knowing exactly why.  Our "gut reaction" is to make the safer decision.

But it is also the arts that can cut through the clutter of a complicated and confusing issue to accentuate the important issue we should concentrate on, to clear our thinking.  It is also the arts that can convey emotional and sentimental considerations that cannot be quantified in numbers and balance on a scale.  Compassionate considerations are always part of the decision making process even though it is hard to quantify and the arts do this much better than numbers.

Spreadsheets do not always promote the best decisions.

The answer is of course to have both rationality and compassion in our decision making.  But how much of each and in what way?

Then there is the danger of the medium taking over the message.

Canadians lament that the movie "Argo" about the rescue of American hostages hiding in the Canadian embassy in Iran, based on the true stories with actual news clips in the end to give it an authentic feel, never the less did not represent the true risks the Canadian embassy took in accepting the hostages. 

Even the then Canadian ambassador acknowledged that the movie deserve the Oscar but not a true representation.  The movie makers had to invent some chase scenes to make the movie more engaging.  So how is an audience to know which part is real and which is not?

It is also inevitable of the arts circle to concentrate on their values, lives, and pursuits.  It should be no surprise that Hollywood is much better at promoting themselves through awards like the Oscar event.  Is our current adulation over celebrities in entertainment and sports rather than science the result?

Can or should something be done?