Okay, now I understand why Fox news does what it does. You know, throw inflammatory accusations from the mouths of its talking-heads. Because it works.
WANT TO DEFEAT A PROPOSED PUBLIC POLICY? JUST LABEL SUPPORTERS AS “EXTREME”
Researchers at Ohio State University conducted a number of clever experiments and discovered a link between hyperbolic language and the rejection of the public policy positions.
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to “radical feminist” supporters.
Relatively speaking, we can see why those PBS intellectuals fail to make a dent in public policy.
Me, I find some forms of political rhetoric to border on linguistic terrorism. The aim is to frighten voters into behaving as they wouldn’t otherwise. And so we hear about the evil “radical feminist,” “socialist,” “environmental extremist” position on the other side of our . . . more neutral, friendlier side.
Why does FOX news use politically inflammatory terms? Not because they are factual, but because they work. Politically speaking. No, they don’t actually inform and educate. In fact, they do the opposite. The question is, what do you want from your news?
On another front . . .
Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, UGA researchers find
Previously I’ve seen a few studies that found a lack of efficacy for abstinence-only programs. And one that went the other way. Here’s a link for another one, with a good quantity of data behind it, and some amount of controlling for extraneous variables, that also generated a “doesn’t work,” conclusion.
An interesting clip from the news release:
Along with teen pregnancy rates and sex education methods, Hall and Stanger-Hall looked at the influence of socioeconomic status, education level, access to Medicaid waivers and ethnicity of each state’s teen population.
Even when accounting for these factors, which could potentially impact teen pregnancy rates, the significant relationship between sex education methods and teen pregnancy remained: the more strongly abstinence education is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rates.
Hmm.
As I’ve argued before, even it these programs did work, I wouldn’t be for them. Why?
I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.
Why do more female doctors go into pediatrics than male? Why do more female teachers choose elementary education than male? Why do more males choose long-haul trucking as a career than females? (Etc.)
Sure, the answer is likely partly cultural. Maybe a big part, maybe a small. But to suggest that “hormones” may be some of the reason–and you tread on thin ice. Culture is okay to target, biological differences, not so much.
Even members of the skeptical/atheist community, when contemplating, “Why aren’t there more female skeptics?” will focus exclusively on culture, on what external force is preventing women from participating.
Call me a heretic, but I think our biology, including hormones, influences our orientation. And not just the orientation of our genitals.
No, it’s not all hormones. Of course not! But to deny this is as biased as any other form of bias. It is to fly in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.
In an intriguing piece of recent research I read . . .
The researchers studied teenagers and young adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia — a genetic condition — and their siblings who do not have CAH.
People with CAH are exposed to more androgen — a type of male sex hormone — than is normal while in the uterus. Females with CAH are genetically female and are treated as females, but their interests tend to be more similar to stereotypically male ones. [source, bold added]
Interesting. Of course, the inquiring mind would like to know how much more? That’s pretty important information.
The findings as they relate to career:
The researchers report in the current issue of Hormones and Behavior that females with CAH were significantly more interested than females without CAH in careers related to things compared to careers related to people. The researchers also found that career interests directly corresponded to the amount of androgen exposure the females with CAH experienced — those exposed to the most androgen in the uterus showed the most interest in things versus people.
Of course, just as completely neglecting findings like these is to engage in bias, so too is making more of them than is warranted. Because this bit of science dovetails with a substantial amount of other research, I give it some credence. Not full, and hopefully not overblown and undeserved, but some. Definitely.
The political self is difficult to divorce from the intellectual. But the committed skeptic must strive to do it. Again and again and again.
The pregnant teenager had been admitted to the emergency room, again, for a drug overdose. Through runny mascara she told the television journalist, “I just pray to [my] god every day that what I’m doing doesn’t hurt my baby.” I felt like yelling at the tube.
Could this girl not comprehend that the responsibility for her child’s health lay squarely on her shoulders, if anywhere?
Sadly, the girl’s behavior does make some sense, in a pathological way. Where perceived control over a situation runs low, superstitious behavior is more likely. Unfortunately, addicts have limited control over their behavior. Nevertheless, I believe that “plan” is a much better word than “pray.” Individuals facing trouble should do the former and not the latter. If you don’t have a plan, what do you have but a passive wish?
On the National Day of Prayer in 2003, President George W. Bush said,
“Americans prayed that war would not be necessary. We now pray that the peace will be just.”
Was George familiar with the term “ironic”? Prayer didn’t work the first time. So let’s do it again. If by “pray,” a person means “hope”–okay, that’s fine. But our then self-designated Chaplain-in-Chief certainly didn’t. G.W. was highlighting a connection to his god and as a result, intentionally or not, limiting his responsibility for what had transpired and what would transpire. After all, Bush and those marching under the nearly explicitly stated banner of Judeo-Christianity were only attempting to do their god’s will. A heartfelt Christian certainly wouldn’t endeavor to accomplish something at odds with his god’s will, would he?
In a related matter, after the 2003 crash of the space shuttle Columbia, and the loss of a crew including the first Jew in space, Muslim fanatics claimed it was the work of their god. Many may have prayed for disaster to strike. Many more sent a prayer of thanks to their god after the fact.
That space flight is tremendously hazardous and that there are bound to be periodic catastrophes does not, in any way, detract from the fact that this was not a mere coincidence. No, coincidences don’t happen. It’s all part of some god’s plan. To those who celebrated I ask, Why didn’t your god give you a space shuttle of your own?
Imagine traveling back in time to the Holy Land when it was not yet holy–it had yet to be blessed* by the spilling of blood–and describing to people a ship that blasts off in a ball of fire from Florida (you know, the Sunshine State, Disney World, the Miami Dolphins and all that) and takes humans up to the heavens. A couple days later the ship sails back to earth, landing safely thanks in part to its polyester parachutes filling like tunics in an up-draft. Then the flying humans do it again. And again. Dozens of times. Safely. The slack-jawed nomads would surely think it was a miracle, if they believed it at all. Maybe you would have to share with them evidence of our wondrously advanced technology to make your case. From your nylon backpack you pull a stainless steel melon-baller, a tube of coconut-scented sunscreen (SPF 45, no less) a block of Post-it notes, and a combination electric night-light and air-freshener. I bet the melon-baller would be a hit.
Space flight is not a miracle; it’s a masterful human achievement. If Islamic fundamentalists wanted their own space shuttle, they would be foolish to pray to Allah for it.
Just as a god is not responsible for the historic U.S. supremacy in space–it has most to do with our unique history and our economic/educational/political systems–I can’t take any responsibility for putting a man on the moon. I suppose I vote and pay my taxes, and my few meager pennies in NASA’s budget may have purchased a length of wire. Rather, it is the politicians who made space exploration a national priority–as well as the administrators and engineers who drew up the plans and enacted them. Sure, shake Neil Armstrong’s hand. The bulk of the kudos, however, should go to aeronautical firms and their bright employees who sweated over the blueprints and built and tested and tested and built and drew up yet more of the plans that would put a human boot print on the surface of the moon. It worked according to plan. Prayer contributed nada.
God-blessing perpetuates the proverbial stone-soup phenomenon. The religious leaders place their stone in the community pot. Then citizens come forward, one adding cabbage, another carrots, another potatoes. The community supplies everything. It does the chopping, the stirring, the serving. Lo and behold, there is soup where there was only a religious rock. A miracle! Shall we praise the leader for coaxing people into doing something, and then give ultimate credit elsewhere?
Can the figment of a group’s imagination instill in them the desire to accomplish something? I suppose. But, more often, a god is praised and thanked after the fact. First something happens, then the god-talk is rolled out. This is both ingenious and disingenuous.
Why not give a god responsibility for some specific future event? The reason–it’s too damn risky. A god can’t deliver under those conditions. In hindsight, a god can do anything. With foresight, when talking specifics, he’s a stone devoid of soup, a wish devoid of human action.
—
*From the Online Etymological Dictionary:
bless
O.E. bletsian, bledsian, Northumbrian bloedsian “to consecrate, make holy, give thanks,” from P.Gmc. *blothisojan “mark with blood,” from *blotham “blood” (see blood). Originally a blood sprinkling on pagan altars.
Outside my own mind, the word “atheist” tends to have negative connotations. Sharp-toothed subversives, that’s what we supposedly are. In the pantheon of sinners, atheist is about as serious as you can get. Surveys show that, when asked whom they’d consider inviting to dinner, Mr. Baseball and Mrs. Apple Pie rank us below homosexuals (horror of horrors!). Actually the surveys were about inviting someone into the White House.
While the U.S. has one openly gay U.S. Congressmen that I know of(Barney Frank, MA), and a gay man has been appointed bishop of an Episcopalian church, no atheist will ever be granted bishop-ship nor elected pope. President of the United States of Assorted Believers? Fuggedaboutit!
In this very century, the day following the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, nearly the entire Senate participated in a media event. On a set of granite steps they recited the Pledge in unison (no partisanship here), loudly exclaiming under God when the time came.
As I see it, there are a couple reasons why a senator may have participated in this political stunt. First, he or she truly believed in a most high god that deserved to be intertwined with affairs of the state, if only on a token level. Some politicians may indeed fear the state could go astray without his or her god guiding the great ship.
Perhaps more likely, that gaggle of Senators was instead a collection of cowards who bowed to the political necessity of kissing the ass of the Judeo-Christian-majority voter-block. And that was quite the telegenic smooch.
Is there something similar going on with both the “protect heterosexual marriage” and the “protect the godly nature of our nation” movements? They each strike me as the behavior of intellectual Luddites. C’mon. Join me in the 21st century, won’t y’all?
Real homosexuals aren’t scary. Neither are real atheists.
Do circumstances have you tied to the tracks of life, a dastardly train closing in? Rescue will not come by Mighty Mouse, but an Almighty Alpha! During my childhood, cartoon-watching years, I learned that the Bible god fills the role of the great protector.
Thirty-plus years later, I, along with the rest of this country, experienced something so shocking it was nearly unfathomable. Wile E. Terrorists flew their borrowed Acme planes into the Roadrunner Trade Towers. Hey, wait a minute — that wasn’t supposed to happen!
It wasn’t the least bit funny. Yet the response of many was borderline loony.
Shortly after September 11th, 2001, America sprouted flags like tulips in springtime. In central Florida many of the window and bumper-sticker versions had not, “United We Stand” emblazoned along the bottom, but “In God We Trust.” Beneath that caption I felt there ought to be a second that read, “But We’ll Let Our Military Do the Heavy Lifting.”
Apparently, the Bible god is a token alpha, or he’s too busy to get his hands dirty, so he relies on select humans. Such as the eighteen terrorists of 9/11. But, silly me, they were following a false alpha, a truly dangerous coyote-like devil, while our country has the true alpha on our side.
A year and a half later–before, during, and following the U.S. Military (oops, “coalition forces”) invasion of Iraq (oopsie, “Operation Iraqi Freedom”)–we saw a second blossoming of flags and patriotic placards. Many carried the words, “Bless Our Troops.” This, too, seemed bizarre. The origin of the word “bless” has to do with blood, as in the case of sprinkling with the blood of a sacrificial animal to gain a god’s favor. So, in a sense, by asking for our troops to be blessed, people declared, “May our troops be splattered with blood . . . but not their own.”
For many Christian fundamentalists, the events of and following 9/11 were a boon to business. They now had a Big Reason for calling upon their leader of the pack. It was a new incarnation of the number one, chart-topping favorite: Good versus Them. Or, Followers of the right god versus the followers of the wrong god. As a non-believer, I could only shake my head. “How do you respond to violence fueled by religious zealotry?” was the Jeopardy response people gave to, “religious zealotry.”
What’s an almighty alpha good for if you can’t put him to use? Sure, it’s handy to be able to call upon your god when you need your alma mater’s Bulldogs to prevail over those pesky Eagles. But the more appropriate time to un-sheath your god is when you’ve got trouble with a capital “T.” Or so it seems.
Mid-morning every Sunday during my childhood you could find me in church, sticking out my tongue to receive a communion wafer. Which had something to do with Jesus, I was told. Jesus was Christ, the Numero Uno Messiah. I ate “His body” and drank “His blood.” Actually, the priest did all the wine drinking, so I was gypped out of that part. For “He is the lamb of God,” sacrificed for our sins.
I now understand how the Christian alpha upstaged the Jewish alpha. The god of the New Testament section of the Bible plotted for the Christians not to slaughter a sheep or a cow or two turtledoves. The spilled blood would be His own. With Jesus, he didn’t pull back, like a game of chicken, as he did with Abraham.
Shouldn’t that plot line strike the modern mind as archaic?
When eating Jesus’ body (taking the wafer into my mouth,) I did not feel a communion with a god. I felt nothing. Too bad the priest hadn’t informed me that the little white wafer was equivalent to a can of holy spinach–that it could give my soul the muscles to fight evil. The Bible god’s greatest power, after all, is his ability to empower people. That way, if he’s otherwise occupied, which he always is, we can take care of Brutus ourselves. Or at least we can try.
Why the need for a separation of church and state? For starters, one group’s Popeye is another’s Brutus. And then there is this: Religions tend to have deeply held political aspirations. Not in terms of running for office, but in terms of governing people’s lives and changing the world. Which is politics.
My deeply held conviction: Secular government is better. Why? Because it is more likely to be free of archaic notions and narrow-minded prejudice and bias.
Recent Comments