Arithmetic fail

Looking through a book about 100 with Heather, we came across this page.

Let's recap.

3 + 7 = 10

and

30 + 80 = 100

Any questions?

The Paradox of Choice: Book Review

Just finished listening to the audiobook version of The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry Schwartz.

I'd first heard of this book a while back, and it sounded amazing. I reconnected with it in a rebroadcasted episode of the Skeptically Speaking podcast (actually, radio show).

Here's the idea. You walk up to a samples table at the grocery store and are faced with 6 brands of jam. You can try any or all of them. After, you can choose to buy some jam, or mosey on with your other business.

Suppose instead that you are faced with 24 brands of jam instead of 6. Logic dictates that you're likely to find a jam that's superior to any of the 6 in the original scenario. Again, you are free to purchase.

Which scenario do you think garners the most jam sales? The 24-jam case? WRONG! Significantly more people opt to buy jam when there are only 6 brands to compare. ... I know... WTF!

Paradoxically (hence the title), including more options actually makes all options seem less appealing, even though it gives one more of an opportunity to find the BEST option. Why? Dr. Schwartz offers a number of reasons. For example, when faced with more options, you have more pressure to find the best.

Another example: Students taking a photography course were allowed to keep one of their prints. However, half were allowed to reconsider their choice, and had the option to change their mind and select a different one of their prints to keep. Even though very few actually exchanged their prints, a survey revealed that those with no option to trade were happier with their print. Somehow, adding the option to change their minds made the free-to-choose group less satisfied with their choice. Paradox.

While having too much choice can make you unhappy, he's careful to point out that too little choice can also be a problem. He's not condoning slavery and destitution. But most of us are offered more options than we can realistically understand.

One of his central theses is the differences between "maximizers" and "satisficers". A maximizer is someone who wants to consider ALL the options, and is seriously interested in finding the best. A satisficer, on the other hand, is someone who wants to find an option that is simply good enough. I can related to being a maximizer, thinking of each decision as a challenge. But Schwartz supplies ample evidence from the scientific literature that maximizers are less happy than satisficers. Well, that sucks.

Luckily, he offers suggestions on how to limit the impact of choice in your life, to make you happier and regret less. But you'll have to read the book to find out what they are.

Birth Order Book: A book review

I listened to the audiobook version of The Birth Order Book: Why You Are The Way You Are, by Dr. Kevin Leman.

Sadly, this book fell well short of my expectations. I was hoping for some real insight into what makes a person tick. Instead, this book was more like a long, drawn-out horoscope.

The observations made by Dr. Leman are only that... observations. Very little effort is made to substantiate those observations with objective evidence. Indeed, lots of qualifiers are thrown in as a safety net. So that if his description of first-borns doesn't fit you, then you should think of it as only a guideline.

It's not that I got NOTHING out of the book. I did get a sense of the three basic personality types.

First born

Conscientious, orderly, organized, driven to please mom and dad

Middle child

Peace maker, independent, chooses a different route to recognition than older siblings

Last born

Disorganized, impulsive, attention-seeking, creative

However, those personality classes are very difficult to apply. Why? Because his definition of who is in those categories is vague. You are a first-born if you are the first girl or first boy in your family, or if your next older sibling is at least 5 years older than you. Similarly, you are a last-born if you are the youngest in your family, or if your next younger sibling is a least 5 years younger than you. A middle child is one who doesn't fit those categories.

I have an older sister (15 months older), and a brother who is about 5 years younger. That makes me a first-born and a last-born. But in many ways, I also fit the definition of a middle child. How uninteresting is THAT?! Without a clear picture of what class you're in, the book descends into an arbitrary list of personality types, and my personality spans across all of them. Bleh.

Stiff: A book review

I listened to the audiobook version of "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" by Mary Roach. What a treat. Am I a sicko, or what?

In her explorations into how human cadavers are used, Mary tells us - in gruesome detail - about many of her site visits. These include a cosmetic surgery workshop (for anatomical education), a human-remains research "farm" (used to infer time of death), and a tissue digestion company (an alternative to cremation). She also outlines a lot of the history around early anatomists, and how they used to hire body-snatchers to supply corpses by digging fresh graves, or otherwise.

One of my favourite parts of the book is her chapter on head transplants. Umm, make that "body transplants". Not done on humans, but on dogs and monkeys. I even took the time to look up the 1971 Surgery paper she described, entitled "Cephalic exchange transplantation in the monkey" by Robert J. White et al, which is where this rather disturbing figure comes from.


Mary has a humourous candor that comes out effortlessly from Shelly Frasier's reading. I highly recommend this book, if you have a strong stomach and a fascination with the macabre.

Why Women Have Sex: A book review

Listened to the audiobook version of "Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations - from Adventure to Revenge" by Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss.

The book is about the psychological and evolutionary motives for women to engage in sex. Their evidence comes mostly from a large survey they conducted in which thousands of women of various ages, socio-economic standings, and sexual orientations reflected on their sexual experiences. Their motives ranged from "I was curious to see how good he was in bed", to "I thought if I had sex with him, he'd stop pestering me", to "I wanted to make my ex jealous".

While the subject matter is acutely interesting, unfortunately I found this book a little dull. Much of the book was devoted to simply reading the comments from their survey. It didn't have the same evolutionary depth as David Buss' other book that I thoroughly enjoyed, "The Murderer Next Door" (you can read my review of that one by clicking).

Books I've Read or Listened To

In case you're curious about what books I've gone through, here is a list. If you're not curious, then you can leave me a nasty comment about how I'm so narcissistic.

The Deluded Mind: a review of "The Divided Mind"

Here is my next contribution to the Skeptic North blog. It's a book review of "The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders" by John E. Sarno. Do you think I liked it? You'll have to read it to find out.

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

I listened to an audiobook version of "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker. It was interesting, though somewhat long-winded at times (almost 23 hours)... making sure to hammer home each claim with strikes from every conceivable angle of evidence.

The idea of the book is refreshing and fun... that different people are born with different brains. I expected some differences. But it goes a lot deeper than I thought.

Some of the more interesting results he discusses include evidence from twin and sibling studies showing that about 50% of the variation in many behaviours can be attributed directly to genetics. Cool.

The book then takes a surprising turn, describing the three laws of behaviour genetics by Eric Turnkeimer.

1. All human behavioural traits are heritable.
2. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.
3. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioural traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

Hard to believe, but Pinker spends some time unpacking the evidence behind those results. It's quite an eye-opener.

But, you'll have to check the book out yourself to get that story.

The God Virus: A book review

Just finished reading The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture by Dr. Darrel W. Ray. In addition to my review, I interviewed Dr. Ray (see below).

In case you didn't receive the memo, I'm atheist. So this book, describing the ways in which religion behaves like a virus of the mind, was "preaching to the choir".

Indeed, I have often thought about how religions have built-in features that promote their own propagation. The metaphor is deep. In fact, it's not just a metaphor at all. If a virus is something that evolves by mutating and multiplying within a population of hosts, then religion IS A VIRUS. And that's Dr. Ray's thesis.

One continuing theme in the book is that religions deactivate the critical-thinking capacities of the infected. Religions frown upon objective questioning of the dogma, and instead insist that faith is a moral virtue.

He also points out the guilt cycle. Religion places unrealistic expectations on us, which makes us feel guilty. Naturally, those same religions also offer a way to relive that guilt. It's one-stop shopping for the gullible.

As I stated in a previous post, Dr. Ray uses the term "genetic suicide" to describe priests that take an oath of celibacy; it's the end of the line for those genes. And why would they do that? The same reason people commit suicide by flying planes into buildings... religion. The point that Dr. Ray makes is that religions hijack the rational brain and cause the infected to behave in a way that is good for the virus, even if it's bad for the host. A great biological example:

The lancet fluke (Dicrocoelium) infects the brain of ants by taking control and driving them to climb to the top of a blade of grass where they can be eaten by a cow. The ingested fluke then lays eggs in the cow gut. Eventually, the eggs exit the cow, and hungry snails eat the dung (and fluke eggs). The fluke enters the snail's digestive gland and gets excreted in stidky slime full of a seething mass of flukes to be drunk by ants as a source of moisture. [p. 22]

Religion does the same thing. It is not designed for the best interests of the organism. It's designed to look after its own interests, to create as many copies as possible (how the hosts fare is of no direct consequence).

One of the most striking examples of religion's selfish promotion:

By actively attacking condom use and birth control [in Africa], the god virus facilitates the HIV virus. The result is a conversion to Catholic sexual practices or death from HIV. [p. 55]

Dr. Ray also discusses crime and religion. As an atheist, I feel good about the fact that atheists comprise about 0.5% of prison inmates, even though we are between 6 and 10% of the population. [p. 121]

There is a chapter on science, and how religions simultaneously use it and contradict it. Dr. Ray points out that many religious proponents "rail against science even as they use the tools that science gave them" [p. 228]. And that "religion uses the fruits of science to make the world far more dangerous". "Those who are waiting for heaven don't focus well on the problems of today." [p. 226, his italics]

My only ciriticism of the book is that I didn't really get a feel for its organization. The chapter headings divvy up the topics, but I didn't get the sense that each section belonged only in its chapter. But this could be more to do with me than the book.

Final analysis, I really liked the book. Every biologist, evolution enthusiast, and theologian should read it. "Religion is a virus" is not just a metaphor, it's reality.

---

Here is my interview of Dr. Darrel Ray.


Download MP3. Music by DASJAMBO.

Link: Recovering Religionists

On Being Certain: A book review

The book: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton, M.D.

This book shook the foundation of my epistemological world. The crux is that the sense of knowing something is a feeling like anger or pride. Thus, the fact that you "know" something does not mean it's true.

He gives an example. Right after the Challenger exploded on take-off (back in 1986), a psychology researcher collected statements from a number of people about what they were doing when they heard the news. A few years later, he asked them again. They all remembered vividly. Except, their memories didn't necessarily match what they'd written. When shown their statements, some continued to insist that the statement was wrong, but their memory was right. It's a vivid demonstration of how utterly convincing the feeling of certainty is. But, it's just a feeling.

He goes further. We don't even have any way of knowing what unconscious mental processes went into a belief or conclusion. So introspection is of little use for determining which beliefs are true and which are false.

He gives examples involving medical doctors. One proclaims, "I believe in the necessity of research, but I know that personal experience is the 'proof of the pudding.' " Like many doctors, this one leans heavily on his own personal judgement based on experience. But how do we know that the judgement is tied tightly to reality?

Science is the best bet.

... we should know when we are basing our decisions on science and when they are based upon unsubstantiated experience, hunches, and gut feelings. But, as we've seen, we aren't reliable assessors of such arbitrary distinctions.

His suggestion is that we modulate the conviction of our beliefs by attempting to consider the probability that each is correct, and reflect that uncertainty when we express our beliefs to others.

Toward the end of the book, Dr. Burton seems to suggest that our brains are equipped with a sensory system for perceiving a representation of brain state. This is nothing short of a theory of consciousness, and nothing short of fascinating. Just like we have a sensory cortex for processing tactile and visual information, we might also have a sensory cortex for processing mental information. He doesn't say it point-blank, but launches the notion for the reader. It blew my mind. I'm not sure I agree with it, but then again, this book makes it abundantly clear that we should not let the feeling of believing fool us.

59 Seconds: A book review

I just finished listening to an adiobook version of the book 59 Seconds: Think a Little, Change a Lot by Richard Wiseman. Here is the review I submitted to audible.com.

THE book for self-help seekers

My rating: 5 out of 5

I first heard of Richard Wiseman through the skeptical podcasts and blogs I frequent. And true to the skeptical point of view, this book is based on EVIDENCE. Indeed, evidence is front-and-centre right from the start. Every behavioural suggestion and piece of advice is backed by an experiment (a refreshing change from The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle). That's what separates this book from all the other self-help woo that's out there. Lots of books make claims that sound intuitive, but reality can often be very counter-intuitive. And this book has lots of examples. Here's one: praising children for their achievements can actually inhibit their progress by making them anxious about failure, while praising children for their effort encourages them to work hard and challenge themselves. Hmmm!

This audiobook is SO good, I went and bought the hardcover too.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

The Power of Now (or Obfuscation)

I am insane. I am unconscious. I am mind-identified, and embracing the pain-body. At least, that's how Echart Tolle would describe me. I just finished listening to an audiobook version of his book The Power of Now, and I am NOT on his wavelength. Or should I say, "vibrational frequency"?

Many people revere this book, and Tolle as some sort of Zen master. I just don't see it. To me, the book was like serving after serving of word-spaghetti. He lays out his view of the human psyche, explaining to us that the only real time we have is NOW; the past and the future are just human constructs (OK, but that doesn't make them irrelevant). He goes further to declare that anyone who is not present in the now is "unconscious". Such people are mind-identified... that is, they put too much stake in their own logic and explicit thought processes. Ironically, most people refer to one's logic and explicit thought processes as "consciousness". But Tolle -- knowing better -- decides to reverse the definitions. "Consciousness", according to Tolle, is to turn off your internal voice, power-down your logic, and simply be in the now.

There are many things that I don't like about this book, but I'll try to group them into themes.

I don't like his casual use of poorly-defined words and concepts.

He often uses phrases like "vibrational energy of the frequency field". I'm familiar with a few different definitions for each of those words, but I can't seem to figure out what it all means together. But I needn't worry. Early in the book, Tolle asks us not to get too hung up on the meanings of words. Given that it's a book, I'm not sure where else the meaning can come from. But I guess it's a good thing he starts with that disclaimer, because it takes the wind out of my sails when I want to take him to task on statements like "through becoming vulnerable, can you discover your true and essential invulnerability", or when he describes "a 'no' that is free of all negativity".

And how about this one? "Unless and until you access the consciousness frequency of presence, all relationships -- and particuarly intimate relationships -- are deeply flawed and ultimately dysfunctional." With a properly chosen definition, EVERY relationship could be labeled dysfunctional, regardless of anyone's "consciousness frequency".

I don't like how his convoluted framework prevents anyone from thinking for themselves.

While listening to this book, I felt like I was playing Cups with Chandler Bing; it seemed like every rule was a new rule, completely independent from those preceding. An example, "You cannot be conscious and unhappy, conscious and in negativity. Negativity, unhappiness or suffering in whatever form means that there's resistance, and resistance is always unconscious." He just says things, and people seem to lap it up uncritically.

I don't like his oversimplified solutions.

Question: How can we drop negativity, as you suggest?

Answer: By dropping it. How do you drop a piece of hot coal that you are holding in your hand? How do you drop some heavy and useless baggage that you are carrying? By recognizing that you don't want to suffer the pain or carry the burden anymore, and then letting go of it.

OK, but what if I'm holding the coal so that it doesn't land on my children? Ahhh, I guess I should be in the now, and let my kids deal with the burns. Makes total sense. It seems so simple now.

I feel sorry for Tolle's apparent lack of scientific literacy when he says things like, "Sexual union is the closest you can get to this state [of wholeness] on the physical level. This is why it is the most deeply satisfying experience the physical realm can offer." No evidence or further justification. He just says it as if it's patently obvious. Back here in reality, we have scientific theories explaining why sex is so satisfying; it's called the Theory of Evolution, and it's complete even without an extravagant, mystical pain-body or a "vibrational frequency energy force".

I don't like that he makes claims without evidence.

At times, Tolle takes on a Freudian ideology, attributing human illnesses to mind-identified intelligence. He also says stuff like "Humans are a dangerously insane and very sick species. That's not a judgement; it's a fact." Oh, is it now? Too bad I'm not allowed ask what "insane" means. Here's another one: "All cravings are the mind seeking salvation or fulfillment in external things and in the future as a substitute for the joy of being." Just because he says it doesn't mean it's correct (just like Freud).


I will say one nice thing about the book. The book really seems to be about acceptance. "Being in the now" is about accepting your past instead of dwelling on it, and about letting go of unproductive worry. These ideas make sense to me. What I don't like is that the message is shrouded in a vague, spiritual, convoluted framework, complete with a disclaimer that the words should not be taken at face-value. I would much prefer a scientific explanation. Perhaps Tolle can find a place for his ideas in the right hemisphere of the brain. His "power of now" sounds a lot like the phenomenon that neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor wrote about in My Stroke of Insight; her left-brain was temporarily off-line due to a stroke. She describes her right-brain existence as a deeply satisfying feeling of oneness with the universe.

I suppose Tolle has made a lot of money from this book. If he really is living in the now, I wonder what interest rate his investments earn.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Priest commits genetic suicide

I'm listening to an episode of the Point of Inquiry podcast in which they interview Dr. Darrel Ray, the author of The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture. Yet another book to add to my wish list.

I have not read the book, but from the interview I gather that the book explains the metaphor of religion as a virus. An example is that you tend to get "infected" with the same virus as your parents.

Dr. Ray made a statement that I found particularly interesting. We think of terrorist bombers when we talk about suicide in the context of religion. However, Dr. Ray used the term "genetic suicide" to describe the effect that religion has on Catholic priests and nuns. That is, they voluntarily exclude their genes from the next generation, and every generation thereafter.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Waterloo plug in "What the Dog Saw"

I'm listening to the audiobook version of What the Dog Saw, a collection of interesting stories by Malcolm Gladwell. Toward the end of the book, in the chapter entitled "The New Boy Network: What do job interviews really tell us?", Gladwell makes reference to the University of Waterloo computer science program. The other schools mentioned in the same list: MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and CalTech.

Of course, one could point out that Gladwell's father was a prof. at Waterloo (though not in computer science).

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Consciousness Explained (almost)

I'm almost done reading Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett. It's an attempt to tackle the slipperiest of problems, the nature of consciousness (in case you didn't quite get that from the title). Dennett proposes what he calls the Multiple Drafts model, in which many systems in the brain each do their own processing in parallel, and some sort of neurological competition ultimately allows only one process to make it all the way; that's the thought that becomes conscious. He hasn't elaborated on what sort of competition is going on, but I can easily imagine it in a dynamical-systems context.

Of course, it's a purely materialistic theory of consciousness. I agree with that point of view; there is no need to conjure the supernatural.

That said, I can't say I blame people for not accepting the materialistic explanation of consciousness. The feeling that "I am me" is difficult to resolve without leaning on some vital force. Can this feeling of consciousness really have emerged as my brain developed, and will it really just disappear once my brain stops receiving oxygen and sugar?

At any rate, I am enjoying the book. His multiple drafts model reminds me of an explanation I once read about multiple personality disorder; it could be that different brain subsystems become decoupled and partition the "host's" history into separate memory banks. That blew me away!

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

Love and Sex with Robots

That's the title of a book I'm listening to right now, by David Levy.



I'm only about half-way through, but would like to share some thoughts I've got on the subject.

The book (so far) has spent a lot of time convincing the reader that relationships with robots will become as common as having a dogs as a companion. David goes to great lengths to make the point that we are quite capable of having feelings for non-human and non-living things. And that robotic mates could be better at making us happy than living mates because they can be programmed to do the things that we like.

Here is one of my beefs: WE don't even know what makes us happy. Sure... candy and warm baths make us feel good for a little while. But if all we had was candy and warm baths, or lives would be the sh!ts.

Levy mentions that some are concerned that if we let robots have a will of their own and reproduce, then they might become a threat to us. But it's OK, he puts that fear to rest by stating that all we have to do is make gentle robots. Ummm... that's not how evolution works. If aggressive behaviour helps them to produce more offspring, then that's the direction they'll evolve in. And we'll have a full-blown war on our hands. However, we'd probably kill them all off as soon as one of them showed signs of aggression (a.k.a. genecide).

And this brings me to my final point. OK, maybe loving a robot will hijack the appropriate circuits in our brains to make us truly happy... just like we're in love with our human soul mate. That's just hunky-dory... for a generation or two, until all the robot lovers die off without leaving any children behind. Who's left? The spawn of all those "archaic" types that chose to make it with other humans instead of robots.

Of course, the same could be said of gays. I love books that make me think.

[From intelligent-falling.blogspot.com]

My hero is in Toronto today

Richard Dawkins is my hero. If you haven't heard of him, he's the guy that wrote "The God Delusion" a couple years ago; the book received lots of press. He's also written a number of other books, mostly explaining the theory of evolution. I've read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker". I thought I understood evolution before. But these books showed me a whole new depth. I'm looking forward to reading more of his books.

His latest book, released just this month, is entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution".

I'm currently listening to the book, and so far (25% through) it seems like it covers all the details that one needs to know to be confident that evolution is as surely a fact as gravity (in case you hadn't realized it, the name of my blog is a gravitational version of "Intelligent Design", the creationists' attempt to explain the diversity and complexity of living things by invoking a creator).

According to richarddawkins.net, Prof. Dawkins is in Toronto today, and will be doing a reading. I'm so bummed that I only found out today, and it's sold out (no surprise). But Richard Dawkins will be interviewed on The Hour tonight at 11pm. I'll stay up and watch that for sure.