Signs of the Times

Coffee’s up!! Evolutionary psychology now gives us its latest: The EP romance series

(targeting customers of the more familiar bodice-ripper and cherry-chomp brands)

David Brooks, who used to know tripe when he saw it, now gives us this, praising pop evolutionary psychology:

Brain science helps fill the hole left by the atrophy of theology and philosophy

A core finding of this work is that we are not primarily the products of our conscious thinking. The conscious mind gives us one way of making sense of our environment. But the unconscious mind gives us other, more supple ways. The cognitive revolution of the past thirty years provides a different perspective on our lives, one that emphasizes the relative importance of emotion over pure reason, social connections over individual choice, moral intuition over abstract logic, perceptiveness over I.Q. It allows us to tell a different sort of success story, an inner story to go along with the conventional surface one.

Yes. There is a name for that: fascism

Fascism, at heart, is a belief that surrendering to an emotion engendered by an idea can bring about an earthly utopia. In politics, the idea is usually appears as a messianic leader, but in current psychology, anyone with some neuroscience training can generate these visions using machines, drugs, or narratives that get published as research on human subjects.

And it is always very difficult, at best, to explain to people that, on Earth, utopia is the trade name for hell.

Anyway, Brooks unintentionally outlines the problem better than any detractor could by retailing this loathsome love story:

Confused in Kentucky

Dear Mick,

I'm genuinely confused. You've drawn my attention to this article, If He Can Fight for His Country, Why Should He Have to Fight for a Job in Kentucky?. Despite the title, though, the article has nothing to do with anyone fighting for his country. It has to do with attitudes about homosexuality in Kentucky. It begins,

Yes, yes, yes! You might not immediately think of gay rights when you think of Kentucky, but a recent survey found that over 83% of Kentuckians favor anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians in the workplace. Booya!

The poll, conducted by the Fairness Coalition – composed of groups like the ACLU, the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, and The Fairness Campaign – polled 600 Kentucky residents.

The author of the post, identified as "KFarrell in Politiko," quotes the Courier-Journal, which reports,

Coalition leaders said they hoped the results would prod state lawmakers to approve — or at least debate — two General Assembly bills that would add legal protections for gay and transgender people by amending the state’s civil rights laws.

and concludes,

Wow! We’re completely surprised by these statistics. The Blue Grass State has flown under the radar as a bastion of gay rights, as far as the voting public is concerned. It’s time for the state legislature to reflect what Kentuckians already know – Gays and lesbians deserve the very same rights as their straight peers.

It appears from the results of the poll that, despite vitriolic rhetoric to the contrary, Kentuckians don't hate gays. A large majority of them actually agree with KFarrell - Gays and lesbians deserve the very same rights as their straight peers.

So here's what puzzles me. If 83% of Kentuckians look upon discrimination against gays with disfavor, can't it be reasonably assumed that they won't discriminate against gays? What then, is the purpose of the push for legislation requiring them to do what they're willing to do voluntarily?

Sincerely,

Confused in Kentucky

 

Sexualizing Britain’s Youth

Earlier this month, BBC Panorama ran a program titled “Too much too young.” The program explored whether Britain’s children are being encouraged to become prematurely sexualized.

 

Although the program tended to downplay the seriousness of the issue, there has been a string of reports in the newspapers recently highlighting the urgency of the matter. Music videos, displays in High Street shops, lap-dancing kits, padded bras for primary school girls, playboy-branded pencil cases and features in teen magazines are merely some of the tools which are helping to sexualize Britain’s youth at alarmingly young ages.

 

There have even been reports in the newspapers about a pajama set aimed at ten year olds with “Porn Star” written on it.

 

But it is not just parents who have been concerned. Government has weighed in with five initiatives in three years in an attempt to respond to the issue. Their latest plan, according to a BBC news report, is “to explore whether rules should prevent the marketing of items such as ‘Porn star’ T-shirts or padded bras…. A code of conduct on ‘age appropriate’ marketing and a new watchdog are among plans being considered by the review.”

 

Prime Minister David Cameron, himself a father of three, has made this issue a personal concern after discovering beds marketed towards six-year-olds with a “Lolita” branding (Lolita is a novel about a paedophile).

 

So far the debate over the sexualisation of children has centred primarily on quantitative questions. Are our young people being exposed to too much sex? Does this exposure happen at too young of an age?

 

Now certainly questions like these are important, especially when we ask who profits from the sexualisation of a 13 or 14 year-olds. I think few would doubt that the beneficiaries include the growing network of pedophiles in Britain.

 

What I find interesting, however, is that by framing the debate solely in terms of the above questions, the discussion has excluded crucial qualitative distinctions we need to be making. In an article I recently wrote for the Telegraph website, I have used the Panorama program as a springboard to explore what some of these qualitative distinctions are. I suggest that instead of being worried about our youth being sexualized too early, we should give attention to the way they are being sexualized, and in particular the way that they are being subtly influence to adopt a particular narrative about sex.

 

Click here to read more.

A fundamental human right?

The Center for Reproductive Rights has stated that its mission is to advance the cause of “reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.”

But we should ask what the Center means by “Reproductive Freedom”?

According to their website, the “fundamental human right” of “reproductive freedom” includes both access to birth control and safe abortion.

Now this is just the thing to get a fellow wondering. We may well ask at what point in human history abortion and birth control suddenly became a fundamental human right. Suppose we say they became a fundamental human right as soon as the technology made them possible. But this is problematic, because in that case, their existence as ‘rights’ is not absolute but contingent – contingent on technology.

But what about other contingencies? Suppose access to abortion and birth control was so expensive that it would bankrupt the entire world to provide these ‘services’ for even a single individual? In that case, would it still be a universal right?

It should be clear that these, so called, ‘rights’ are not free-standing, absolutes, but contingent on factors that may or may not exist. Now here’s the rub: can ethics be one of those factors as well?

I merely raise the question.

Oversexed or undersexed

Stacy MacDonald has some insightful comments about my recent blog series on gender, morality and modesty. She acutely observes that "Ironically, as our senses are dulled, rather than being oversexed, we become undersexed. Not that sexual activity decreases, but the satisfaction of it does. In addition, sexuality must become more and more shocking to invoke a reaction, which introduces perversions of all sorts.”

Read more

Cognitive Disconnect Awareness Project

by Terrell Clemmons

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) is a traveling photo-mural exhibit, a project of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR), which compares the contemporary genocide of abortion to historically recognized forms of genocide. It visits university campuses around the country to show as many students as possible what abortion does to unborn children and to challenge them to think about abortion in a broader historical context.

Engaging students is the primary goal, but professors get in on the action too. Recently, CBR staff member Seth Drayer engaged in an illuminating conversation with Dr. Susan Dwyer, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland. In the span of ten minutes, while students watched and listened, Seth and the professor of philosophy discuss such questions as,

• What does it mean to be human?
• What is the value of a human life?
• Where does that value come from?

It quickly becomes apparent that the professor’s philosophy is wholly lacking in grounding. She appears to have no problem calling a Southern style lynching or the Nazi Holocaust “wrong.” However it is with difficulty that she also acknowledges there’s at least something wrong with abortion too. But she can’t answer the question, Why? “I don't know the answer to that question," she says. "I haven't got a clue,” although she does go on to say that we need to think more deeply about these kinds of questions.

Watch Seth as he respectfully and compassionately engages with her. And behold moral relativism - the reigning moral paradigm in contemporary American academia - exposed for the empty philosophy of meaning that it is.

I warn you, the images are disturbing. If there’s an abortion in your past, whether you’re the father or mother of an aborted child or you’ve participated in one in some indirect way, visit The Elliot Institute for comprehensive post-abortion healing resources. But listen to this discussion, without looking at the pictures if necessary. Listen, wrestle with it, and think more deeply until you can give a reason grounded in reality for what’s wrong with this picture.

 

Wishing can make it so ... or maybe not, if this is about monkeys

by Denyse O’Leary

In, "Document Sheds Light on Investigation at Harvard (Chronicle Review, August 19, 2010)," Tom Bartlett reports that Harvard has told evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser to explain issues around a few of his journal articles:

The experiment tested the ability of rhesus monkeys to recognize sound patterns. Researchers played a series of three tones (in a pattern like A-B-A) over a sound system. After establishing the pattern, they would vary it (for instance, A-B-B) and see whether the monkeys were aware of the change. If a monkey looked at the speaker, this was taken as an indication that a difference was noticed. 

The method has been used in experiments on primates and human infants. Mr. Hauser has long worked on studies that seemed to show that primates, like rhesus monkeys or cotton-top tamarins, can recognize patterns as well as human infants do. Such pattern recognition is thought to be a component of language acquisition.

 

Researchers watched videotapes of the experiments and "coded" the results, meaning that they wrote down how the monkeys reacted. As was common practice, two researchers independently coded the results so that their findings could later be compared to eliminate errors or bias.

According to the document that was provided to The Chronicle, the experiment in question was coded by Mr. Hauser and a research assistant in his laboratory. A second research assistant was asked by Mr. Hauser to analyze the results. When the second research assistant analyzed the first research assistant's codes, he found that the monkeys didn't seem to notice the change in pattern. In fact, they looked at the speaker more often when the pattern was the same. In other words, the experiment was a bust.

But Mr. Hauser's coding showed something else entirely: He found that the monkeys did notice the change in pattern—and, according to his numbers, the results were statistically significant. If his coding was right, the experiment was a big success.

Well, the long and short of it is that no one in Hauser’s own lab could replicate his results.

The research that was the catalyst for the inquiry ended up being tabled, but only after additional problems were found with the data. In a statement to Harvard officials in 2007, the research assistant who instigated what became a revolt among junior members of the lab, outlined his larger concerns: "The most disconcerting part of the whole experience to me was the feeling that Marc was using his position of authority to force us to accept sloppy (at best) science."

Hauser was found to be solely responsible for the discrepancies, and as of the date of the Chronicle Review article, was on leave.

The whole story is testimony to the sheer need some have to prove that apes and monkeys are just fuzzy people or we are just naked apes. Life, whatever it is, is not that simple. According to Hauser’s Edge bio,

MARC D. HAUSER, an evolutionary psychologist and biologist, is Harvard College Professor, Professor of Psychology and Program in Neurosciences, and Director of Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory. He is the author of The Evolution of Communication, Wild Minds: What Animals Think, and Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.

[ ... ]

 

Along with Irv Devore, he teaches the Evolution of Human Behavior class, a Core Course at Harvard with 500 undergraduate students. The interdisciplinary course, "Science B29" (nickname: "The Sex Course"), has been running for 30 years, was started by Devore and Robert Trivers, and is the second most popular course on campus, behind "Econ 10". Section teachers over the years comprise a who's who of leading thinkers and include people such as John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, and Sarah B. Hrdy. In 1997-98, he sponsored a trial run of "Edge University" in which the students in Science B29 received Edge mailing as part of required reading in the course.

Re his book, Wild Minds: What Animals Think, it was what humans think that proved his undoing.

 

See also:

Abortion: It's Not Just a Woman's Choice

Raquel Welch made a surprising (for her) statement last week. Jerry Janquart excerpted this little gem she wrote in It's Sex O'clock in America:

"Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it's gotta be pretty bad. In fact, it's precisely because of the sexy image I've had that it's important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We're capable of so much better."

That's remarkable in itself coming from a 60s sex icon. But I want to pick up on something else. She mentioned the pivotal moment in her life when she first became pregnant:

"Even though I was married to the baby's father, Jim Welch, I wasn't prepared for this development. ... At the time, we were 19-year-old newlyweds, struggling to make ends meet. But he was unflinching in his desire to keep our baby and his positive, upbeat attitude about the whole prospect turned everything around. I have always loved Jim for how he responded in that moment."

When she became pregnant, she was afraid, confused, and vulnerable, but she found strength in her husband and his support. This enabled her to not only carry the pregnancy to term but opened her heart up to the wonder of becoming a parent:

"During my pregnancy, I came to realize that this process was not about me. I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman. But both of us were fully involved, not just for that moment, but for the rest of our lives. And it's scary. You may think you can skirt around the issue and dodge the decision, but I've never known anyone who could. Jim and I had two beautiful children who've been an ongoing blessing to both of us."

As a mother of three children, I can tell you, pregnancy is emotionally and physically overwhelming. Another life has taken over your body - it's both wonderful and terrifying. But no matter how "together" you may otherwise be, you will also be, at some level or another, a mess in need of someone to lean on.

Which leads to my point about men and abortion: Her husband was there for her and their children. Because of his moral backbone, their two children lived to see the light of day and became "an ongoing blessing" to both of them.

Men, listen up: If you become the father of an unborn child, you are that child's advocate, and you may be its lifeline. Speak up, be a man, and be the father your child and your child's mother need you to be.

You'll never regret it.

Score Two for Phil Mickelson

When Phil Mickelson won the Masters last weekend, his wife Amy was at the 18^th hole waiting to share the moment. When Mickelson came off the green, there was Amy, wearing, in the words of one commentator, “a smile bigger than her sunglasses.” They hugged, both of them in tears, for a very long time.

Ahhh … the thrill of victory. Yes, victory is thrilling, but there’s a story behind this story that transcends sports. Amy was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, and for eleven months has been undergoing chemo and radiation. She has not travelled at all during that time, but mustered her strength to see his final strokes that day. “I want to recognize my family,”' Mickelson said, choking up during the victory ceremony. “My wife has been through a lot this year, and it means so much to us to share some joy together. She's an incredible wife and an incredible mother, and she has been an inspiration for me this past year in seeing what she went through. I'm so happy that she and our three kids are here. It was such an emotional week, and I'm having a hard time putting it into words.”

There was another media sensation at the Masters. Tiger Woods returned to professional golf after having taken several months off in the wake of publicity concerning his serial adulterous affairs. His estranged wife, Elin, and the couple’s two children did not attend the Masters this year.

On display that last day were two very different approaches to love, sex, and marriage. One takes an anything-goes approach. This  is the view we see in pop culture, for example in Glee and The Big Bang Theory. Sex is what it's all about, and if it feels good, do it.

The other views sex as a part of marriage and marriage as a solemn commitment. Sex is good, but it also serves a higher purpose – that of bonding a couple together and preserving the integrity of the family for the resulting children.

What was really on display at the 18^th hole was the inevitable outcome of each. The Woods family, except for Tiger, was absent and their future remains uncertain. Ironically, the Anything-Goes approach to sex inevitably leads to broken relationships and fractured families. Just look at Tiger.

The Mickelson family has endured pain and difficulty too, and their future is also uncertain, but in an entirely different way. They remain an integral unit, and at the Masters, they shared their joys and sorrows as one family.

One commentator noted, “Finally, we have some justice in the world. The right man won.” I say he’d already won before setting foot on the course.

Advice, Devolved

Over at mercatornet.com Denyse O'leary brings to our attention a column in The Guardian that is something like a Dear Abby advice column that intends to "shine the cold light of evolutionary psychology on reader's problems" by way of looking at the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos. Denyse writes:

The hand of popular culture is far more evident in the series than the paw prints of common ancestors. In her first column, addressing a woman who can’t decide between two men, Carole advises that “some Darwinists might say” that she her best approach is to commit surreptitious adultery. After all, “A worldwide study of sexual preferences revealed that females feel more secure if they have a mate in reserve. It seems you have the best of both worlds.”

Or the worst, if one or both of those guys find out - historically, it is a reliable way for a woman to get herself killed. And in fairness Carole does warn her. Still, we are also informed, in the next reply that “We have not evolved to stay with one mate for the whole of our adult lives.”

But Carole’s tone changes abruptly when the advice seeker is a guy who wants to fool around. Suddenly, the agony aunt is all a lather of concern for the poor wife, and we learn that “The sentiments of love and guilt are not Christian hangovers, they are evolved, higher cognitive emotions. These sentiments are adapted to best guide us through life.” Whatever the problem is, evolutionary psychology can not only explain it, but explain it within the comfort zone of the glossy women’s mags.

I found Denyse's observation here to be particularly insightful. I'm starting to get tired of this supposed "cold reality" of evolutionary science. What could possibly be warmer than an all encompassing blanket theory which one can use to snuggle up to all their own personal causes and grudges?