The Purple Koolaid Playtime Show!

Versus

Mental JPEGS and the Evolution of the False Dichotomy

Al Sharpton was in the news yet again, this time for his defense of the stripper who accused several Duke University lacrosse players of rape.

Why were the Duke lacrosse players so widely presumed guilty before being proven innocent? Is it because many automatically equate "white, male" with "oppressor" and "black, female" with "oppressed"? Is it because "lynch mob mentality" really knows no color?

So many others are commenting on this case that yet another entry in the blogosphere would be redundant. So let's move on to a more thematic topic.

For any reader who assumes these past two entries have been about defending white guys while criticizing blacks, or have been making any presumptions about my race, sex, place in the political spectrum, etc. then you probably haven't been thinking outside your personal Crayola box.

In the book "Blink", Malcolm Gladwell discusses how the human mind has been programmed to make "snap judgments"; which are often based on earlier learning experiences. Our minds grasp a learned concept; it is compressed into a kind of shorthand form of information and then stored in memory for quick reference. I'll refer to these here as "mental jpegs". As with jpegs, complexity, nuance and details often get lost, and in addition are usually contaminated with personal bias of some sort. This is the brain's way of economizing energy, which really came in handy back in the days when snap judgments were more of a matter of life or death.

Mental jpegs are roughly defined as a subset of ideas, assumptions, traits or characteristics. Conversely, a partial or incomplete set of ideas or characteristics can elicit a mental jpeg label with the assumption that all other ideas, characteristics, etc. are associated with them. (For instance, assuming that someone who discusses evolution also votes Democratic.)

One of the shortest shorthand forms of thinking is "us vs. them". Either something is "on our side", or it's "against us". Judging from the universal popularity of sports, video games and other forms of competitive behavior, we are seemingly programmed to react in such a manner so we can enjoy combat or sparring of some sort. Or perhaps, too, this is rooted in our social/tribal makeup, based on an instinctual need for group solidarity. ...In fact, neuroscientists more recently performed a study that demonstrated that partisan thought is rooted in the unconscious. Note this particularly glaring example of "affiliation over idea".

The power of this kind of reflexive mental jpeg has been demonstrated time and time again throughout the course of human history. It appears to be an innate part of our nature and nobody seems to be immune to it no matter what political party, nationality, race, sex, educational background or affiliation. It appears to arouse a certain irrational combative mode of behavior and often gets in the way of problem-solving.

If we really need to harbor any particular dichotomies, perhaps they should be: "is this thinking, or is this reacting?"

What Do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Have To Say About This?

Imus Not Be Getting It...

OK, so this rancid old shock jock gets canned over some racist and sexist remarks, apparently thinking he was funny by paraphrasing hiphop-style lyrics. ...And yeah, what he said was pretty stupid and offensive; I won't argue with that.

The knees of the liberal mediocrats have been jerking rather predictably. Let's string up this Bad White Boy and oh, what a shame people can't learn to be a bit more sensitive!

Reading today's newspaper columns and commentary, I did notice a repeated and glaring omission. The fact is, degrading racist and sexist comments far worse than Imus' gaffe (and have had an arguably negative impact on the Black community) have been being broadcast for years all over the airwaves courtesy artists who aren't Caucasian. Where's the outcry from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over those remarks?

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C

Is this really something a guy should lose his job over? (Not that he'd be destitute with what he's making, but still.) Why couldn't the offended parties taken a more fair-and-equal approach by simply exercising their own freedom of speech? They could have just called him a "dried up old dead-cat head" or something like that. (Which is kind of on the immature side, but hey, sometimes people can only learn if they get a taste of their own medicine).

Some may try to differentiate between Imus' remark and rappers by pointing out that Imus made a personal attack on a specific group of individuals, whereas rappers aren't directing their remarks at anyone in particular. On the other hand, consider how influential hiphop culture has been to an entire generation with regard to their attitudes about race and sex, and how those attitudes may have had an effect on black women as individuals. One possible silver lining in this is that it might open up debate with regard to issues like double standards and accountability. If Imus was only trying to paraphrase the kind of remarks common to the hiphop community, then why is it OK for the hiphop community to say those kinds of things in the first place?

Does it all really have to do with context?

Jason Whitlock elaborates

Chicken Little

An older version of a still-relevent tale. (Originally uploaded for an animation blog -- hence the superimposed credits if you don't mind them).

Chicken Little
Uploaded by thadk

For Shame, You People

Every so often, as do most webmasters, I check my Referring Stats page to view the kind traffic I get on this site.* Most of the viewers who found this blog via search engines should be commended for their relatively intelligent queries, such as searching for images associated with "nationalism" or "hasty generalization".

Occasionally , however, viewers discover this blog via Sedition.com -- a respectable blog in itself, but the disturbing part is that more often than not they've arrived via this page, which was designed as a search query trap by using the keywords "young nude girls". In other words, the viewers found *that* page while doing a search for "young nude girls". (Take a look at Sedition's page to read some very interesting "statistics".**)

A few dryly objective words I'd like to say on the subject and how it relates to certain themes of this blog. First, search engines are proving to be a neat little sociological tool into probing the behavior of our supposedly technologically advanced society. Never underestimate the power of the inner monkey, folks.***

Second, sexual attraction to pubescent (and younger) females is unfortunately more common than we'd like to think, and most likely rooted in our primal ancestry -- back in the day when hominids worried more about cave bears and marauding tribes than school and mortgage payments. **** With higher mortality rates and a lifespan of only 40-odd years or so, the species couldn't afford for its females to wait 25 years to become fertile. ...In fact, it was only fairly recently in human history that the teen years have been considered subadult (weren't Romeo and Juliet only 13?) Civilization was a bit less complex a few hundred years ago.

Moreover, among social/ tribal/ heirarchical primates, it is the male's quest to elevate his rank and acquire mates. ...Now, among many different species, it is the females who ultimately decide which males will mate with them. But males of certain primate species have learned to circumvent being left out of the mating game. Lower-ranking male Hamadryas baboons, for instance, may kidnap juvenile females in order to start their own harem. Kidnapping juvenile females fulfills both the male's desire to be higher-ranking, the desire for control and the desire for mates.

So anyhow, it must be one of those "unevolved" things, because personally, I can't fathom the thought of having an intimate relationship with someone who isn't on a similar emotional/intellectual level. Which leads to the alternate explanation that those with a sexual attraction to children are themselves emotionally at a more childlike level -- or need to have absolute control in relationships so prefer something easier to control. Or just plain old f--ed up.

Either way, if you found this page while actually doing a search for "young nude girls" (or "little lolitas", "young nymphets", "preteen nudists", etc.), you're probably more than likely rather low on the social totem pole; a reject; a control freak and in any case, a potential lawbreaker. And be thankful this site isn't using a site tracker that ID's your IP number, like I'm sure law enforcement officials have figured out using in order to really identify potential offenders.

What -- so you think those MySpace pages you stalk around through are all for real? Don't you losers have a clue as to what kind of surveillance technology they have these days?

(This post kind of relates to the previous post about birds. Stay tuned to find out how!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*The Stats page provides no information about the viewers other than the address they found this blog through.

**Can you identify the logical flaw in the interpretation?

***I suppose I ought to toss out a few words and phrases myself just to see if it'll drive up traffic so I can put some ads n' stuff on here and make some pocket change: Wikipedia, American Idol, Project Runway, Sanjaya Malakar, XBox, Paris Hilton, Harry Potter, Orlando Bloom, Iraq, cephalopods, global warming, oil peak, polar bears, Britney Spears no underwear, flat screen TV, ring tones, file your taxes, bankruptcy, radioblog, bebo, penis, pierced, clitoris, nfl, wwf, nokia, xanax, hezbollah, Banksy, Borat, EU, refinancing, Iraq, North Korea, Pope Benedict, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, little lolitas, foot fetish... ...if the results prove interesting I'll post them in the future.

****I'd like to see the IDers explain this one better than evolution can.