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?"

Survival of the Sexiest: Another Reason Why the Right Succeeded...

...and Why the Left Can't Return to Old Tactics

Generally speaking, cultural and political movements succeed one another based on which has the more potent form of symbolic sexual power. "Symbolic sexual power" is any kind of vital force or energy that might improve or advance one's population. It need not imply sex per se; promiscuity, etc. -- even conservative religious movements are a kind of sexual power, because they can represent order, solidarity, strength in numbers -- all ways to advance one's population. To summarize:

- Id represents our unconscious drives; our irrational "gut feelings" rooted in ancient primal instincts. We often tend to be directed or motivated by what our gut feelings tell us.
- Remove the Id force, and your side will fall out of favor.
- Rebellion against a repressive power is sexy.
- Whatever reminds you of your parent's generation isn't as sexy as the newer generation.

The success of the Left in the 60's, as a cultural force, succeeded in its day because of the climate that preceded it.

The cultural zeitgeist of the prior era was to repress the sexuality of both men and women -- but especially women. The "American Dream" of moving into a box-like house in a bland suburb created a homogenous, overly-domesticated atmosphere devoid of sensuality or individual expression. The "ideal role" promoted for women at the time was to be a wife and mother, and media imagery everywhere portraying women as little more than cheerful, brainless housemaids.

At the time, the Republican Party was represented by fogeys and neurotics, whereas JFK represented a fresh, youthful direction for the Democrats and the country.

Baby Boomers rebelled against what they perceived as a stultifying conformity and embraced a culture that celebrated sexuality and rebellion. Feminism became a political force to be reckoned with after books such as Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" -- which described women's frustration with being confined to narrow social roles -- became best-sellers. The Left became the dominant political force from the late 60's onward.

However, one of the many mistakes the Left made in the 1970s was to embrace the philosophy of certain feminists that there were no differences between men and women; that traditional roles should be downplayed. The effect of trying to make everything more "equal" resulted in a desexualization of both men and women. This time around, it was the feminists who tried to repress men's sexuality, and so men predictably ended up rebelling.

After the failure of the Carter Administration to secure the hostages in Iran, the right wing shifted back into power by identifying with the masculine Id. The United States, as represented by the Democratic Party, as represented by Carter this time was seen as ineffectual and impotent, unable to stand up against a much smaller country. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was suggestive of the "cowboy" archetype -- in American mythos, an image symbolizing a rugged, potent masculinity.

Because the Democrats/left wing have been more concerned with "civil rights" and other protectionist policies, the Democrats have been defined as the "Mommy Party" while the Republicans are the "Daddy Party". Metaphorically speaking, a "Daddy" is always going to be viewed as more potent than a "Mommy", and a masculine Id is always going to be viewed as a more potent force than a feminine Id. Because of this, the Left cannot return to old slogans and strategies that might have worked in a previous era. The right-wingers have even tried to caricature left-wingers as little more than children, further symbolically emasculating them.

The cultural climate of the GWB era identifies with a very primitive, alpha-male type Id: "Might makes right, and we will stomp on you in order to secure resources and be King of the Hill." Not surprisingly, this is also the reason the ultra right's favorite targets are those which symbolically undermine the country's metaphorical virility (e.g. gays and abortion). The female cheerleaders of the Ultra Right have tapped into a similarly primitive female Id. These "new" right-wing women aren't passive June Cleaver-like housemaids happily pushing the vacuum around. These women have embraced their inner She-Wolf: "we will attack and kill anything that dares trespass onto our territories, threatens our security or attempts to harm our children." It's a primitive Truth that strikes a primal cord in many.

A tribe at war will return to its more primal behaviors because it can't afford not to. When an enemy doesn't want to follow more civilized rules, then there is often no other recourse but to fall back on the "Might is Right" principle. The New Right almost gets the formula right, were it not for their often transparent and ham-handed approach (see: Bill O'Reilly, etc.)

I digress on the idea that the current crop of right-wingers have been the "Daddy Party" -- more like the "school bully party" with their dishonest tactics, bullying, blame-shifting and inability to owe up to accountability. A man of real maturity and character would be more concerned with solving problems along a far more rational and objective course.

Thinking Outside the Crayola Box

Art and the Critical Eye

Often I see a landscape painting by an untrained artist, painted in colors and hues they probably learned in grade school -- having not yet learned to break out of the familiar habit first learned in first grade, even though they might have the tools and supplies to progress beyond whatever limitations they had back then.

The sky is always blue. The tree trunks are always a rich, mahogany brown. The grass is an unnatural shade of bright green.

Why? Because we learn in kindergarten that those are how the colors are "supposed" to be. Tree trunks are "supposed" to be brown, so we use the brown crayon to make them that way. Water is "supposed" to be blue, and so we use the blue crayon from our limited color palette, etc.

Yet examine the colors of the real subjects and compare. Nary will you find such artists' colors in nature. The tree trunks will all be varying shades of grey -- not the mahogany brown that Crayola defined for us as "brown". If we want to define something for how it truly is, sometimes we have to put aside the assumptions we've learned and learn to become a more objective observer.

I wonder if this is where the phrase, "thinking outside the box" originated from. Sometimes we allow our perceptions to be clouded by the limited palette of personal experience. This is all perfectly natural; the brain is designed to economize information by storing it in memory for later use. But to be truly objective as observers, we have to distinguish between what we really are seeing, and the packets of assumptions and doctrine and memory that sometimes interfere with our perceptions.

Evolution of the Hasty Generalization

What's your sign? I'm a Virgo. That means I'm hypercritical, a perfectionist, an elitist, super-neat and... well... acquaintances might tell you otherwise.*** :)

I'm also half Italian. This implies I'm temperamental, clannish, and vengeful if wronged. The other half is German, which adds a dash ofoverbearing seriousness; Scots-Irish which makes me feisty and stubborn; and French -- which explains why I often feel self-defeated. :-P

Thanks to pop "news" blurbs we can now learn about other "classifications" as well. I'm a firstborn sibling, which mean I'm more achievement-oriented and feel my proper place is higher in the pecking order.

(That was the "nature" part. Now for the "nurture" part:) I was also born and raised an American, which means I'm kind of privileged and obnoxious with a sense of entitlement a mile wide.

Classification (and stereotyping) is nothing new. People have an inborn tendency to classify -- not only others, but themselves as well. It's an economized way of info-processing: place X number of attributes in a folder for easy reference. This meme-receptor most likely originated back in the days when no individual could really afford the time to stop and analyze a situation. In our distant past, to hesitate could have very well meant the difference between life and death. Fight or flight? Friend or foe? (This is probably the origin of dichotomous "thinking" as well, which I'll address in a later essay.) :-)

Some of the classification-ability -- especially with regard to basic mechanisms such as avoiding danger, finding food and reproduction -- seem to be so time-honored and ancient as to have become instinctual. As the brain and environment became more complex, greater memory capacity enabled more association between attributes and potential consequences, and learning certain associations was often useful in terms of survival strategy. (e.g. "yellow and black stripes = stings, so must avoid")

Humans -- having the most memory and processing capacity of any other creature, so to speak -- have advanced their categorization-ability to include abstract concepts --including the development of language. This ability to create more complex categorizations has enabled our highly advanced and complex social realm. Paradoxically, the ability to economize thought may be a time-saving means of efficiency, but it can also lead to non-thinking if left unchecked and unchallenged.

For the readers who don't know me, I won't reveal too much more about myself for the time being. Should it matter? This blog is about ideas, but the perception of the ideas themselves can often become tainted by the perceiver's own prejudices towards those who originate them. It can be a two way street: people will often assign attributes based on someone's appearance, gender, race, age, etc. or conversely, they will assume something about a person unseen, based on the ideas they've expressed.

Back in the days when I posted to newsgroups, tossing out ideas just for the hell of it, there were a few certain other posters who didn't understand my motives, instead interpreting them on a more subjective and personal level. It was actually kind of funny, as I was attacked by some as being "right wing conservative" and by others as a "left-wing sympathizer". My gender was even called into question. (Of course the logical fallacy in these instances would be the ad hominem [placing focus on the person instead of the idea or argument]).

On the other hand, there have been those in the "real life" realm who are only familiar with my superficial appearance, making assumptions based on stereotypes presumably associated with said superficialities. ...Or, they make preconceived judgments based on their experiences with other, different individuals who happen to share similar attributes (e.g. age, gender, race, etc.) And often they're flat-out wrong, too. As the saying goes, "cliches [and stereotypes] represent lazy thinking." (Although much of the time, I wouldn't even classify this as "thinking", but feeling or "conditioned response".)

For all our crowing over our advanced brain capacity, the "ancient" is still with us: as primates, we are a highly visual species, we still tend to judge individuals based on more on the physical and the superficial.

This is all intuitive, no-brainer stuff, of course, and we're all guilty of it to a degree. But remember that this is one of the favorite tools of the mediocrats -- be they pundits, advertisers or politicians -- who use stereotyping to good effect -- selling their ideas through manipulation
of the mind's untrained weaknesses. What is especially ironic is that, despite our living in a more advanced and technological world, the amount of information, the overwhelming numbers of other people we might encounter each day and the fact that our lives are busier in general make us all more susceptible to reverting to this "mental shorthand." When we're overwhelmed with too many other tasks, it's easier to be drawn to the products, pundits, people and slogans who use the quickest and most appealing shortcuts that aren't going to put a strain on the brain too much. (See my earlier essay on McMemes).

The critical thinker, on the other hand, knows how to recognize the difference between thinking and conditioned response.

Further reading:

The Symbolic Species by Terrence Deacon
The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science by Steven Mithen
How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker
List of Cognitive Biases (Wikipedia)
Do First Impressions Matter?
Can A Dog Be Racist?
Stereotyping (Wikipedia)
Carl Jung (Wikipedia)

***( For the record I don't believe in astrology at all (I see it as a silly relic of the late '60's), and I'm amazed that newspapers, magazines, etc. still devote substantial space to it.)

The Triumph of Cute

...Or, the Evolutionary Secret of Cats, Women and Homo Sapiens

About a week and a half ago, this little fleabitten kitten showed up in my front yard, so emaciated you could see his backbone protruding. As he trotted up to me, my immediate thought was to rescue him from an imminent fate of starvation.

He was given a temporary home on my front porch as my tenants and I provided him with food and shelter. Signs were posted around town and at my workplace -- and within days, a Good Samaritan took him away to a vet appointment and a new home.

Imagine a race of giant beings who will provide you with free food, shelter and backrubs simply for looking pretty and being friendly. ...For no practical or logical reason. Never underestimate the visual power (and subsequent behavior manipulation) of Cute.

Makes me think of humans in terms of symbiotic enablers. Would anyone have been as charitable towards a starving rat or opossum? All pets have to do is look and act cute, and we feed and shelter them. Because of certain qualities we find endearing, humans help perpetuate their kind -- enabling the survival of even the ones that may have lost skills their ancestors needed to survive in the wild. ...After all, how many packs of Pomeranians have you seen chasing after their prey in the woods?

The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote of the power of Cute in his essay, "A Biological Homage to Mickey Mouse" pointing to biologist Konrad Lorenz who "...argues that humans use the characteristic differences in form between babies and adults as important behavioral cues. He believes that features of juvenility trigger 'innate releasing mechanisms' for affection and nurturing in adult humans. When we see a living creature with babyish features, we feel an automatic surge of disarming tenderness. The adaptive value of this response can scarcely be questioned, for we must nurture our babies."

Cute is what helps enable cats and dogs to share homes with humans . It's also why babies and children can get away with being irrational and demanding; why women can get away with being irrational and demanding; why Brad Pitt can get away with being a jerk; why Disney became a multi-billion-dollar corporate and cultural empire and why Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter think they can get away with what they say.

The attraction to Cute has such a hold on the human race it has perhaps even shaped our evolution. A current favorite theory is the trend towards neoteny;, possibly due to a masculine preference for more youthful features and compliant nature in females, gradually resulting in the entire species evolving into a state of arrested development -- and subsequent larger brain size and learning capacity.

There was an ongoing debate on a newsgroup I sometimes read regarding evolution and sex differences. One of the posters took issue with the idea that most women are less rational, more needy and not as competitive and hardworking (career-wise) as men are. It may not be politically correct to say this, but if superficial features are all that is needed to get one's DNA reproduced, certain other attributes may eventually fall by the wayside. In fact, it's possible to see parallels between modern human women and the domestication of animals. I'll be discussing this topic more in depth in a future essay.

Of course, having a good personality helps, too. If that kitten hadn't been so personable, chances are, he'd have been dismissed as just another feral cat.

Nations of Generations

...or, do you know what your family crest looks like?

Whenever I'm in a funk over personal stuff, I use a thought technique I call "contextual comparison". For example, what would my life have been like if this were 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Would I have died young of tuberculosis or influenza like so many did decades ago? (As a kid I was always the first one to catch the latest cold or flu going around). Would I be exhausted from working on farm or factory and raising a huge family? What if I had been born in a third world country instead of the United States?

Two writers have had a major influence on my thinking on matters pertaining to modern culture and society. They pointed out some of the obvious differences between modern-day society and the way our grandparents and great-grandparents lived their lives -- indeed, how most humans lived for hundreds and thousands of years before technology transformed our culture. Robert Wright in his 1995 essay The Evolution of Despair outlines the paradox of modern society's tendency towards isolation despite our having evolved as a social species. James Kunstler's book The Geography of Nowhere describes how the advent of the automobile drastically changed the landscape and culture of America, and how car-dependent we've become in contrast to the bygone days (as well as compared to other countries).

Most Americans probably take their modern lives and conveniences for granted, never thinking about what life would be like without them. Political pundits who decry a change in societal values would prefer to affix blame to a particular group or philosophy without examining the bigger picture: how modern innovations have changed our lives and culture and what their cumulative effects have been.

Prior to the Industrial Age, the majority of Americans lived a rural lifestyle and couples married and had children fo practical reasons: to help with the family farm or trade; to take care of the parents in old age. Children were raised with and educated by the family -- integrated among those of many different age groups -- learning duties, responsibilities and respect for their elders, who taught them the ways and means of survival. Trades were passed from generation to generation, as evidenced by families adopting them as surnames: Smith, Miller, Weaver, Baker, Farmer, Shepherd, etc. Families, clans, tribes, etc. were drawn together by a certain sense of identity, which seems to be a universal theme across cultures -- whether by belief, ideal, or admirable trait.

Contrast this with postmodern western society. Nowadays our identities are often not as tied in with our families as they are with our generations. We live as nations of generations -- human nature being to seek belonging and identity -- because we tend to identify more with our peers than our parents and relatives. People identify themselves as "The Baby Boomers", or "Generation X", or "Tha Hip Hop Generation" or something similar. Each has its own particular cultural identifiers.

The majority of the modern population is urban or suburban and most people no longer live on self-sustaining farms; but earn their livings by working for a corporation or factory. Most Americans, it seems, spend most of their lives either seeking entertainment and indulgence or ways to pay for their entertainment and indulgence. People nowadays don't have children out of practical necessity, but because they just "happened"; or out of indulgence; for "societal approval" or as a social status symbol, or just to give themselves something to do.

The Baby Boomers were the first significant modern American generation, setting the stage for the cultural atmosphere we know today. For the first time in its history, the majority of the American population lived in a more suburban environs, living an "American Dream" that sold them the promise of convenience and indulgence. Baby Boomer children were indulged with toys and lulled by television, spending the majority of their waking hours in schools, grouped among peers of the same age.

At the crucial age of social imprinting, postmodern children learn the social structure of their peers as opposed to a more integrated, inter-generational environment. (The situation over the past 30 years has gotten worse with working mothers leaving their children in day care for a greater portion of the day.) Moreover, the schools tend to teach children the "values" of becoming good workers by stressing competition over cooperation and empathy.

By the time they reach adolescence, children may become increasingly alienated from their parents, especially if the parents have little if anything to provide in the way of being a positive role model. Children may see their father coming home exhausted from another day at the factory or the office; or bear the brunt of anger from bored and frustrated mothers, and decide that their peer group (and the escapism offered by entertainment) is more interesting and has more to offer. This sets the stage for adolescent rebellion and rejection of the parents' generation and values as "uncool". (On the other hand, the more successful and powerful the parent is, the more the child may look up to them.) Completing the opportunity for a complete break is the fact that, unlike past centuries, it is relatively easy to move hundreds of miles away from one's original home.

Beyond this, consumerist/materialism and entertainment have become the overriding theme of American culture. Mass media brings temptations and distractions into the home. To be a "successful American" usually means attaining all the latest toys and fashions, and "newer" is almost always preferable to "older". The American becomes stuck in a state of arrested development because "older" usually implies "used-up and worn out" -- less socially viable, in other words.

More often than not there isn't even a real demarcation point between childhood and adulthood. In his book, The Sibling Society, Robert Bly points out the irreverent attitude we have for adult leadership figures in the social heirarchy and how indulgence and peer-level heirarchy has created a nation of narcissists.

The dilemma of course is exactly *what* the role of adulthood in our society is defined as, if we are more a nation of convenience and entertainment, and "older" is seen as undesirable. In the past, elders were valued as a source of accumulated knowledge and wisdom. But in a world of ready information and easy conveniences, knowledge that may have been useful in past generations becomes superfluous. Because they have fewer roles and responsibilities than the children of previous generations, children of today are often treated as indulgees instead of being taught how to be responsible future citizens. Indulged children are not going to transform overnight into responsible adults on their 18th birthday. Indulged children are going to get older and still expect the same kind of special treatment and indulgences they were accustomed to earlier in life. The cycle eventually perpetuates itself as the indulged children become self-indulgent parents who see their children more as pets or extensions of themselves, instead of future adult citizens who need to learn the responsibility of adults sharing the world with many others.

Politically, it's no surprise that the post-Boomer generations have seemingly split into two factions: the "haves" -- the rich, privileged kids who think they're entitled to keep their privileges -- and the "have nots" -- those who are still stuck in the "adolescent rebellion" stage. ...Or, perhaps the "Freaks and Jocks" social division they learned back in high school. Pundits these days try to out-snark each other like a collection of superannuated characters from a John Hughs movie, in a political atmosphere not unlike high school football rivalries.

There are no easy answers here except to examine the bigger picture. What remains to be seen is how long we can all afford to maintain the kind of lifestyle and expectations we grew accustomed to when we were younger.

Related reading:

The Social Evolution of Consciousness

The Selfish Child

Against School

From Screaming Babies To Screaming College Students

James Howard Kunstler's site

Waiting For The Lights To Go Out

On The Anniversary

We all know the story by now. Four years ago, nineteen al-Qaeda suicide attackers, most of them Saudis, hijacked and crashed four US domestic flight jets.

I remember that day in all its surreal horror. The ragged, charred holes in the World Trade Center buildings, first seeing it on the news window when I logged onto my laptop that morning; then taking a minute to register that it wasn't just a small private airplane that had crashed into it but a commercial jet airliner. I turned on the television just to see the second plane crash into the other tower. Unreal. Then there came news of another jet crashing into the Pentagon, and the sickening moments when the burning towers began to lean, then implode into themselves. And then another jet crashing somewhere in Pennsylvania. Stuff like this was only supposed to happen in the movies, but this was reality and it was happening to us. Where else were the jets going to crash?

Just a few days before, I'd been on a returning flight from London; the experience fresh in my memory and now imagining what the last moments of those passengers must have been like. I'm not crazy about flying, so could only guess the horror those passengers must have felt upon seeing their plane closing in on the city skyscrapers. Or the horror those left stranded on the top floors of the towers must have felt, left with a choice of burning or jumping to their deaths. ...Or being caught in the buildings as they burned and collapsed. Like probably most other Americans, I spent that day glued to the news, writing emails to friends making sure they were alright. And the following days were eerily silent, since all airports and railroads had been shut down. This was like nothing any American of my generation had ever experienced. The economic repercussions of the disaster were felt for at least a couple years afterward, too -- in the form of mass layoffs and long-term unemployment.

As an American, and as a regular yearly visitor to New York City, I felt violated; ready for revenge. Most other Americans felt that way, too. The Revenge Meme is an ancient and powerful one. After all, human history is one long string of accounts of one person, tribe or nation exacting revenge on another. I wrote on newsgroups that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda should be captured, dismembered and fed to pigs. I still think we need to do that.

A couple days after perusing the Web, however, I couldn't help but gain a more objective take on the whole thing. After all, I realized, like most Americans, I was in a place of relative luxury, sitting in a comfortable home watching all of this on television. But elsewhere, death and destruction take place with more regularity -- and are therefore a greater part of others' realities -- in those faraway places that we only see as newsclips on the nightly news, if we ever see them at all. To not acknowledge these harsher realities is to not acknowlege a more objective and truthful perspective. It was on this day four years ago that I wrote this essay:

...This post is not in any way intended to excuse the horrific attacks that occurred on the United States on September 11.This is only to examine the psychology of those involved who would commit these terrible deeds, and why they happened.

For some nations, war and violence are an everyday occurrence, but to most of us in the Western world, they probably seemed too far-away removed from our little slice of reality, only a name you hear on the nightly news with a three-minute video clip.  But it is reality to a person living in one of these countries -- countries that have been invaded, attacked, bombed, controlled, seen their cherished landmarks, friends, family members and homes destroyed etc.   And humans being humans, the opposing nation is marked as the enemy, even if it is only a handful of politicians making the decisions.  For those countries whom we or our allies are at odds with, we are probably viewed as one huge, faceless entity -- a Goliath who casts a shadow over the world.

And now that we can access the world via Internet, we may now be able to see the realities of these conflicts; their effects on civilians and their families -- in far, far more harrowing detail than we have ever seen in the mainstream press.  Imagine living in one of these countries and seeing scenes such as those, as a part of your reality. Their reality is not a reality that consists of watching the Disney Channel, or shopping on E-bay; planning road trips or which team to bet on in the office pool.  
[...]

Each time I see the infamous scenes of the WTC, I can't *not* associate it with the photos of destruction that have taken place in other parts of the globe, and how we as a nation felt complacent that it would somehow never happen to us despite the fact that we all live on the same planet inhabited by fellow homo sapiens -- a rather emotional species which has a long and historically consistent record of violence, destruction and revenge -- and which now have the means and technology to communicate or travel anywhere around the globe if need be.  These terrorists, I'm assuming, probably believed they were a David throwing a rock at a Goliath, believing their acts were completely justified.  

Why weren't we more prepared? *

Some may interpret the above as an attempt to sympathize with the other side, but as I may point out, "understanding" is not synonymous with "sympathy". One can try to understand the other side -- make educated guesses about their probable moves and mindset -- without sympathizing with the other side. Anyone who plays chess, Stratego, poker or any other game pitting one's skill and wits against another realizes this. The reality is that "the other side," as a member of Homo Sapiens, thinks, feels and reacts in the same manner as we do; and, just as we will demonize them, they will demonize us. That isn't to make any moral judgments one way or the other; it's simply the truth of the reality here.

I supported President Bush's plan to invade Afghanistan. I imagined that what we'd need were elite teams to follow the terrorists into their hideyholes, just like ferrets sent after rats. ...Quietly and stealthily.

Four years later, Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught yet, and the Bush administration apparently played a shell game with an American public so clueless about geography that most can't even locate Iraq on a map. Riding a wave of anti-Islamic sentiment (because of horrific actions of a group comprising mostly of Saudis), Bush has sent elephants to stomp all over a different country entirely. I suppose that makes for a better "show". I suppose that makes Americans feel good that we can show our military might.

But interestingly enough...why did a record number of illegal, non-Mexican immigrants cross over the American border last year? One would think guarding our own borders would be our first priority... right?

(*Note the very similar-sounding rhetoric to the questions being posed four years later regarding Hurricane Katrina...)

McMemes (Want Fries With That?)

**************************************************************************************************************************** I opened up the Netscape browser window yesterday, and a little popup window brought me this "news" that maneuvered itself over the day's headlines:

Why Dominant, Alpha Men Are Appealing
Mathematics Proves Christ's Resurrection?
10 Easy Ways to Cut Down on Fat
What Causes Morning Breath?
The No. 1 Song That Changed the World
Eat Up: One Food May Stop Cancer Cold

Many of you might recall the 80's-era sci-fi TV show "Max Headroom." The premiere episode's storyline was about a new kind of advertising which delivered information at such a rapid-fire pace that the viewers' heads would explode.While the show might have been somewhat prophetic in one aspect, it seems the opposite effect might actually be more the case: viewers' info-intake is more likely to shut down and implode under the avalanche of information we're currently inundated with on a daily basis.

The problem with today's fast-paced, info-age lifestyle is the danger that we're becoming *so* harried and bombarded with information that we lose the time and the patience required to actually slow down and be a bit more analytical in our thoughts. This of course creates an ideal atmosphere for the purveyors of McMemes. We lead such busy lives that we tend to grab our information on the fly -- often without double-checking or second-guessing.

McMemes (or McInfo, if you don't care for memetics jargon) are kind of a bastard child of Mach's principle of economy of thought. Metaphorically speaking, they're like overprocessed, fast-food, "pieces-parts" nuggets of information -- often aimed right at the gut. They aren't always the best kind of "brain food" because they aren't always accurate, don't always encourage you to think, and a lot of them tend to have staying power simply because they push the right buttons.

Journalists, preachers, lawyers, politicians and entertainers can be quite skilled in serving up McMemes because they love to utilize the kind of language that tugs at the emotions, pushes buttons and win converts/customers.

Thanks to them, we are now familiar with McMemes such as "Men are From Mars; Women are From Venus"; various urban legends; astrology; the idea that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks; that people from different states are either "red" or "blue" according to the 2004 election results; etc. etc.

The recent evolution vs. ID/creationism-in-schools debate is a classic example of McMemes that can potentially affect public policy, and one very good reason that politicians should stay out of matters pertaining to science and education.

As columnist Diane Carmen pointed out, how many Americans can "define miosis and mitosis" or "explain mitochondrion and chloroplast."? How many politicians can define them? What average, nonacademic person has the time or interest to devote the required weeks and months to studying and understanding the theory of evolution?Furthermore, an evolutionist publicly pitted against a Creationist often comes off as the loser in the debate simply because the Creationist, who is often trained in public speaking and emotionally-charged rhetoric, is simply the more entertaining of the two; while the evolutionist often comes off like the droning teacher who put you to sleep in high school. Dry scientific theories simply don't have the emotional appeal that religious/philosophical ideas do.

The Iraq war issue is another example of McMemes gone haywire. The 9/11 terrorist attacks established the meme that Islamic terrorists are currently our #1 enemy. ...Fine and good, but the ensuing McMemes went further by taking the "Islamic" pieces-part and planting the notion that Islamic nations are an enemy, including nations that had no direct ties to Al Qaeda. This in turn has led to even more unhealthy McMemes such as the idea that Americans questioning the government's policies are traitors to their country or that Bush is similar to Hitler for authorizing an aggressive invasion.

The Iraq and the Middle Eastern situation are actually complex topics, but who wants to listen to all the boring technicalities? Anyhow, it feels good to open a can of whoopass and stomp all over another nation just because we can.

Additional reading: Lazy Thinking Is Hard-Wired
Ernst Mach and Daniel Dennett: Two Evolutionary Models of Cognition