The Misinformation Bandwagon

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Admittedly, I don't want the news too much anymore. After being deliberately misrespented by a reporter too lazy to check her facts, or too interested in writing for the ratings, I've become disenfranchised with the "news", especially since they often report only half the story or make a deliberately skewed point. I often read foreign newspapers to see what they report and compare that to what the US news is reporting and realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I've been following the news about Flight 370 pretty closely because I find the story fascinating. But, there was another news story that recently wrapped up; Cliven Bundy, the cattle-rancher who had a standoff with the Beareau of Land Management in Nevada.

This story has blown up and made national headlines. It's certainly got a lot of people riled up. I don't purport to know the truth of the situation, but I do know that the news is not the only group of people who deliberately skew or mis-represent data; everyone else does it too. Most of us are quick to jump on the bandwagon and get fired up about something because our friends said that it was bad. Most of us never stop to look at the information objectively or consider the source or the truth before developing an opinion.

Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about who was right or wrong in this case, but let's examine some of the things that happened.

1. The BLM reported that Cliven Bundy's cattle were a hazard to the Desert Tortoise in the area. This is bogus. Back in August of 2013 the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center was killing the tortoises by the hunderds. It was so bad that there was even a Change.org petition to get the killing of the tortoises to stop. That was clearly an excuse.

2. I don't about the allegetions of who paid what to whom or not and I had trouble verifying that with actual documents, so I reserve the right to comment on that one.

3. There are allegations of BLM Officer misconduct, particularly where one of the officers threw a woman to the ground. Let's be real about that for a minute. Yes, the officer threw the woman to the ground. But, the woman was also stepping in front of a moving truck, putting herself at risk, which is a pretty damned stupid thing to do. On the one hand, you could argue that he was abusing her because he didn't let her get run over. Or, on the other hand you could argue that throwing her to the ground was an effort to keep her safe. Or you could just say "Meh, I don't care either way".  The fact that this woman is a cancer-survivor really has no bearing on the situation and is used as a pity-card to get sympathy.

4. There are allegations that the BLM was stealing Bundy's cattle. To be clear, the BLM removed the cattle that were grazing on the county's land, not off of Bundy's personal property as many assert. Bundy's grandfather bought the rights to graze and develop the land, allegedly, but that did not transfer ownership of the land to him. They don't own that land, they simply have rights to graze there. The BLM alleges that they own the land and the previous agreement is null and void. I don't know which is right, that's a matter for the judge, but from the opposite point of view, the BLM wasn't stealing the cattle, they were confiscating the cattle for trespassing on county land.

5. The most ridiculous thing that I've seen going around is that the real reason for the standoff was so Sen. Harry Reid can seize the land and sell it to the Chinese to build a solar-panel farm to sell us energy. Now, the source of this allegation is decidedly less-than-reputable, but given the obvious misdirection about the tortoises, I thought it worth investigating. I did find a page, listed below, about plans to develop a solar-power farm, however, I did not find any information linking that to Chinese developers or interests. Also, if you look at the attached maps of the planned area where the solar farm is to be developed, and compare that area to Bunkerville, where the Bundy Ranch is located, you will see that these areas are roughly 50 miles apart, so it doesn't make sense for them to seize his land for development of a solar panel farm that is 50 miles away.

The important thing to remember before getting all riled about events is to take a deep breath and examine the facts critically before forming an opinion. Just jumping on whatever people tell you at face value and propagating that information forward makes you no better than crappy reporters.  

References:

BLM - Solar Power: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/March/BLM_Seeks_Public_Interest_for_Solar_Energy_Development_in_the_Dry_Lake_Solar_Energy_Zone.html

BLM - Cattle Trespass:  http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/more/trespass_cattle.html

Change.org - https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-planned-killing-of-desert-tortoises 

Chinese Solar Power - http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/

CNN - http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1119214?ref=feeds%2Flatest



What is a Superhero?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was at work the other day on a conference call. During the start of the call the host wanted us to identify ourselves and had us do an ice-breaker by stating who our favorite superhero is. Most people had answers to this question right away, and I gave an answer too, but as the meeting progressed I really started thinking about the question in a lot more detail. What IS a superhero anyway?

To many the obvious answer would be someone with super powers. Some of the iconic superheroes of modern times, like Superman, for example, were born with their powers. Others, like Spiderman and the Fantastic 4, went through an event that changed their physiology to turn them into superheroes. Still others, like the X-Men, are a combination of both methods, but their powers are the result of genetic mutations rather than some kind of magical force. But, is that really what defines a superhero?

Let's examine this for a moment. Superheroes have super powers, sure. But, then again, so do super villains. Look at Magento, for example. He has super powers, he just chooses to use them for different purposes. So, clearly being a superhero is more than just having awesome abilities. A lot of it boils down to the choices that you make; what do you use your abilities for? If you use your abilities for evil or simply to further your own personal gains, then by most people's definitions you would not be a superhero. But, if you used your powers for the betterment of mankind and to combat evil, then surely that would qualify you as a superhero.

So, with that concept in mind let's re-examine our opening criteria; what is a superhero anyway? It's someone who has super powers and uses their abilities for the betterment of the greater good. Right? Well, what about Batman? Here's a superhero who defies that logic. He's just a regular person, granted, he's a rich, intellectual person, but he has no super powers. All he has is cool gadgets. He chooses to spend his immeasurable fortune on developing things that he needs to be able to fight crime and make a positive difference in the world. What about Ironman? Sure, he has a power-reactor built into his chest, but, he's in the same category as Batman, basically he's just a regular dude who happens to have tons of money and intellect. But, like Batman he uses his fortune to help others. Without his suit, like Batman, he's very vulnerable. So, based on these two immensely popular superheroes, clearly having super powers isn't necessarily a prerequiste to being a superhero.

So, based on that information, is it possible that a superhero is simply someone who sacrifices their own safety, well-being, and monetary gain to make a positive difference in the world for the betterment of the greater good? If that's true, then it seems to me that the world is full of real-life super heroes who are overlooked and ignored; paramedics, firefighters, police officers, military personnel. Wouldn't they qualify as superhero status also? Or are the gadgets that they use not high-tech enough?

The Nopocolypse

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I had intended on posting this on the 21^st, but I was actually pretty busy with school and Christmas preparations and all. Better late than never, right?

Obviously, the world didn’t end on Friday. According to the internet, social media, and news outlets 12/21/2012 was supposed to be an end-of-the-world apocalypse as foretold by the ancient Mayans. But, is that really what they believed? What do the Mayans have to say about it anyway?

I would first like to point out that the Mayans have been unfairly blamed for this most recent doomsday prophecy in the first place. Not one single archaeologist or anthropologist who is studying the Mayans has found anything to suggest that the Mayans believed the world would end. In fact, their calendars still continue counting for at least another 2,400 years.

So what did the Mayans actually predict? According the experts; nothing. This was just the end of their calendar. It’s no different than people 6,000 years from now thinking that we might believe the world would end on December 31^st. The Mayan Calendar ended and restarted.

So what caused this stir of internet-fueled apocalyptic panic? It turns out that we did. And, as crazy as it may seem, this trend is not a new one. In my lifetime I have seen the great Y2K scare in 1999. Then, in May and October some people bought into the doomsday prophecies foretold by Harold Camping. Then there was the whole “Mayan Apocalypse” thing. And, of course, there are even more right around the corner.  According to some so-called experts in fields ranging from psychic powers to theology the world will either in 2018, 2020, 2129, or 2240 (see the mirror.co.uk source).

So, when will the world really end? No on knows. Scientists believe that the sun will eventually expand to the point where the heat will kill off every living thing on the planet, boil away our oceans and atmosphere, and then fully consume the Earth itself. But this isn’t supposed to happen for a few million years. For a fun read about doomsday predictions past and future, check out this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

References:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167626648/maya-expert-the-end-of-times-is-our-idea-not-the-ancients

http://www.voanews.com/content/archeologist-mayans-calendar-did-not-predict-apocalypse/1568202.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/01/04/no-the-mayans-did-not-predict-the-end-of-the-world-in-2012/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mayan-apocalypse-did-not-happen-but-more-1500397

Questions Follow Answers

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Most people wish that they had answers for certain things. Many of us sit around and accept the likelihood that those answers will never come. This is certainly true with me in my attempts to uncover my genetic family roots. But, some scientists are lucky enough to find the answers that they seek. Ironically, those answers are only bittersweet as they almost immediately yield more questions, particularly when discussing the ancient world.

In my next article I’ll discuss some of the mind-boggling, scientific quandaries that make us question our very understanding of the ancient world. In the meantime I want to summarize a fascinating show that I was watching on TV last night about why Egypt fell.

The show started out by following two different scientists working independently in different parts of Egypt; one studying ancient ruins and pyramids, and the other studying the migration and habitation pattern of the Nile delta.  Both came to the same independent conclusions; when Pharaoh Pepi  II of Egypt died (2184 BC) and was buried Egypt was at the height of its power building pyramids and other large structures. Then, rather suddenly, Egypt was gone without reason or explanation. In terms of historical accounting “suddenly” means within one generation. By 2150 BC, 34 years later, Egypt had fallen.

Knowing that the fall of Egypt was a rather sudden and cataclysmic event both scientists set out in search of answers. Within a rather short time, both scientists came to the exact same conclusion; a drought.  The scientist studying the ruins and the pyramids saw evidence of a sudden stoppage in construction. Since most of the materials were borne to the job sites via waterways the foregone conclusion was that there may not have been enough water to get the supplies there. But, this was after Pepi II died because there was still enough water to transport his sarcophagus, the largest ever built.  The scientist studying habitation patterns in the delta used satellites to locate ancient settlements without having to dig up the entire area. What she found was that people rapidly abandoned those settlements to migrate towards the larger cities where they could pool their resources.  Since most of these smaller villages were along the tributaries of the Nile, she concluded that they abandoned them because of a lack of food and that they lacked food because the water had dried up.

Of course, all of this was only a theory that needed proof. So, they set out to find it. One of the scientists was also an archeologist and took core samples near the areas where there were known to have been deep lakes. What he found was a layer of wind-blown, arid sand. This meant that no water reached that site whatsoever. Not only did he find the sand he looking for, the thickness of the layer indicated that this area suffered a drought that lasted for roughly four decades.  In fact, conditions of the drought were so bad that some reports indicate that they may have resorted to eating their own children to survive.

After publishing their findings researchers in Turkey, Iran, Mesopotamia and Greece have all uncovered the same drought conditions in those regions at the exact same time. Not only was Egypt affected, but the entire Mediterranean Sea area was affected as well. Besides Egypt, this drought, which is now called the 4.2 Kiloyear Event, was also responsible for the fall of the Akkadian Empire. Although not wiped out to the point of extinction there is some evidence to suggest that the drought at least influenced the development of the Persian Empire and several cultures that inhabited China.

So, they answered the question of what happened to Ancient Egypt, and in the process they uncovered a much more important discovery. But, this answer begot another question; what caused this drought to begin with? The current theories center on the concept that the Atlantic Current stopped moving. This current sends warm air into the atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature around the world. If this current stops flowing, then the Mediterranean region undergoes a severe drought while the continental US will undergo a small Ice Age. According to the fossil record in North America, there was an Ice Age in 2200, B.C., which is exactly what they expected to find.

Now they’ve answered the question about what caused the drought, which is exciting, but a more disturbing question looms; what caused that current to stop flowing? Evidence suggests that it has stopped several times throughout the Earth’s history. But no one knows why.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/24/science/collapse-of-earliest-known-empire-is-linked-to-long-harsh-drought.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.viewzone.com/2200BC.html

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-harappan-myth.html

Chemtrail Craziness

[Johnathan Clayborn]

No doubt I will be stirring the pot with this one, and more than certainly drawing the ire of some, but I feel compelled to continue forth anyway.

A few weeks ago one of my friends on Facebook posted a photo and asked what types of clouds these were.  For reference, I’ve included a different photo showing the same types of clouds here.

I naturally informed her that these were not clouds, per se, but were actually contrails; residue and water vapor left over from aircraft flying overhead. Within minutes another person responded and informed me that I was wrong and these were actually chemtrails. Not having heard of “chemtrails” before, I asked him to explain what he meant. What followed was the one of the most entertaining stories that I have heard in a long time. He regaled me with a story where the government is purposely and secretly spraying chemicals all over the unsuspecting citizens as part of a grand experiment. I asked him for some kind of proof of this and he directed me to a link for a “News” video on the topic (a video that I’ll destroy later). After he called me “silly” because I didn’t believe in his chemtrails theory I politely told him that we should just agree to disagree and ended the conversation. But, this has plagued my thoughts for some days. How can people really believe this is happening?

Being the overly analytical, thorough person that I am I decided to dig a little deeper into this. The one thing that struck me as immediately odd is that the chemtrail believers don’t even all believe the same thing; one group says that the “chemicals” are designed to allow the government to control our minds, another group says that they’re testing biochemical weapons, and the third and largest group believes that the government is doing secret tests to try to control the weather, primarily to reverse or slow global warming. 

For starters I want to analyze the “news video” (in the links below if you care to watch it). The first part of this story that strikes me as strange is that their “chemtrail expert” is just some random guy from Arkansas who collected a “sample” by putting a jar of water in his back yard. Right off the bat, this seems like shoddy investigative work. No records were kept about anything else that was going on when the sample was taken. Not to mention the guy who took the sample isn’t exactly a scientist, just a regular Joe that shows up with some stuff in a jar. But, be that as it may the news agency went ahead and had it tested anyway.

The test results themselves are rather hilarious. The reporter says clearly that the barium levels in the water are “5.8 parts per million, more than three times the toxic levels set by the EPA.” But, let’s examine that claim. At 1:03 in the video he shows the lab results to the camera. It clearly reads 58.8 ug/L.   According to the EPA, the maximum level of Barium is 2 mg/l. (Here’s the EPA Fact Sheet: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/tech/barium.pdf) Canadians are somewhat more stringent with their pollutants. They only allow a maximum level of 1 mg/L.  (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/barium-baryum/index-eng.php) Why is that important? Well, for one thing, 1 mg/L translates into 1000 ug/L.  The reporter’s lab results show 58.8 ug/L. Basic math tells us that the results are not “more than three time the toxic levels set by the EPA as the reporter claims. In fact this level is perfectly normal; only 5.88% of the Canadian safe limits, and 2.94% of the US allowances. The rest of this video goes on to explain the multitude of chemtrail theories that abound and how barium is bad for you, etc.

Let’s assume for a minute that this reporter’s results were accurate and that the numbers really were 5880 ug/L. That still doesn’t prove chemical testing. As anyone who has taken statistics knows; the lower the sample size, the higher the rate of margin of error. So, the news would have us believe that one single sample from a large metropolitan city means chemical testing is going on? Interesting conclusion, but that doesn’t produce statistically significant results. Not to mention they don’t even consider any other possibilities for how that sample could have become contaminated in the first place. It was just collected in Average Joe’s backyard. Maybe he lives near a manufacturing plant that emits barium in the air as a waste product. Maybe his groundsoil or tapwater is already contaminated due to other, unknown reasons. This is why you need samples from multiple random sources. 

Let’s move on. At 2:25 in the video he says “they even mention Chemtrails by name in the initial draft of Senate Bill 2977”. Okay. What’s the point? Senate Bill 2977 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH:) does mention Chemtrails, yes. However, the context of the bill in this particular case is a motion to have Chemtrails banned entirely. In this case it’s mentioned in Section 7B of the bill under the “definitions” section where they are defining what they mean in earlier portion of the bill. The bill itself is called the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”. Section 3 states that the President shall permanently ban all weapons in space and shall enter into a worldwide agreement abiding by the ban. Then, Section 7 enumerates what “weapons” are, and section 7B says that “this includes exotic weapons such as chemtrails”.  So, the reporter, in essence, says “they even mention chemtrails by name in a house bill where they’re planning to ban them permanently, so that must be proof that they’re using them”.  The rest of their “evidence” is over 50 years old. It doesn’t make for a very convincing case no matter how you slice it. The rest of the video is so ridiculous that it’s not even worth mentioning.

Since I’ve utterly rebuked that news video, let’s examine some of the other claims made by the conspiracy theorists who believe that these are really chemtrails. One of the more amusing claims is that these chemicals are part of a “grand experiment” to allow the government to control people’s minds. There’s so many things wrong with this one. First, as anyone who conducts research knows; you have to have a control group or a baseline measurement to compare your results against. It has been well-established, even by the conspiracy theorists that these trails appear over every major city in the world. So, if it is an experiment and they’re gassing every major city in the world as part of this presumably cost-prohibitive experiment, then where’s the control data? What city are they gathering the data from to compare the results against? Surely they must have one or their results would be invalid. Not to mention, if they were successful, then wouldn’t they be able to control your thoughts? And if they could control your thoughts, then surely they would stop you from thinking that they’re gassing you in the first place? I know that’s what I would do if I were them. So, it seems rather logical that the fact that this belief even exists is proof enough that they aren’t controlling people’s minds. For some reason the conspiracy believers seem to think 2002 was the start of the “experiment”, but even our government would shut down a 10 year old project that produced no statistically significant results.

The next one is that these trails are the secret tests by the government of biological chemical weapons on the unsuspecting populace. But, as before, this theory is riddled with problems. First, it has the same problems as the previous theory; these trails appear over every major city which means that there’s no control data, which makes any experiment invalid. Secondly, if these “subjects” are being treated at local hospitals then how would the government monitor the results? They’d have to be secretly in charge or have access to every hospital in the world and that just seems slightly more than a little implausible. Not to mention, they’ve been doing this testing for at least 10 years. Surely we’d all have to be hospitalized or treated in some way if that were true. But, I rarely get sick and the few times I’ve needed medical attention it was due to a physical accident, not an unexplained illness. In fact, no one I know has come down with any strange illnesses despite “a decade of secret government testing”, so clearly if this was a test, it’s an utter failure as it failed to produce any statistically significant results.

The last theory seems the most realistic of the three, but that’s not saying much. Essentially it’s based on the theory that aluminum oxide can be injected into the atmosphere and that the resulting metal particulates in the air will essentially act as a global sunscreen and reflect enough of the sun’s rays to cool the Earth. That was an actual theory proposed by scientists, but it was never acted upon for many reasons. First, it’s very cost prohibitive. Last time I checked metal was heavier than air. Any metal particulates that could be introduced into the atmosphere would immediately begin to fall due to the effects of gravity. So, how would you keep them up there long enough to even test it? And, of course, there’s that pesky problem of lack of a control. You could argue that they could use historical data as a baseline, but scientists are divided about what’s causing the Earth’s temperature shift in the first place, so how can you be certain that the temperature changes are the result of your actions and not some other unaccounted for factor? There’s also another problem with this theory; it’s not working. The theory states that they are trying to cool the Earth and slow or prevent global warming. However, all of the current data from NASA, NOAA, and everyone else who’s tracking this data shows that the Earth has been continuing to get warmer. If that’s true, then their experiment has failed to produce statistically significant results and after 10 years of wasted funds it would surely have been cancelled by now.  Not to mention there are a number of scientists and critical thinkers, myself included, who aren’t entirely convinced about global warming. There is evidence in the geological record that shows that the Earth cools a great deal every few thousand years. We know them commonly as “ice ages”. There’s also an old expression; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Is it that hard to theorize that if the Earth cools a great deal every few thousand years that it also heats up every few thousand years as well? It seems pretty plausible to me, and it’s supported by the geological record, but I digress.

What is it that these conspiracy theorists are so afraid of? Here are some photos:

As you can clearly see, these clouds emanate from the plane’s engines, not from some super-secret gas tank. These “clouds” are formed because the plane’s exhaust fumes, which include some water vapor, exits the engine superheated. This superheated gas comes into contact with the colder air at the higher elevation where planes fly and immediately condenses into clouds.  

Some of the conspiracy theorists will say that these plumes first starting showing up around 2002. However, there is an abundant amount of photographic evidence that shows that these contrails were common prior to that, including during WWII and as early as 1918, just after WWI. Many of these photos are linked to from the Contrail Science page in the links below.

It also seems pretty plausible to me that changes in technology in either aviation fuel or jet engines themselves could be responsible for the gasses lingering around longer, as people claim. Or, it could be attributed to a warmer environmental climate. There are several possible explanations that make sense, but secret government testing isn’t one of them.

Before I go, I did also include the links to the Discovery Channel show, Best Evidence, where they discuss Chemtrails as fact. I used to buy into the Discovery Channel and give them a lot of credit, however, they have lost a lot of stock as being a reputable scientific source of information. Shows that they have aired previously such as Mermaids: The Body Found do quite a bit of damage to their credibility.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory  Wikipedia Pagehttp://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/chemtrails/  A page debunking Chemtrailshttp://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/08/06/mick-west-owner-of-contrailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/   A site promoting the chemtrail conspiracyhttp://euro-med.dk/?p=23189 Another site promoting the chemtrail conspiracyhttp://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/  This page has a TON of information from both sides of the debate (but obviously debunks the chemtrails).

News Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpF-c8Jgx0

Discovery Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVFuOZu7Xhg Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFoHlwibcU Part 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwvUhalx-lU Part 3

In Search of Answers

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Sometimes the most interesting things that you learn are things that you discover entirely by accident. This was certainly the case for me this week. Before I get to the meat of my article, I beg you to indulge me a paragraph or two explaining how I stumbled across all of this information.

To begin this story properly I need to take you back to 2005. I was very active in the online genealogy circles for people researching the Clayborn family. I was literally getting a few emails a week from people asking if I had heard of this person, or if I knew what happened to that person, etc. Then I had received an email from Dr. Alex Waldrop, a genetic researcher who was overseeing the Clayborn Family DNA Study. I was intrigued. I had never heard of this before.

Dr. Waldrop explained how Y-Chromosome DNA was passed down genetically from father to son with only very minor mutations over vast periods of time. This is the same basic test that courts use to determine father-son paternity. In theory, if you traced your family tree back to your great-great-great-great-great grandfather and you found his brother and you followed the line down through his son’s son’s son’s son, etc. until you found your modern day cousin, then you and he should have these exact same genetic markers in common. Naturally, this type of tool would be invaluable to genealogists because it could provide clues and links when a paper trail runs cold. Dr. Waldrop was compiling a results database of Clayborn DNA and he asked me to participate in the study. I agreed and in a few weeks a kit came and I swabbed my cheek and sent it off.

About a month later the results came back. The accompany report turned my world upside down. While I was part of Haplogroup R1b1 like the Clayborns, my DNA was not even remotely close to anything that even resembled a Clayborn. There was no doubt of my recent ancestry due to strong family traits and characteristics. I look as much like my father as my son looks like me. So then we went back to the paper trail and noticed a discrepancy in the 1860 census and came to discover that my ancestors were adopted by the Clayborns at that time.

Armed with this knowledge I examined my ancestors’ mother, Christina Croy. Naturally, I compared my DNA to that of the Croy family. Much to my disappointment I did not match them either. And that’s where the trail goes cold. Christina Croy totally disappears prior to 1850. Her early life, and the clues about the father of my ancestor are buried in some scrap of information that I have not been able to located on paper.

Naturally, I turned back to what I did have, my DNA results. I routinely search Y-Chromosome DNA databases in the hopes that a match will just appear one day where previously none had existed. So far my searches have been utterly fruitless. I do know that I have two extremely rare genetic markers for my specific haplogroup. One marker occurs only in 0.5% of the R1b1 population. The other marker occurs in 0.3% of the population. I often joke that due to this I’m a freak of nature, but the truth of it is that the statistical probability of some other family that’s not genetically related to me having these exact same mutations is so low that they should be considered an extreme improbability.

I was reading more about Y-DNA research as it relates to ancestry and some of the articles that I stumbled across took me from looking at Y-DNA studies of the recent ancestry and paternal lineage to Y-DNA studies of ancestry of the human species as a whole. I was surprised, but I learned to two important things; first, the taxonomic classification system is far more complex than they taught me in high school, and second, there is a massive amount of evidence that would seem to disprove the very notion of intelligent design.

First, the taxonomic classification system according to High School science is 8 levels deep. It goes; life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. In truth, this is infinitely more complex. Humans are 25 levels down in the classification system. There are also sub-kingdoms, sub-phylums, sub-orders, infraorders, parvorders, superfamilies (like the mob, I guess), sub-families, and tribes. Logically, I should have realized that High School science barely scratched the surface here, but I did not image that it would be so complex. The main reason for this is because prior to that time I did not have a need to know.

The second lesson was the most surprising; intelligent design seems more and more like a far-fetched idea with each passing year. Why do I say this? Because of the large amount of data that exists about other species in the genus Homo.

Everyone knows that we’re Homo Sapiens. What most people don’t know is that we’re actually Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This is to differentiate us from our extremely closely related genetic cousins, Homo Sapiens Idaltu who lived around 160,000 years ago. In fact, artists renditions of the skulls found of Idaltu show that they are so closely related to us that it would difficult to distinguish them on sight alone if they were alive today.

And, of course, let’s not forget Homo Neanderthalensis, once thought to be a direct ancestor of the human species scientists now believe them to genetically related cousins, albeit ones that did not contributed any considerable DNA to our present physiology, thus making them a parallel and separate species. The same thing is true of Homo Erectus.

Among the many other species within the genus Homo are; H. Gautengensis, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, H. Ergaster, H. Antecessor, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, H. Rhodesiansis, H. Neanderthalensis, H. Floresiansis and the newly discovered Denivosa Hominin.  While some of these species are decidedly ape-like or inhuman in their appearance, others are quite similar to modern humans.

For me, the biggest question that is raised by the discovery of all of these different species is this; if God is perfect, and if intelligent design is truly the explanation for the origin of the Human race, then why were there so many different variations of human-related species? And why did none of them survive? Surely God would not have created a species that he knew to be flawed. It is obvious that scientists today still do not have definitive answers, but with each passing discovery it seems less and less likely that Humans are the direct creation of God.

Not Knowing What to Look For

[Johnathan Clayborn]
For those of you who did not already know this about me, I am an avid genealogist. I really do enjoy this pursuit immensely. It allows me an excellent avenue to utilize my analytical thinking, and, as the running joke among genealogists goes; it’s the gift that keeps giving.

There have been several major advancements in genealogy over the last few decades. 30 or 40 years ago you had to go to a specific library and browse through census records on microfilm. You had to search each and every page by hand, and you had to already have some pretty good idea of what you were looking for (not to mention you had to be pretty adept at reading old-fashioned handwriting). Today’s genealogist can do a large amount of research right from their home computer without leaving the house.

There are some people who believe that those interested in genealogy are only interested in it because of their attempts to unearth “moneyed forebears”. However, this opinion seems to be one that has originated outside of the genealogical circles. Almost every single genealogist that I’ve ever corresponded with (and there have been quite a few) is interested in this pursuit to answer one simple, yet burning question: where do I come from? They get as excited about finding an ancestor who was a poor farmer as they do in finding someone who was an important figure of society. Being a genealogist myself I can understand why people may have that perception. The pragmatism of genealogical research is that more influential people tend to leave behind more records, thus making them easier to find. However, that doesn’t mean that we’re not interested in the non-influential people.  I’m personally saddened with part of my research. One of my ancestors was a Cherokee Indian who wandered onto a farm at age 3. He didn’t speak English and no one could locate his family. The farmers adopted him and raised him as their own. I have copies of the newspaper articles that talk about the situation, however, I will never know anything more about my Cherokee ancestors or their deeds. They certainly aren’t “moneyed forebears”, but they are quite interesting to me all the same as they make up some small part of who I am.

One of the groups that I follow is the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF). I’ll explain more about them in a few minutes. However, in their recent newsletter they included a link to Greta’s Genealogy Blog. Greta had an article that I found quite interesting as she was talking about the perception that genealogy has received from the mainstream public. The popular website Ancestry.com came up during this discussion.

Now, on the one hand, I do like the Ancestry services. Their Family Tree Maker software is my personal favorite genealogy program, and if you are looking for generic records, their site is pretty good. A subscription to their vital records is well worth the money. However, on the other hand I’m very disappointed and kind of upset at them. Their recent ad campaigns are actually somewhat insulting and definitely deceptive. Their current tagline is “You don’t have to know what you’re looking for, you just have to start looking”.

What a crock. Really? Ancestry, you should know better. For one thing, as noble a pursuit as genealogy is, it’s not something that you can just pick up and start by poking about a website randomly. There’s a lot of stuff that you need to know before you start looking. For example; why should you start looking in 1930? What type of records are you looking for? What types of pitfalls should I avoid? What resources should I avoid? What if I get stuck?

As any long-time genealogist knows the Privacy Act keeps all vital records locked away and privatized for 73 years. As such the records from 1930 are the most current records that are readily available to the mainstream public. Next year, 2013, the records from 1940 will be revealed and unlocked and then you will be able to search those as well. If you are new to genealogy are you just going to know this? Probably not. Would that make it hard to find your father? Or your grandfather? Probably, depending on your age.

Next, what types of records are you looking for? Birth Certificates, Death Certificates, Military Records, Tax Rolls, Voter Lists, Deeds, Wills, Census Records. As a “noob” to the field of genealogy would you understand the differences? Would you know about the inherent and expected inconsistencies between them? Probably not. Back in the day the Census Takers used to visit each house in person. They often would guess at the age of the people that they were recording, especially small children. So, it’s entirely possible for the same person to have different ages on different census records. Also, prior to WWII, most people in the US did not know how to read or write. Because of that the census takers would record your name how they thought it should be spelled. I have one ancestor on the census who’s name Clyborn, Clybourn, Clayburn, Claybourne, and finally Clayborn.  This is completely normal for the census records, but new people probably wouldn’t know that. This is also the very same reason that the Soundex was invented. It uses a complex mathematical algorithm to display search results that sound alike phonetically, regardless of spelling.

And then there’s the SSDI, the Social Security Death Index. This is a great place to start when researching family members. It’s often easiest to start from the end and work toward the beginning. If you know when they died, you can get their vital information, including their SSN, from the SSDI and that greatly helps you ensure that you’ve got the right person. But sometimes people aren’t included in the SSDI. For example, people who are murdered are not included on the list.

Ancestry.com has some novelty “resources” that are actually, quite flawed and laughable. Their records database is excellent. The private user trees can be helpful at times. But their “One World Tree” program is a joke. One World Tree (OWT) is an automated bot program that Ancestry developed. It scours the data of every single tree that users have uploaded onto the website and attempts to stitch them all together to map out the family history of the entire world. It’s an ambitious project to be sure. However, the bot program is highly unreliable. It regularly attaches people that don’t have any relationship at all. It also has other flaws where, for example, if people are missing birthdates in their data, it will create a “loop”. It will have five or six people strung together, but then it will have the father of the oldest person in the string be the first person that you started with.  Due to that I only very rarely use it, and then it’s just to see if someone has listed other resources as part of their file.

Many genealogists go to the Mormon Church to search genealogical records. As part of their religion the Mormons research their deceased ancestors in an effort to convert them over to Mormonism so that they can be saved. Many people agree that the Mormon Church has one of the largest privately-funded genealogical databases in the world. Many researchers will take a trip over to the Mormon Libraries to glean data from their records. Even if you are not Mormon, they will still permit you to dig through their archives. Other people prefer to access their records remotely through their website; www.familysearch.org. No disrespect to the Mormons, but while this may be one of the largest resources, it’s not exactly one of the most accurate. I have personally found several egregious errors in their data.  As with many other large projects, they rely heavily on volunteer work and the data on their site is only as accurate as the volunteers who uploaded it. As such I would advise anyone using their information to take it with a grain of salt.

Another key thing that every new genealogist should know is this: document everything. Okay, really that should be said for all aspects of your life, but especially for genealogy work. Sometimes you come across conflicting data and you need to compare your sources, or sometimes you find that little gem of data that’s super-hard to find and then you lose your files and you don’t remember where you saw it again. It’s just easier if you write it all down. Keep records; who told you? When? Where did you find it? Title of the book? Publication date? Author's name? ISBN? Page Number? Can you make copies or include a link? etc. Sometimes, especially with websites, the page moves or just disappears. If it's not recorded then you may never find it again.

If you get stuck, there’s always a technique called “cluster genealogy” that most new people don’t know about. It basically plays off of the principle that “no one is an island”. The idea is that if you can no longer find records about your direct ancestor, try searching the records of your ancestor’s siblings. In many cases the siblings had the same parents and it can lead you to the answer.

The most recent breakthrough in genealogy is “genetic genealogy”. Scientists can now track your biological ancestry through mitochondrial DNA (female side) or through Y-DNA (male side). This is quite a fascinating technique. Through its use I discovered that my family was adopted in the 1850’s and my genetic roots are not that of Clayborn. But now I’m stuck and I have no idea who I am. Even with all of the years of practice and the skills that I’ve developed I can’t seem to unravel this mystery. I’ve found a document here and a document there, but some are hard to read and most yield no clues. This is where the SMGF comes in. There are websites like Y-Search (the new home of the now-defunct Ybase.com) and SMGF that contain databases of people’s genetic codes. If I can find a match through there it would prove who I am genetically related to. This, in turn, would give me another angle to look at the records where the trail goes cold and possibly find the right answer. It’s kind of a longshot, but my DNA has two extremely rare markers in it so when I do find a match there will no doubting it. One marker happens in 1% of the population in my haplogroup (genetic cousins for lack of a better term), and the other marker happens in 0.5% of the population. The odds of someone else having those exact same mutations that’s not related to me is a statistical impossibility. But, if the Ancestry.com commercials would have you believe, genealogy is a snap and you can do it blindfolded. And you probably can if you don’t care at all about making sure that your data is accurate or correct.

Confirmation Bias

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Confirmation Bias is decidedly one of the more fascinating and infuriating components of the human psyche. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this concept it can be explained as “the power to deny” or if you had to explain how it works you could sum it up as “the power to continue believing what I believe is right because it’s what I believe, no matter what”.

To some extent, all of us are afflicted by confirmation bias to some degree or another. Most of us have at least one topic that we feel so strongly about that we run into the danger of confirmation bias. Many people simply are not aware that they suffer from confirmation bias. Those of us who at least understand what it is have an easier time realizing that what we’re experiencing is confirmation bias, even if we are unable to change it in ourselves. The one interesting thing however, is that it’s immediately apparent when someone’s logic or debate is being influenced by confirmation bias.

Examples of confirmation bias can be found in pretty much every subject. The more controversial the subject is, the more prominent that confirmation bias exists and manifests itself in a direct relationship (↑ ↑).  The more knowledgeable you are about the subject and the more understand confirmation bias, the less likely you are to be afflicted by it (↑ ↓). But, this isn’t always true, it’s just a generality. Some people continue to be afflicted by confirmation bias regardless of how aware they are of it or not.

Where can one find examples of confirmation bias? The easy examples are things like: religion, the existence of aliens, conspiracy theories, politics, childrearing, etc. Part of the nuances of confirmation bias is that people will take information and then twist that information in their mind in order to either further support their own beliefs or discredit the beliefs of others. Take religion for example. Many people take the fact that we cannot prove that God exists as concrete proof that God does not exist. Other people however take that very same piece of fact and use it as proof that he does exists (after all, if we could detect his presence what kind of God would he be?). In this example both of these viewpoints exhibit signs of confirmation bias. All that the data suggests is that we cannot prove his existence. The data itself lends no evidence to support or deny the existence of God one way or the other.

Part of the reason that I’m writing about confirmation bias today is to vent. You see, as I’ve mentioned before, I have this compulsion to stamp out incorrect data where ever I see it. I admit that I have my opinions, but I think that I do a pretty good job of allowing my analytical brain to consider all of the factors before I make up my opinion. And I’ve certainly had my mind changed through debate with several of my friends on numerous occasions. A few of my friends are excellent debaters. There are certain topics that we don’t always agree on, and more than once they’ve been able to persuade me into seeing things from their point of view. Had I been afflicted by confirmation bias this would not be possible.

A perfect example of this came up in my ethics class last week. The teacher posed a question to us;

What does Postman mean when he says the media is eroding our intelligence? Give an example.

I responded thusly: This is a prime example of an opinion that I have long-held myself. Socially, it seems as though people (collectively) are sheep. Individually people are smart, intelligent, and thoughtful. However, if you put those people in the stands of a hockey or soccer game after their favorite team losses (or wins) there's the potential that these smart individuals will become part of a very stupid mob responsible for vandalism and assault. It might be that I'm becoming more and more cynical, but it seems as though people are becoming more and more comfortable with just believing whatever they are told without any further investigation or thought. With the advent of digital media, particularly the internet, misconceptions and misinformation can be spread easily from one place to another rather quickly. It's entirely possible for something that's not at all true to be spread as fact by surrounding it with plausible sounding explanations. For example, take these common (but untrue) myths: pirates wore eye patches because it gave them a tactical advantage in battle (false), consumption of sugar causes a "high" (false), Suicide rates go up during Thanksgiving and Christmas (false), people abuse and murder black cats around Halloween (false), etc. Not only do these myths perpetuate, but they are taken as common knowledge and fact when the truth is that they are completely and totally wrong. Genealogical records are also another case where this runs rampant as well. TV certainly infects our psyche and our way of thinking. There have been countless news articles where the judge has had to dismiss jurors or declare a mistrial because the jury has watched too much "CSI" and doesn't understand how forensics really works in application. They watch this make-believe (and often quite erroneous) portrayals of forensics and have a skewed perception of how it works. (This is now known as "the CSI Effect".) However, this isn't necessarily a recent invention. Take this map, from Prof. Ferguson published in 1893. http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/06/squareearth1.jpg.  It postulates that the word is, in fact, square, not round. Many people bought his book and bought into his crazy ideals simply because he was a "professor" and the information seemed credible enough on the surface. The news hasn't always been known for their objective reporting so even things that are seen on the "news channels" are often questioned and scrutinized. In some circles Fox News has the odious moniker of "Faux News", despite being a national agency.

Now, as if on cue one of my classmates whom I’ll refer to simply as SB replied to my posting with this; I don't know that I agree with all of your untrue myths. I have experinced [sic] the pirate myth. Having one or both eyes can help when trying to move around in a dark place. I have experinced [sic] a sugar "high", it might be a real high be it can make you act out of character. I don't know if suicides go up around Christmas and Thanksgiving but I can see why they might. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people do abuse and murder black cats around Halloween. There are alot [sic] of cults and religions that would encourage that. I've never heard of the "CSI effect", but I would probably be removed from a jury for it. I know a person who worked in SVU in my state and she said they do a reasonable job of showing the process.

Now, as followers of my blog will know, I’ve already addressed all of these issues before in prior posts. But, this classmate doesn’t read my blog so I responded with this: You see, no disrespect intended, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. What is the basis for your "disbelief" of my facts? I'm not stating my opinion here, I'm stating irrefutable fact. I've personally researched these topics, and these are all myths that do not hold any shred of truth whatsoever. They're all baseless claims made by media and perpetuated by media and society by people who believe everything without checking facts for themselves.

I explained the facts surrounding the pirate eye patch (found here). I explained the facts surrounding the sugar high myth (found here). I explained why suicides don’t go up during the holidays (here).  And I explained the misconception about black cats (found here).

I also explained the CSI effect; If you do a Google search on the term CSI Effect you'll find hundreds of newspaper articles explaining the principle and talking about cases where it has ruined or delayed the case. The show "CSI" makes the science of forensics seems not only easier than it really is, but also more trivial. As such, jurors’ opinions are skewed by the TV series. They want to see more evidence, they want faster evidence, and when they do get evidence presented they don't realize the true consequence of that evidence and brush it off.

My classmate, SB, responded right back: I have never heard of pirates wearing eye patches to protect against injuries to the eye. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I can see them wearing them because they lost an eye or had an injury to an eye. But I don't see how a piece of fabic [sic] or plastic could protect their eyes during battle. I really don't care about what "research" you have done. I could find "proof" to support my ideas too. Just because someone researched it doesn't make their word law. They may have skewed the results to get the data they wanted. Their test might have been too small. Take your Humane Society president as an example. Where did she have her taskforce get this information. Unless she talked to every cult and religious leader, ever humane society and animal activest [sic] expert in the world just because she didn't find any evidence to support that black cats are killed or abused more around Halloween then any other time of the year doesn't make it true. Research and statics are unreliable. You can find just as many studys [sic] for something as you can against something.

By this point it’s becoming abundantly clear that she’s suffering from confirmation bias. Not only is she attacking my response, she’s not even reading what I actually wrote to begin with. She’s misinterpreting the data as automatically wrong. But, be that as it may here’s what I wrote back to her: I'm not saying that the eye patches were a preventative measure, I'm saying that they wore the eye patches AFTER the eye was injured to keep the wound clean, like a band-aid, to prevent further infection. And as far as the rest of your response goes, I have two simple words for you: confirmation bias. You're so wrapped up in your own belief system that it doesn't matter what evidence anyone presents to you, they're automatically wrong. That's fine. It's nice to know that we have people in this world who are smarter than all of the doctors and researchers that give us our cutting edge science, that's awesome. Maybe they should just ask you how to solve world hunger and cure cancer, because I'm sure you already know the answer to that too. Any "proof" that you could find supporting your "ideas" has been refuted by more recent research, by professional researchers and scientists. The old "proof" is, quite simply, wrong. I find absolutely absurd that you can so easily dismiss the results of the tests and studies that I mention without knowing anything about them. The Humane Society President, Dr. Leslie Sinclair, personally oversaw her taskforce. They examined newspaper articles from every major newspaper in the largest 250 cities in the United States during the month of October. They also contacted every police department in those cities and inquired about persons being charged with animal abuse charges. Despite their massive undertaking, which took two years to complete, they found no credible evidence to support the idea that black cats are sacrificed on Halloween. The few "reports" that they did find turned out to be hoaxes. And we're not talking about world-wide, I'm talking about the United States, where we live. But sitting here spouting that doctors and researchers are idiots and morons doesn't further your position. As I said before, find me CREDIBLE EVIDINCE to support your claims. Which cults say that Black Cats should be killed, specifically? Where do they say this? When did they say this? Why? How many cases have been reported? Where? By whom?

Admittedly, this was a little harsh, but this is one of my pet peeves. This lady is not debating, she’s arguing.  A debate would involve her responding to my posts with facts and or other data that I could then go and independently verify. She didn’t do this. She just stuck to her own narrow-minded opinion and continued to disregard all of the evidence that I presented to her. I implore you all, as you argue your viewpoints with others ask yourself; am I automatically refuting evidence because I don’t want to believe it’s true, or are my ideas supported by fact?

Santa: To Tell or Not To Tell

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Today’s entry is by special request. One of my friends and readers wrote in requesting that I do an article about the ethical implications involved with lying to your children, even if it is about Santa Claus. I could tell where he stood on the issue by the tone of his message; he thinks that telling children that the big, red-man exists is bad and creates an ethical dilemma. After all, you are lying to children, so how do you get them to trust you after that? I have been telling my own kids about Santa, but I do see his point. It made me wonder if there were any studies conducted on the subject and what the “court of public opinion” believes. And, with any luck, we’ll be able to put that debate at the family get-togethers to rest.

I will start off by saying that after reading his message it induced a moment of nostalgia. I vividly remembered when I first learned the truth. It was second grade. Like my friend, my 2^nd grade teacher felt that it was ethically reprehensible to lie for any reason. Because of her beliefs she informed our entire second grade class that there was no such thing as Santa Claus. To say that she had a classroom full of very upset little children would be an understatement. Interestingly, I remember being angry with my teacher for breaking “the spell” of Santa, and I remember wondering why my parents would tell me about Santa if he wasn’t real. Was it some joke that I wasn’t part of? What was the point? Despite the unfortunate manner in which I learned the truth I just came to accept that it was just something that adults did.

It is with these thoughts and experiences as a backdrop that I began my research. I wanted to keep an open mind about this topic and gather the information as objectively as possible. Human history is full of make-believe beings; leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and all manner of monsters and demons. There are Jedi and Sith lords, time-travelling robots, and even aliens from outer space. The most obvious and most common form of creating these lies is for entertainment purposes. They are used in story telling sometimes as a metaphor, or a symbol, or as an archetypal character to represent a particular type of person. The difference here is that in literature and movies these other stories are understood to be make believe right from the start. So, the question really becomes; is lying to your children about Santa harmful to their emotional well-being? Is it unethical?

Interestingly enough, the question of Santa came up in the ethics class that I am currently taking. There were essentially two schools of thought on this topic. The first group, a very small margin, felt that it was ethically improper to tell their children lies about Santa Claus. Of course, I should also add that this person’s reasoning was that “Jesus would be mad that you’re assisting your children in worshipping a false idol”. They seemed to have the ethical quandary of lying about Santa confused with a moral dilemma of whether hyping up Santa at Christmas constitutes worship.

The second group felt that it was okay to lie to your children about Santa. However, this group was also divided into two camps as well. Half of this group felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever. They wrote things like “it encourages young children’s imaginations” and that it “served as a vessel for passing along traditions and values”.  The other group, which I admittedly was part of, felt that it did constitute a breach of ethics in the strictest sense of the definition, but that the end justified the means. Sure, a lie is ethically improper, however in most cases ethics and morals are not resolute, concrete ideologies that are unyielding in principal. I’m willing to bet that I can pose several scenarios in which you would likely violate your own moral or ethical code in some way or another.

Having exhausted my search of materials in class relating to this topic, I turned my search to other resources. My first bid was to go to the all-knowing, all-powerful internet. While information gleaned off of the internet should always be taken with a grain of salt I do find it a good starting point for some of my other resources. In my search on the internet I Googled the phrase Santa Claus Ethics. The results of this search immediately convinced me that my friend is not alone in his view of Santa. 

One interesting site that I found is a blog called Pea Soup. The blog itself is a huge site with dozens of contributors and focuses exclusively on ethics, philosophy and academia. While this particular entry by Heath White was rather short, it sparked an internet debate when it first appeared 2 years ago. Dozens upon dozens of further articles popped up all over the internet in response to White’s post, and dozens more popped up in response to those responses. White opposed the proliferation of the Santa Claus myth. He argues that it’s immoral (which it may be to him, but the question is whether or not it’s ethical, and yes, there is a difference). White argues that the Santa myth has, at least, three strikes against it.

1.       It involves a lot of lying and deception practiced on credulous people.

2.       It tends to foster greed in children and contributes to the notion that happiness equates to the material wealth that you possess.

3.       By telling children that the gifts that Santa brings them are tied to their behavior it further undermines their personal growth. Especially since the gifts that a child receives are not the result of the child’s behavior, but rather are the result of the family’s socio-economic standing and parental temperament. This tends to breed moral complacency in well-off children and false feelings of moral inferiority in less well-off children.

One of the more prominent and immediate responses appeared on the blog Love of All Wisdom. The author here counter’s White’s points Vis-à-vis. The author here, Amod Lele, raises some interesting counter-points to White’s claims. He argues that White’s first point should be invalidated because it paints a bleak picture of humanity if children only know the truth and never pretend or make believe. He says “One can tell children stories they will understand, long before they understand the difference between myth and reality. Is this a lie? Perhaps, but one shudders before the implications of an account of truth so unflinching and demanding that it requires all children’s stories be clearly marked as false and fictional.”  He further goes on to describe such an existence as cold. As a parent, I’ll admit that there are certain things that I’ve told my child that weren’t entirely true. For example; there’s some kind of chemical processing plant near our house. On the premises of this plant are two tall silver spires of pipe of different heights. They look to be some kind of giant pressure valves or boilers, or something of that nature. In truth, I have no idea what these things are. I’m not even sure what chemical is processed there. So, when my son asked me what they are I told him that I didn’t know. And then he told me that they were rocket ships. To this day they’re still rocket ships. He’s 5 and he can get a lot of concepts, but explaining that it’s some kind of equipment that has to do with pressurized processing of a chemical is not likely something that he’s going to understand at his age. So, I let it go until he’s older and can understand such concepts.

Lele’s agrees with White’s second point. He’s also indifferent on White’s third point as well. The one thing that he does admit is that in order for the Santa-Behavior myth to carry any real weight behind it parents would actually have to follow through on their threats on not give gifts to children who genuinely are naughty. However, as he points out, most parents lack the capacity for this or are so blinded by their love for their children that they overlook their transgressions and misdeeds.

Some argue that the Santa-behavior myth teaches children to be good by providing rewards for desired behavior, a-la B. F. Skinner. However, as any good psychologist will tell you, providing one gift annually based an abstract average of overall behavior is not consistent or frequent enough to have any lasting effect on a child’s long-term development. Some psychologists argue that one reward per week might be too long of a delay, particularly in very young children. 

One thing that also seemed to come up in all of the discussions that I found was the concept or notion of tradition. Most people know that Santa Claus as we know him today has existed for quite a while. In my earlier post on some holiday myths I pointed out some of the different tales and traditions which make up the modern Santa. The question that is hotly debated here is “how do you separate out the traditions from the lies?”

Many people, myself included, are on the fence about it. It is technically a lie, yes, but it seems as though it’s a culturally accepted one and one that has good arguments from both sides of the issue. Many more people don’t even give the issue a second thought.

One interesting side-question as I press on. I did come across one blog where the author was writing about a response to a NY Times article. The commenter asked “if you’re a child and you figure out that there’s no such thing as Santa, is it unethical to continue to play along in the hopes of getting more presents?” An interesting question, to be sure. Certainly, that would support the argument that belief in Santa promotes greed. But, could they also not say something to their parents as a means of retaliating? ie: You lied to me that he existed in the first place, so I’m going to lie to you by saying that I still believe. Is that ethical for either party?

One blogger over at Philosophy, etc. argued that the proliferation of the Santa Claus myth isn’t really a lie because children are able to discern the difference. They cite a few cognitive psychologists who suggest that children know all along and they’re just playing the game with us. I vociferously disagree. Over time they may figure it out and elect to play along, however, if you are a small child and you are suddenly told that there is not a Santa after years of believing it can be quite a traumatic experience. And it’s not as though this is just a few harmless tales that are easy to disbelieve in, it’s a world-wide conspiracy. You have department stores telling your children that Santa is real, internet websites where you can video-chat with Santa, major newspapers writing stories about Santa’s exploits. I mean, if it’s in the news it has to be true, right? And let’s not forget the US Government helps perpetuate this myth. What I am talking about? The US Military’s NORAD tracks Santa website, of course. They even have a page called “Is Santa Real?” where they neither confirm nor deny his existence. However, they also provide a video and an interactive map that shows Santa’s progress across the globe on Christmas Eve. This isn’t just some small white lie that you tell your friends “no man, that shirt doesn’t make you look stupid”, this is a large, elaborate lie that goes on for weeks and months and years by almost everyone.

Another interesting blog that I read was called Philosophy Dad in which the author counters six points in favor of lying to your children about Santa. Here are the six points in favor of lying, according to Steven Law:

1.       It makes them Happy

2.       Educational Fibbing

3.       Gives them something to believe in

4.       Fun for adults

5.       Useful for controlling behavior

6.       Protects children from upsetting or damaging truths

Now, I could write out Philosophy Dad’s responses to these, but you can read them on his blog (that’s why I put the links below…) So, instead I’ll post my opinions on these points.

Yes, it does make children happy, at least in the short term. And, I think that this is the reason that most people convince themselves that this lie is okay. I know that’s certainly true in my case. The one thing that I would be willing to bet is never considered; does this belief in Santa make them happier at Christmas time than they would be if they didn’t believe?

Steven Law suggests that lying to them deliberately about things like this can teach them to become better “truth detectors”. He further goes on to quantify that “educational fibbing” isn’t quite lying, that it’s more of a practical joke. I disagree with him here. First, to me, educational fibbing would be a lie to explain a naturally made situation. For example: Where do babies come from? The storks bring them. That is an educational fib. It’s a lie that’s told to children about a real-life situation because they’re too young to understand the answer. However, in the case of Santa, he’s entirely fictitious. As such, telling lies about Santa does not, in my mind constitute an “educational fib”. And, as I pointed out a moment ago, this is one world-wide conspiracy that’s embedded into every facet of our culture. It’s way deeper than a joke…unless you count what the robots were doing to the humans in the movie the Matrix as a joke (completely replacing their reality with a made up one), in which case it’s hilarious. A “fun joke” would be the government taking your Social Security Money, and make you believe that there is a Social Security fund, only to tell you when you really need it that there’s no such thing as Social Security. That’s fun, and totally harmless right? No one gets angry over that. Why should kids be any different?

Yes, everyone needs something to believe in and hope is a powerful thing. However, why must all of these beliefs and hopes be extrinsic? Why can’t we teach children to believe in themselves for a change?

Okay, yes. It is fun for adults. However, just because it’s fun does that make it ethically correct? I’m sure that President Clinton found his rendezvous with Ms. Lewinski to be “fun”, but that certainly wasn’t ethical.

Number 5 just baffles me. It’s useful for controlling behavior? Granted, I’m not arguing that children shouldn’t behave themselves, we live in a civilized world. However, there are many tools for controlling their behavior. The most effective is: teach them to control their own behavior. It’s a novel concept, I know, it is years ahead of its time. All joking aside, this is like rationalizing that it’s okay to lie to people so that we can get them to act how we want them to act or to do what we want them to do. It’s a good thing the government hasn’t adopted that philosophy.

The last point seems the weakest to me. Sure, telling someone that there is a Santa and getting them to believe in it and then telling them later that there is no Santa is potentially damaging. However, not telling them about Santa at all isn’t damaging in any way. If they’ve never been told that there is a Santa, then the truth won’t be damaging at all because they’ve never been deceived. It's the deception that is damaging, the act of finding out that you've been betrayed, not the truth in and of itself.

Some blog-readers comment that it’s basically okay to lie to children since they don’t understand it anyway. If that’s the case my question back is “at what point do you tell them truth?” If you’ve been lying to them because they don’t understand and you can get away with it, do you automatically own-up as soon as they do understand, or do you keep the lie going?

Some other readers suggest that explaining the myth of Santa is fine, however, actively engaging in the Santa pretense is a different matter altogether. Another reader points out that a child psychologist says that it’s a rite of passage for children to learn the truth about Santa after believing in him. His argument is that this helps children understand that the world can be a place full of lies and misinformation and that they shouldn’t take everything at face value. It introduces them to the concept of the lie in the first place. While I see his point, I’m not entirely convinced that this is the most effective way of accomplishing that task.

One angry reader on Pea Soup wrote “Are you kidding me?? Santa is just a fun part of Christmas. No, he is not the essence of Christmas. That would be Jesus Christ as we celebrate His coming as the true reason of Christmas.”  He goes on to say that the author is on the wrong soapbox and that they should be preaching against TV and Radio. But I digress, this is news to me. I had always thought that the “true meaning of Christmas” was for the Roman Catholic Church to make an official holiday coincide with the pagan Winter Solstice festival so that it was easier to convert them. Weird. Also, to this person I would pose this question; if the essence of Christmas is about Christ, then why do many Christmas traditions pre-date Christianity? And what about non-Christians who celebrate Christmas? To say that the responses to these articles are varied from the sane and polite to the downright rude and facetious is a bit of an understatement. For example; one reader responded by saying that we should just ban all fictional works of all types. Clearly, he is missing the point entirely.

As I read through these things I am reminded of a topic for a future discussion, but one that I’ll touch on here. Is it right or ethical for us as adults to force our worldview and our beliefs onto our children because we think it’s in their best interests? There are some adults that I know that absolutely will not believe certain things no matter how much evidence that you throw at them. And they will get literally upset with you if you shatter some of their other illusions (such the fact that humans are genetically descended from common ancestors with apes). What if kids are the same way? What if they really want to believe and we rob them of that? Is that just as much of a disservice to their well-being as lying and then telling the truth later?

I tried researching actual bona fide research journals to see what the “experts” had to say on the matter. There were some arguments that pointed out that parents who act out the roles of Santa have parallels to fetishism, ambivalence and narcissism. There was also an article that used the term “Santa Claus” in reference to make-believe political bills whose concepts are so unrealistic that they will never work. The one thing that I did not find was any kind of empirical evidence to support this debate one way or the other. There are absolutely no studies that offer up concrete proof that this is or isn’t healthy for our children. For now, this debate seems destined to remain in the realm of the theoretical.

Note: There are quite a lot of interesting responses both for and against this on the various blogs that I posted below. If this is one that interests you then I encourage you to read through them.

References:

Grand Canyon University: Philosophy 305 – Ethical Thinking in the Liberal Arts. Module 2. Prof. Scott Douglas.

http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2009/12/the-ethics-of-santa.html

http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/12/reflections-on-the-ethics-of-santa/

http://www.portfolio-remix.com/avalon_moore/2011/12/the-questionable-ethics-of-santa-claus.html

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/12/santa_claus_and_ethics.php

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/05/is-santa-lie.html

http://www.noradsanta.org/en/real.html

http://philosophydad.blogspot.com/2008/11/santa-is-tool.html

http://philosophydad.blogspot.com/2008/12/more-lying.html

Cluley, Robert (2011) The organization of Santa: fetishism, ambivalence and narcissism. The Journal of Organization. Nov, 18, 2011. Vol 18. No. 6 Pgs. 779-794. Retrieved from Sage Online.