On Racism and White Privilege

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I will preface this by saying that this one is going to be rather long, because I'm pretty worked up about this issue, but it should be worth the read.

Just yesterday I was discussing the recent bouts of protests in Baltimore, Maryland that were sparked by the tragic death of young Freddie Gray while he was in police custody. Some ignorant, narrow minded racist actually had the nerve to sit there and call me racist, which was met with applause by his group-think companions. Even though this person did not know me, and was clearly incapable of grasping any of my comments with any ounce of understanding or comprehension, this still bothered me, so much so that I swore off even commenting about politics or religion or equality on Facebook.

To any of my friends who know me personally, they recognize that there's not a racist bone in my body. I may be a great many things; I may be naive at times, I may be idealistic, I may be a hopeful dreamer of a Utopian future that will likely never come, and I am definitely overly analytical and highly logical in my thoughts, but I'm not racist.

So why was I called a racist? Because I actually proposed that people be treated equally and fairly and that the color of your skin should not, under any circumstances, play a factor in deciding who is awarded benefits or opportunities. I stated that the fact the job applications and college admission applications even have a race field seems like a sad, sad commentary on how far we still have yet to progress. You are either qualified for the job, or you are not. You are either capable of academic success, or you are not. The color of your skin plays absolutely no bearing on how you perform either of these functions. But to suggest that people be judged as individuals based on their own personal merits and abilities rather than skin tone is, apparently, racist.

A lot of people are upset, rightfully so, about the excessive use of force by police and the shootings of unarmed civilians. The media and society is generally far more upset when the suspect who was shot is black. Curious about this, I actually went a looked this up. According to the CDC WISQARS database on injury mortality reports there are some interesting values to be considered. When pulling the data from the database I examined "legal intervention" as the cause of death. This is their way of saying "police caused". I also looked at data for both genders for ages between 15 and 50. The breakdown of the results of that search are below:

It might not be noticeable right away, but the table tells an interesting story. If you look at it strictly in terms of number of total deaths, numerically, then it shows that police kill  white people more than twice as often as blacks. Some people would argue, where's the bias there? However, if you evaluate the number of deaths as compared to their percentage of the total population (the total number of available victims possible), then the data tells the opposite story; blacks are killed at twice the rates of whites. All of this will inevitably, invariably turn into an argument between two sides; blacks are killed more because they commit more crime, which will be counter-argued with blacks commit more crime because the police target them and profile them and racially discriminate. Which group is right? I don't know, I honestly have no idea Realistically, it's probably somewhere in the middle. But, it's completely irrelevant. How can I say that? I'm a racist asshole, remember? No, really I'm not. The point of the protesting is that police brutality and unnecessary use of police force is an epidemic problem. As the data on this chart shows, it's a problem that affects everyone. I had suggested that they stop using the hashtag #Blacklivesmatter and instead use the hashtag #Allivesmatter. That's also, apparently, racist thinking. 

When one considers the main crux of the argument, and the points of the riots, it's that police treat people unfairly. Ancient wisdom tells us that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. By using hashtags that turn the issue of police brutality into a racial issue, then it tears apart and divides any real traction that the movement might have before it even begins. Ancient Chinese wisdoms taught by Sun Tsu in the Art of War explain strength and unity. If you pick up sticks one by one you can break them easily. If you pick up a bunch of sticks and bundle them together, they cannot easily be broken in half. This same logic applies to social change and social reform. One unified voice all demanding the same change will get results. Divided voices are easily swatted down, broken, and quickly lose focus on exactly what it is that they want in the first place. Do they want Justice for Freddie Gray? Do they want an end to police brutality? Or do they want to change the paradigm of thought process? The answer is probably "all of the above", but prioritization must take place. 

All of these conversations brought up another point, one that I've argued against for some time; the idea of White Privilege. As a white male, I have not, at any point in my life received any sort of privilege simply for being white. My family doesn't have "connections". We don't have "family money". We don't own land. For generations we were poor farmers. I am moderately successful by most interpretations of that word, but I only got there through hard work and determination. I got there through working a full-time job and going to school at more than a full time rate. One person argued with me saying that where she was from in the south, all of her white friends were just handed jobs and that's how they succeeded, and that her family directly benefited from her being white. That's fine, for you, but it never benefited me in any way.

Here's the real root of the bigger issue though; Saying that White Privilege even exists is a racist ideology. I know, I know, I keep making outlandish "racist" claims, but here me out. The problem with thinking that there is even such a thing as White Privilege assumes that all white people are the same. Would it be fair to say that Native Americans are the same, or do they have unique and distinct cultural differences between their tribes? Would it be fair to assume that all Latinos are the same and that people from Puerto Rico had no differences when compared to people from Brazil and Chile? Would it be fair to assume that all Black people are the same and that people from Nigeria and Kenya are the same as people from Somalia? If the answer to these questions is no, which it is, why then is it okay to assume that all White people are the same?

The whole concept of White Privilege is that white people have a better socioeconomic disposition than Black people because they aren't discriminated against when looking for work or applying for school because they're white and society caters to whites. Within the broad spectrum of White cultures that make up the total overall White demographic, my particular culture that I identify with is Irish. Irish are probably, aside from the English, the epitome of "white". Then you have French, and Germans, and Italians, Russians, Polish, etc. I want you to consider these images here for a moment: 

Consider for a moment that Irish and Italian immigrants to the US were discriminated against. They were denied work. They were denied education. They were denied other benefits and opportunities in exactly the same way that people of color were denied to them. So what then, pray tell, would these people claim was the reason that they weren't successful? Are they going to claim White Privilege held them back also? That's crazy and it doesn't work because, oh wait, they are white. 

The whole point of this particular illustration is that just trying to say that people of color are underprivileged and it's due to White Privilege not only grossly oversimplifies the situation, but it actually completely detracts the conversation and shifts the focus away from the actual mechanisms that cause social injustice and inequality in the first place. Clearly not every black person is destitute, underprivileged nor a criminal. Clearly not every white person has doors and opportunities available to them simply because of the color of their skin. If you honestly believe that, then either you are totally ignorant of actual history within the United States, or you're harboring racist thoughts yourself. 

So what is racism anyway? Really, racism is the discrimination, mistreatment or abuse of another person or group of people due to the color of their skin or their ethnic origin. To combat racism there's another word that's thrown around a lot lately; equality. We talk about gender equality, we talk about racial equality, we talk about religious equality and social equality. But there's a problem with this: 

Everyone keeps talking about equality, but no one actually wants to be equal. I am very egalitarian in my worldviews and beliefs. I think that all things; rewards, opportunities, benefits, punishments, everything, should be decided equally, unilaterally, and fairly to every person without regard to race, religion, or socioeconomic status. Is that a realistic thought? Maybe not, but it's still how I think that the world should be run. 

As I had said to some of my friends discussing this issue; "you cannot create a racial construct as a response to a socially or institutionally racial issue and expect the underlying racism to be resolved". Case in point, consider this for a moment: If there was a scholarship for one group of people, but another group of people could not apply because of the color of their skin, would that be racist? Of course it would, right? So if there is a scholarship that was available only to white people and no people of color could apply, that would be racist, right? Of course. Well, what if it was a basketball scholarship because there aren't enough white basketball players? Still racist, right? So, why then is it okay to have scholarships for black people and other people of color where white people are not permitted to apply, but that's not racist? I'll tell you why, because it actually is racist. But, wait, Affirmative Action! That's nothing more than a bullshit excuse to exercise more racism because of racism. To those people of color who were discriminated against it might feel like vindication, but it's still racism at it's very core. 

The whole argument for Affirmative Action scholarships and programs in the first place is that people of color have been historically underprivileged socioeconomically and therefore had less access to money for healthcare and education. (We'll pretend that the Irish and Italians that were also discriminated against just got money from magic leprechauns for a moment). Going back to the logical, egalitarian way of thinking, financial aid should be awarded on the basis of need as the sole criteria. Race should never play a role in these kinds of decisions. So, if that is the case, and assuming that people of color are underprivileged, then by default they would also have the most need (because they make the least amount of money). And, because they had the most need, they would also, therefore, be pushed to the front of the line as an intrinsic result of their low socioeconomic status. The people who have the most need for the money are the ones who get it, period. Race need not be an issue. Creating special categories whereby certain races are excluded or prohibited from applying at all because of the color of their skin is the very definition of racism. If you can't see that, then you are a part of the problem. 

The issue of why certain populations are underprivileged is a complex issue that does not have a simple answer. Trying to summarize it as a race issue is not only ignorant of historical context or understanding of race, but it also does the entire conversation a disservice. How can you truly understand a problem and get to the real root of the situation if you enter into the conversation with an outlook that you already understand the problem and are closed off to hearing the viewpoints of others? I recently removed some people from my Facebook feed because I was tired of their racist dribble while they spouted that those people who didn't agree with them are racists. 

By continuing racist lines of thinking, such as white privilege, it further undermines their efforts to bring about meaningful social change. For example, by making this a racial issue, instead of simply a social issue, then it serves to alienate all of the other white people, like myself, who might be otherwise sympathetic to the plight of the underprivileged because they are or were underprivileged themselves. It's not a white vs black issue, it's much more complex than that. 

Some of the arguments that were thrown around were that the "power structure" of the country was skewed and that white privilege exists because white people have the power. Again, this is racist thinking and oversimplifies the issue. We've already established that it's racist to think of all Natives the same way, and that it's racist to think of all black people the same way. So which white people is it that have the power, exactly? It certainly isn't me. It's certainly not anyone that I personally know, either. This kind of thinking, that all white people are the same, creates additional problems that weren't there before in addition to everything else. 

I ask you all, if you truly want to understand the people around you, start looking past the end of your noses. Stop this racial nonsense and actually listen instead of pretending to know all of the answers. You've been discriminated against by those in power. That sucks. I would know because I have been too. But, rather than seeing myself and people like me as an ally, as a brother in the same boat of suffering, most people will instead downplay my personal successes and undermine me and lump me in with the same group of people that discriminated against me in the first place, all while calling me racist for thinking logically and rationally. 

The whole point of this rant is this; if you want to protest, that's your right, protest. If you want to speak out against the abuse of power and the social injustice that exists, that's great, I'm right there with you screaming for exactly those same things. I don't want to be abused by those in power. I don't want to be unfairly punished or rewarded for things I don't deserve or didn't do. But as soon as you start making it about the color of my skin or the color of your skin, then our common ground and our common goals dissolve away and become divided. So I ask you, if you are upset about Baltimore, if you are upset about unjust police brutality and unnecessary use of force, then what is it that you want? Do you want actual, meaningful social change, or do you just want to be right? 

On Bullying

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Sometimes I get emails from Change.org to my inbox. Some of them I sign, others I laugh at. Today I've received one on an issue that honestly has me torn: bullying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating bullying, not at all. I'm not convinced that our approach is handling bullying is the right way to go.

This particular article started with a tale of woe about a 14 year school girl who was bullied at school and online and then, tragically, took her own life. The girl's mother pushed to have legislation enacted that would keep bullying out of schools. The petition was sent out to stop SB-500, which basically states that the schools would not be allowed to initiate disciplinary action against students who cyber-bullied other students on the grounds that the school doesn't have the authority to control children on the nights and weekends and that the school is not the police department.

Obviously, bullying sucks. Anyone who's ever been bullied knows that. So, on the one hand, I totally relate and have empathy for these kids. But I'm torn because I don't think that pretending that bullying doesn't exist is the right approach. Okay, so you've effectively put up a wall of make-believe at school and made the students stop picking on each other, great. What's going to happen when those students go to work and find themselves working with coworkers, or even for a boss who is a bully? What if the HR person is a bully? (Yes, that happens, while I never was the target of that, I have personally seen it). It seems to me that instead of trying with futility to change the whole of human behavior, we should be teaching children how to respond to bullying. I suppose it's possible (but I think highly unlikely) that they might teach kids not to bully other kids and that once they are out of school those kids will suddenly all just become nice people, but what happens when those people interact with people from other countries where bullying isn't outlawed? They will literally have no skills to handle such a situation. I don't see how that is helping. We don't tell our kids "Hey, bicycles are dangerous and you might fall down and get hurt so we're going to put a ban on bicycles until you're 25 and how no idea how to ride them anyway." No, we teach our kids, this is how you ride a bike. This is how you get up and dust yourself off when you fall down. This is how you laugh it off and take it in stride.

Rather than protecting our kids from this menace I really feel like a better use of our time and money would be to teach kids to have confidence in who they are and embrace their quirks. I vociferously oppose the "zero tolerance" policy in schools. I have, and will always tell my kids that they have the right to defend themselves. If someone starts a fight with them, they are allowed to fight back. Even if the school suspends them, they will not face repercussions at home as long as they didn't start it.

I've found that most of the people who bully do so because they are insecure themselves, and most of the people who tend to get bullied are some of the most awesome people. Wil Wheaton has talked several times about how he was bullied as a kid, and he has really great advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04WJEEb33CY I was called a nerd a lot in school. I know, that's a big surprise to everyone who knows me even a little (sarcasm). I am huge nerd. I make no apologies about that. It's who I am and I fully embrace that fully. I'm a dork, and I'm silly and I find wonderment in life from the inner workings of our universe down to the smallest atoms and how photosynthesis works. It's just absolutely amazing to me. I wouldn't trade any of what I know for people to stop calling me a nerd. The more I know, the more beautiful and amazing the world becomes. In some ways I do pity those who rebuke science because they will never see how beautifully intricate everything is. We shouldn't be teaching kids to run away and hide from ridicule. We should be giving them the confidence to embrace who they are enjoy what they love.

The Portrayal of Self

[Johnathan Clayborn]

There has been a lot of fallout and discussion over the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO a short time ago. To say that there are some strong, political and philosophical disagreements over the issue would be a gross understatement. People are quick to argue about their take on the militarization of police, abuse of power, the requirements for lethal force, and the overall social injustice of underprivileged minorities being discriminated against. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these conversations shouldn't take place, because they should. They're very important conversations to be having as a nation and as individuals. But there was one bit of fallout from this that's not discussed very much, and when it is, it's often a one-sided discussion. So, rather than contribute my two cents to the plethora of opinions about the above topics I wanted to talk about the portrayal of self.

There are many people who are complaining because the media is showing picture a picture of Michael Brown that makes it hard to view him as a defenseless victim. His detractors are using this photo as justification that he deserved to be shot and was dangerous. His supporters are saying that the photo was taken out of context and was hand-picked by the media to deliberately portray him in a bad light. Take a look:


In an apparent show of support for Mr. Brown and as a backlash to the media many people, mostly young African Americans, are posting two photos of themselves, one respectable and the other questionable with the hashtag: IfTheyGunnedMeDown. You can see examples of some of the photos here and here and here and here.

There are two things that I want to point out. First, is that the media is not the paragon of impartial truth that they are sometimes considered to be. I've worked with enough reporters and been burned by them and seen them in action enough to have first hand knowledge of this. The news will always report the story with a slant. And if it's not the slant of whatever major political corporation pays the bills, then it's whatever slant will generate the most viewership. So, you should expect that the media will always use the worst photo of you that they can find.

The second thing that I want to point out is that you have total control over this. Many of the articles talk about these photos and throwing around the terms "alleged gang signs". No. These are gang signs. What other signs are they if they aren't gang signs? They aren't peace signs. They sure as hell aren't American Sign Language. They are gang signs. If you are a respectable person, would you want to associate yourself with a gang by flashing signs in photos? Gangs do nothing but perpetuate violence. Many gangs have a "blood in, blood out" policy that requires violence. You certainly don't see gangs helping old ladies across the street, covering up graffiti or feeding the homeless. Why would any person want to associate themselves with such organizations. If you post crap like that on your page, society will judge you as thuggish. If you are posting such photos as a joke, you need to revise your sense of humor. It would be akin to me posting a photo, as a horribly unfunny joke, of myself in a KKK hood and then being upset when the media circulates that picture calling me a racist. And I never understood the point of flipping off the camera either. I typically don't go around giving people the bird in my day-to-day life, so why would I pose a picture of that on my page? If I saw people walking down the street throwing signs or flipping people off, I would pay them closer attention and view them warily.

Society will judge you by whatever means that they can, and whatever means they have available to them. If you don't want to be viewed as a thug or a brute, or a no-good-doer, then stop posting pictures of gang signs, drugs, profanity, etc. If you want society to view you as a respectable person, then keep that stuff off of your page. It's really that simple. You have the power to control how you are viewed by society. You have the power to say to the world "this is who I am, and this is how I want you to see me". Make a smart choice.

The measure of a man

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Recently I've found myself asking what makes a person a "good person". Sure, the obvious answers are they have a sense of ethics and morals. But, ethical and moral codes are subjective and dependent entirely on the cultures and religions that define them. What is considered perfectly ethical one in culture is not ethical in another culture. But, beyond that, what makes a person a good person? Are there universal traits that make a person "good"?

Respect for other people is probably one trait that I would mark highly on the list of a good person. Do they treat people equally and fairly in all situations? Do they think themselves equal to everyone or do they see themselves as superior to others? Do they treat service staff like human beings instead of servants? Do they treat everyone with the respect and dignity that they deserve, or they think that they own other people directly or indirectly?

Falling right along those lines similarly is compassion. Do they have compassion for others? Are they likely to give up their last $5 so that  someone starving and homeless on the street  can get some food, or are they likely to walk past saying that they deserve it? Do they protect those who are weaker than they are, or do they prey on them?

What about integrity? Is this a mandate of a good person? Many would argue, Yes. I would be inclined to agree with them. In it's most basic form integrity means doing what you say that you are going to do and doing the right thing even when no one is looking. It means being able to live with yourself after all is said and done.

What about selflessness? I would argue yes again here as well. are they willing to go out of their way to help others? Are they willing to help others at all? Would they park at the top of a freeway off-ramp and walk 1/2 mile back down the hill to help some poor sap push their 1974 Cadillac up the hill in August in Phoenix asking for nothing in return, or would they continue to drive by? Would they spend $100 of their own money to buy wooden cross necklaces for the homeless just to give them a glimmer of hope, or do they think that homeless people should have to work for everything that they need too?

What about community improvement/civic duty? Are they requirements for a good person? Do they volunteer in things that make not just their own lives better, but increase the betterment of the whole neighborhood? Is that a requirement for a good person, or does that play a factor at all?

If these general codes are the essence of a good person, how much margin of error is a person, a human being, allowed before they go from being a good person to a bad person? Is it one strike and you're suddenly a bad person? By this criteria I hit every single mark of a good person on this list. So that makes me a good person, right? But what I've lied? What if I've made mistakes? what if I had allowed myself to develop a bad behavior due to an intense emotional stimulus? Am I still a good person then, or does that mistake overwrite all of the good that's within me?

When we judge other people we should take care not judge people by their behaviors alone, but by the entirety of their character and their intent and motivations for those behaviors. Someone very dear to me told me that they didn't believe that people can change. I think that for the most part this is true, but with a critically important caveat; a person's nature cannot change, but a person's behavior can. If a person is self-absorbed and is only interested in getting what they can for themselves, then they will not likely change that nature save for an act of divine intervention. However, if a person has developed a bad habit, a bad behavior, or something about them that is otherwise negative we should take care to ask ourselves if the cause for this behavior can be removed or changed, or if we are going to discard all of the positive traits that a person has because of a temporary situation. Addicts of all sorts successfully go through rehabilitation programs all of the time. They are usually good people who are in a bad spot. But, someone saw enough good in them to help them through their situation and give them a different set of behaviors, a way to change their pattern and their stimulus that drives that behavior. Shouldn't we afford that same chance to everyone? Shouldn't everyone be given a second chance to demonstrate that they have the propensity to change, and that they can go from being good people to wonderfully amazing people? At what point are people resigned to their sins and deemed hopeless?

Much adverse human behavior is predicated by one solitary emotion: fear. What each of us fears is different, but fear compels us to act in strange ways that are outside of our normal character and pattern of behavior. A very good friend of mine once told me that fear is nothing but "False Emotions Appearing Real". I really wish I had remembered that advice sooner, but I can tell you from experience that fear can cast a pretty intensive and realistic hallucination on your mind if you let it and in the process you can ruin the best things that have ever happened to you and the things that matter most in life. If you find yourself stuck in a situation of inaction as I was, or overly nervous about doing something, like forgiving, trusting, or making a change in your life, ask yourself what is it that you are truly afraid of. Dig deep, find the cause, and wipe it out. Fear has never done anything good for anyone and only serves to allow many of the best things to become tarnished, broken, or lost completely. Don't let the wonderful people in your life slip away because of fear. That is a regret that you will have forever because, sadly, there was no real reason for it in the first place.

Emotional Stability and Motivation

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Recently something has happened that has rocked my emotional foundation to its very core. I have always been aware of how much emotional needs tie into other aspects of life, but this time I am acutely so. What I've also discovered is that the pyramid shape of the hierarchy, if it is truly a pyramid, can experience earthquakes (..or need-quakes?) .



The traditional hierarchy is presented in 5 levels, the base of the pyramid, and the most important level, is physiological needs; food, water, warmth, rest, etc. Then after you have is Safety and Security, then Belongingness and Love needs, then Esteem Needs, and finally self-actualization at the top.

In theory, if something in the middle of the pyramid breaks, it should affect the levels above it. However, this isn't necessarily true. For example, hypothetically speaking, suppose the person that you are madly in love with suddenly decides that they don't want to be in a relationship with you. This is revealed in the middle layer; love and belonging. Certainly, you don't feel loved or like you belong. Certainly being rejected in such a fashion can damage your ego and self-esteem, which in turn topples the self-actualization component. Why try making something beautiful like art or working on self-improvement, when you don't feel worthy of being improved to begin with?

What surprised me was that this upset to the middle layer also reverberates back down to the lower levels as well. When there's a major disruption to something like that people usually do not eat or sleep, or if they do it is in small amounts. This belies the nature of the first layer and flies in its face as a contradiction. It can also affect the safety and security layer as well. Some people are actually motivated to hurt themselves physically, but even those who are not have a general feeling of apathy and won't try as hard to keep themselves safe as before. They either don't care about their bodies or their health as they should, or they don't avoid risky behavior like they should and sometimes actually seek it out. All these actions contradict the pyramid shaped hierarchy structure.

A disruption to emotional stability, especially a drastic and unexpected one can have serious consequences to motivation and thoughts of self-worth. It definitely affects a person's self-esteem profoundly. The effects of these impacts to the hierachy are often long-lasting and can be quite serious. In some cases these effects can be life-long.

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



Ethics in Practice

[Johnathan Clayborn]

This isn't the first article that I've written on the topic of Ethics. But this article will take a different approach. First, I would like to start by making the assertion that Ethics and Morals are not interchangeable concepts, not completely. Ethics are concepts that are defined as right and wrong by the societal normalization of acceptable behavior. These are defined in our laws, our professional standards and guidelines, and the infamous Court of Public Opinion. This is wholly separate from the concept of Morals, which are defined as a much more personal belief of right and wrong. This belief typically arises from a number of factors, but the most prominent seem to be familial upbringing and religious influence.

Having established this distinction it should be somewhat obvious that cultures, countries, and people will not always align in these areas. sometimes two groups will have the same basic morals, but will be ethically unbalanced. For example, it may be morally unjust in both countries to kill someone. However, one country may believe that lying your way to the top is perfectly ethical behavior whereas the other country frowns upon it. Or, the two groups could be ethically aligned, but morally diametrically opposed. For example, in both countries dishonesty is severly frowned upon and highly unethical, however, country A is perfectly fine with the practice of infanticide so long as they are honest about it, while country B would never dream of it.

The class that I just started is PSYC 8703 - Ethical Standards in Psychology. I was reading some things on the internet today that got be wondering about the ethics of research, not just in the field of psychology, but research in general. Two years ago I conducted an informal experiment on Wikipedia. I wanted to test the accuracy of the information there (on a general level) and present the null hypothesis that "anyone can change the data", as is so often the case. To test this I set about creating a fake profile. I kept a spreadsheet of each page I visited, what the date and the time was, and exactly what change I made to that page. Some changes were blatantly fake, but others were much more subtle. In 100% of the cases, Wikipedia found my error and corrected it, within 15 minutes. Pretty damned impressive, really. After that they also made sure to revoke my edit access and then they banned my IP address. One of the administrators sent me a scathing email accusing me of vandalizing the wikipedia site. I explained that I was conducting an experiment and had a full record to put everything back the correct way and that my intent wasn't to valdalize anything, but instead to test Wikipedia's integrity. He pointed out that this study had been done already. I pointed out that most scientific studies need to be repeated with similar results before they are wholly accepted as fact, at which point he permanantly banned my fake account after accusing me of being unethical. Maybe he's right, I don't know. For me, it wasn't an unethical action as my intent was pure and in pursuit of truth. How can I independently verify the accuracy and efficacy of the site if they know that I'm breaking it? That test would have to be done blind. Is that unethical? I don't know.

But it's certainly not the first time something like this has been done. I learned today that several MIT grad students had done essentially this very same behavior. They created a software program called SCIGen that will randomly write "scientific research journals". Anyone who has any understanding of computer science can tell that these are obviously fake, but to the untrained eye they may appear legitimate. The three students submitted these fake papers to some of the largest journal publishers in the world, and more than 205 of them were accepted for publication (Slate, 2014). These researchers intentionally submitted ficticious data to a reference source to verify the accuracy of what was being published. They obviously kept records of what they submitted, and they told the publishers about their findings, but not until after the fact. That begs the question, if their test of the journal's Peer Review Process was the same as the general procedure that I employed to test Wikipedia, then would that make it unethical also? By comparison it seems that, at least according to the Wikipedia admin who banned me, yes it would. If not, what's different about their situation as compared to mine?

This tactic is fairly old for testing the accuracy of things. In 1973 a famous psychologist, Dr. David L. Rosenhan began what later became known as the Rosenhan experiment. Dr. Rosenhan and 7 friends and colleagues went to a dozen different psychiatric emergency rooms claiming that they heard voices. They gave fake names and jobs, but otherwise were honest and did not mislead the staff in any other way (Wikipedia). In all cases the testers were admitted for anywhere between 7 and 52 days. Once admitted they began behaving normally again and were all eventually discharged with diagnoses of "schizophrenia, in remission" (Slate, 2006). When he published his findings the article another local teaching hospital reputed his findings saying that his staff would not make those same errors. Rosenhan informed the hospital that they would be testing them and would be sending random imposters to their hospital over the next 3 months. At the end of the period the hospital director jubiantly reported that out of 193 patients they had identified 41 as definite imposters and another 42 as possible imposters. His victory was short-lived when Dr. Rosenhan wrote back saying that, in truth, he sent no imposters at all (Wikipedia). It's been quite some time since this test was conducted, but the realm of psychiatry has advanced since then. There's a well-established, peer-reviewed set of guidelines called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that outlines the conditions for mental disorders. It was recently revised again and the 5th edition, DSM-5, was just released. The practices of medical insurance billing muddy the efficiacy of this tool somewhat, but it certainly helps in preventing erroneous diagnosis. Some recent experiments have attempted to replicate Rosenhan's experiement with varying degrees of success, but at least one journalist argued that the practice of sending fake patients to a hospital for the purpose of testing their diagnostic efficacy was "ethically dubious" (Slate, 2006).

That really is the crux of the question for today's article; is it ethically dubious to test if a system is really working by knowingly submitting false data to that system to see if it errors out? This is a standard practice in computer programming, but computers aren't people. As a psychology doctoral student, I can say with certainty that people behave different when they are being observed and tested than when they are not. Since the vast majority of times these human-driven systems are operating without direct supervision or observation, it becomes necessary to test them in a manner that replicates their day-to-day operation. This happens all of the time in our daily lives. Think about the old Fire Drills. Did they ever tell you that they were doing them? No. It defeats the purpose of the test if you're ready for it. What about so-called Secret Shoppers than companies employ to test to see if their stores are following proper procedures? They certainly don't tell the stores that they are coming. There are countless examples of this in daily life. If these examples of submitting false data to a system and observing the result are not ethically dubious, then what separates them from the examples above? Where does one draw the line? Is it when there's a monetary value associated to the test? Or when the consent from the test comes from the stakeholders themselves? What about situations where the test subject is being offered as a public service or a public domain? Since all of these are intrinsically the exact same operation, what could lead to some of them being ethically acceptable and others not?  

References:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

SCIgen Website: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/take_the_shrink_challenge.html

The Nature of Human Nature II

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I know, I write about all of these weird philosophical topics a lot. Human nature is one that I constantly find myself coming back to over and over. I have this deep-rooted desire to understand everything, especially why I am the way that I am and how I fit into the larger structure that is human civilization. 

I have been reading several books lately, among them is How the Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill. I've been enjoying it thoroughly so far. At one part of the book the author mentions something in passing that really struck a chord with me and I immediately took it and applied a different context to it. 

The author had mentioned how emotional the Irish were, and how their emotions that they had back them have not changed and we still feel the same way today. That was an epiphany of sorts for me. This entire time I have been looking at the answers for human nature as a cognitive or behavioral function. But it occurs to me now that this is folly. Our behavior, as individuals and as a society, changes over time. Our thought processes, individually and collectively, also change over time as we learn new things. But our emotions remain constant. For thousands upon thousands of years the emotions of the human spectrum have not changed. 

We are gifted with a wide range of emotions; angst, fear, love, hope, anxiety, despair, sorrow, joy, grief, sadness, pride, depression, fury, terror, jealousy, happiness, regret, euphoria, anger, faith, rage, remorse, pity, compassion, peace, a broad, wonderful, beautiful range of emotions. The despair and terror that we feel today are just as powerful and overwhelming as our ancestors who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. 

I suggest, that human nature is not defined by specific actions that we take individually or collectively, but rather by the range of our emotions. Simply put; human nature is to feel. That is the curse and the blessing of the human condition. Whether the feelings be good or bad, slight or overwhelming, it is those very feelings that let us know that we are alive. 

The Platonic Fallacy

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Those of you who know me well know that I am a voracious reader. I read lots of book on a wide variety of topics. I've been reading a fascinating book on Irish History (one that I lost and had to buy again) called "How the Irish saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. It's a pretty good book, and quite insightful. One of the things that he mentions at one point is the Platonic Fallacy, which was something that I wanted to delve into a little more.

The Platonic Fallacy, of course, derives from the great Greek philosopher, Plato. The crux of the fallacy is the thought that "knowledge is virtue". This is something that I had encountered before as a youth and as a teenager, but I never really paid much attention to the deeper meaning of it until now, especially not in the context of what Plato actually meant.

According to Plato, knowledge is virtue. In his mind, the two words are synonymous and interchangeable. But are they really? The dictionary defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral standards", and lists synonyms; goodness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, purity, etc. Never once does the dictionary list knowledge as a literal synonym for virtue. 

Knowledge is many things. As one adage expresses, knowledge is power. That might be true, but if knowledge is power, and if Plato was right, wouldn't that also make power equal virtue? Power is many things, but Virtue it is not. As another old adage says, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". So, either this adage is wrong and power is virtue, or else Plato is wrong. Based on the words and actions of the people who are often in power, I would tend to believe that the adage is right and Plato is wrong.

Knowledge can be many things. Knowledge can be respectable. Knowledge can be pure (especially knowledge that is pursued for the sake of simply knowing and not trying to prove or disprove anything). Knowledge can also be dignified, to a point. But that is where I think the similarities between knowledge and virtue end. Am I saying that knowledge is an ill-gotten endeavor to be discredited and shunned? Hardly. I wouldn't be a PhD student if I felt that way. But, I am saying that knowledge itself does not posses any intrinsic properties which make it morally just or righteous. Knowledge is a tool. And, like all tools, the purpose and intent of the tool is shaped and defined by the will of the person who wields that tool.

Let's think about this in more depth. There are ethics; rules by which society mandates we should abide. Then there are morals; rules that our own personal beliefs and convictions mandate that we must abide. Knowledge may help shape and inform these different rules, but knowledge in and of itself is not the same as these rules.

To put this into a practical, philosophical example, let us speak of the digital age and computers. With practice, experience, and a little tutelage, anyone can learn to use computers, and learn to use them well. With copious amounts of practice, and knowledge gained through experience, some people can become quite skilled at modifying lines of computer code to change the way that the computer behaves. This is knowledge. By itself this knowledge is neither good, nor evil. It is simply knowledge that exists in a state completely devoid of moral or ethical implications, as all knowledge does. But, when a person decides to use this knowledge, then it takes on the moral and ethical implications of their actions. For example, if a person decides to use the knowledge of changing lines of computer code to steal information, or forge fake identities, or steal money, then society would typically say that the knowledge of "hacking" is evil and shouldn't be learned. However, without understanding how hacking works, then other people cannot use that same knowledge to build software and tools to protect people from those who would use that knowledge for ill.

Just because a person possesses knowledge does not automatically make them virtuous; their actions determine that. And there are certainly many people who perform virtuous actions that do not have much education or knowledge. The amount of education that a person has doesn't automatically make them better than anyone else, or more important, and certainly not more virtuous. Virtue has one simple and unequivocal measure; the intent and actions of an individual. I have more to say on that topic, so maybe "intent" will be the topic of another post in the near future. 

The Nature of Human Nature

[Johnathan Clayborn]

As many of you who know me well know, I often volunteer my time for various activities and organizations. I've been part of Relay for Life committees, been on the public safety council for my city, and fed the homeless more times than I can count. One of the volunteer things that I do is answer questions on AllExperts.com. I volunteer both as an English language expert, and in the "writer's block" category.

For the most part the people who ask questions there are learning to speak English and they want to know if they've used to the correct verb tense, or the correct adverb, etc. However, every now then one of my regular, recurring questioners asks me something profound. Today I got an email from one such person in Poland who has emailed me several times. As they learn more about me and my background and experiences a few of them sometimes use that channel to ask questions about philosophy of psychology. Last time I heard from this gentleman in Poland he was asking me to interpret what a particular author was saying about different kinds of love and whether or not I agreed. Here's was today's question for me:

Hello Mr. Johnathan. 
Once again I'm not going to ask about grammar or writing, but rather about psychology. 

Last time I asked you about love. Today my question pertains to a similar subject, I think. 

Do you think that all people, by nature, need someone else to share their life with? It seems to me that most of the people cannot live alone, they feel they need someone and sooner or later find him or her. Of course there are monks/priests/nuns etc. who live in celibacy, but aren't they, in this way, going against their nature? 

I think I heard or read somewhere that we are, in a sense, (I'm not sure which word is correct here) imperfect or handicapped because we cannot live (or at least it's not comfortable for us to live)without the other person - of course I'm talking about a relationship between a man and a woman.

What are your thoughts on this?

I rather enjoy this more philosophical questions as they break up the tedium of explaining verb-tense agreement and other such grammatical rules. 

This is a very complex question, with many different factors to consider and many different possible philosophical lenses to view the question from. 

I'll start with the easier part of this question, whether or not people can live their lives alone. This, in and of itself, is a complex question. Intrinsically humans are very social creatures. We like to belong to groups. As Professor Diamond explains in his book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", this is a throwback of evolutionary psychology from our hunter-gatherer stage. Being part of a group meant that that you would have a much better chance of survival. This component of human psychology has carried over to modern society. We, as a species, do prefer to be part of a group. We often find ways to associate ourselves with a group and we actually strive for and foster that "us versus them" mentality. When there are no ready-made groups available, we often invent some so that we can develop this sense of belonging, which is one of the steps in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. With the advent of the internet, this is much, much easier than ever before in history. Now we have the ability to divide ourselves along racial lines, nationalities, political lines, religious beliefs, sports teams, which games and shows and band we like, etc. 

Just because humans have a natural tendency for socialization and belonging doesn't mean that people as individuals are always well-suited for this. There was an article in a recent issue of Psychology Today magazine that talked about the growing demographic of deliberately unmarried single adults, people who have chosen to live a single lifestyle because they are happier being by themselves than with a partner (a concept that seems strange to me, personally). As humans I do think that we all want to belong, that we all want to love and be loved, and that we all want someone to share our joys, our achievements, and our heartaches with. But I do think that there are a number of people out there who are not only capable of living alone, but who actually prefer it. Many of these people date, and fulfill their need for intimate human contact with either friends who understand the boundaries of that relationship, or with people whom they meet randomly every so often. 

But, this brings us to the question of whether or not this behavior is in violation of human nature. When I was younger I used to do a philosophy exercise. I would pick a question or a topic and then on one day I would make arguments in favor of that position. On the next day I would argue the opposite point. I would pick random things like "Can one person really make a difference?" and argue the point back and forth with myself for weeks. One of my questions was "is there really such a thing as human nature at all"? To this day I am convinced that if there really is a such thing as human nature, it is not a cleanly-defined set of rules or parameters for behavior. I think it's much more complex and abstract than that. The reason that I think this is that almost every type of human behavior that you can think of has a counter-part and opposite behavior that exists in dichotomous opposition to the first behavior. For example; there are those people who would donate and give away most of the things that they own to help others, but there are others would who steal and horde things away for themselves. There are those who would stand up and protect the weak and the infirm, but there are also those who would pick on them and prey on them. There are those who say that human nature is to believe in something greater (perhaps God), but there are also those not only don't believe in religion but don't believe that there is anything greater. I could go on, but the point is; how can any of these behaviors be "human nature" if there exists another behavior that is the exact opposite? If it were human nature, then wouldn't all people be more or less compelled to be that way through the intrinsic properties of human DNA? So, I propose to you, that maybe human nature is to be in conflict, with ourselves, and with each other, in such a way that there are no clearly-defined rules that define the human experience. 

The Necessary Art of Self-Deception

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I know that as a blogger I'm not doing a very good job of posting regular articles. But, to be perfectly honest this pursuit is at least of quatinary importance to me falling in line after school, family, and work obligations are met (not necessarily in that order). So, it should come as no surprise that I haven't posted in a while. These last few months have kept me very busy, but on the up side I have officially completed my 1st year of my PhD progam.

I had many interesting conversations and topics come up during the last couple of months, but didn't have the time to write about them. I'm going to use this opportunity to write about one of the more recent conversations that came up in school during my Culture and Ethics class.

As human beings we are amazingly good at the art of self-deception. We also have this amusingly frustrating ability to define things in the absolute. This is particularly true when it comes to questions and topics of a moral or ethical nature.

One thing that I've noticed of late is that humans are generally very quick to point the blame and criticize or ridicule those whom they feel have violated their preconceived notions of morality. We have our own set of moral codes and beliefs that we staunchly and stoutly cling to, safely believing that our moral code is infallible and that we would adhere to these rules unquestionably.

In truth, life is simply not that simple. Now, mind you, I'm not advocating the creative implementation of excuses to defy your moral code. I'm not even suggesting that you should actively seek opportunities to do so. But, I am saying that when it comes to how we evaluate our actions and behavior perhaps there is a little too much confirmation bias at play.

Often I have been in conversations with people who say things like "I would never steal anything". Really? Never? Never ever? That's an interesting lie that you're telling yourself. Now, for 1 person out of 1,000 this might be true, with emphasis on might. But for the vast majority of us we're engaging in self-deception. Does this mean that most people are thieves and crooks? No. But, what I am suggesting is that there might exist an extenuating circumstance so grievious that the most logical choice of action would be to break your moral code.

Take, for example, a natural disaster or a public crisis. Suppose that your city is in panic. Power is out. Your refridgerator is no longer working. Instead of having 2 weeks of food on hand (which is the national average according to FEMA, by the way), your cold goods are now bad and you have 5 days worth of dry goods to eat. In a survival situation people should keep in mind the rule of 3's: people can generally not survive more than 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. Now, bearing this in mind, if you were in this siutation where you had no electricity and little food, if you were to fast-forward 2 weeks to the point where you have haven't eaten in days and you're starving. Maybe you have small children to think of as well. If you came across a store that had food inside, would break in and steal it? Most people would when faced with that situation, even those people who devoutly profess that they would never steal anything. What if there was someone who was hoarding food? Would you physically attack them to try to take food for your own family? If they think they could take them in a fight or they were desperate enough, most people would. Of course, it's easy to deny it now when everything is kosher and say that you're above all of that, but if you ever find yourself in such a situation see what you think then.

So why is it that we do this? Why do we have this inherent need to lie to ourselves? The answer, simply, is because we have to. We have to beleive that we are good people and are incapable of egregious acts like what I described above. To admit to ourselves that we would, in fact, break many or of our own moral codes if the situation mandated that we must presents us with a logical fallacy that our cognitive brains are not capable of

reconciling. Granted, the tipping point for most people to cross their ethical and moral boundaries is quite varied. For some people it doesn't take much, but for others the situation has to be extraordinary. A lot of this self-deception is the fault of our own egos and super-egos, which are the psychological process that our brains use to develop our self image. We tend to be happier and healthier when we can picture ourselves as good people, incapable of any wrongdoing at any time.

Albert Bandura: Social Modeling Theory - fact or fiction?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Question: Can classroom bullying be attributed to social modeling and/or vicarious learning?

To answer the question of whether or not classroom bullying can be attributed to Social Modeling Theory, we have to first examine if social modeling theory is viable and logical outside of the classroom.

Albert Bandura postulated that people learn behavior through modeling (Bandura, 1977). According to this theory, people learn how to behave by watching those around them. There are certainly some examples where this would seem to be the case, but as a general principle, I disagree with Bandura, at least with regards to violence. I do not believe that violence is a trait that is learned through social modeling at all. Violence, whether we like it or not, is an intrinsic part of being human.

Any day that you watch the news you will see evidence of violence; shootings, muggings, rape, murder. It happens every day all over the world. Most of the media is quick to blame violent video games, saying that the shooters were influenced and learned how to do it from these video games, which would support Bandura's theory (ABC News, 2013). However, others, myself included, are quick to argue the fallacy of this logic in what has become a hotly debated topic (Atlantic wire, 2013).

Regardless of what side of this debate you find yourself on you cannot logically deny the fact that violence has existed long before video games. There are many famous mass shootings that happened prior to the advent of violent video games: George Hennard - 1991, Patrick Henry Sherrill - 1986, James Huberty - 1984, George Banks - 1982, Joseph Whitman - 1966, etc (CNN, 2013). So, if social modeling through video games is to blame for today's modern killers, then what social modeling is to blame for these killers? Television? What about mass murders that happened prior to television? Did Jack the Ripper learn how to kill through social modeling in victorian literature?

In parts of the world that are completely devoid of media, children still violent games with each other (Diamond, 1999). One could make the argument that these children learned to be violent through social modeling through their parents and other adults in their communities. However, violence has been used as a family event and a form of entertainment for hundreds of years. During the "wild west" and the colonial era of American history public executions were common practice that included the whole family. This practice originated from Medieval europe where it was precedated by the Roman practice of the gladitorial games.

Probably the most damning concept to Banduras theory is Otzi the Iceman. Otzi is the oldest, intact complete human remains ever recovered from anywhere in the world with his mummified corpse dating back 5,000 years ago (PBS, 2011). He is damning to bandura's theory because in addition to being the oldest intact human ever found, he's also the world's oldest cold-case murder victim; he was shot in the back with an arrow and cudgeled over the head (PBS, 2011). If Bandura's theory of social modeling is correct, and we learn our behaviors from those around us and our parents, then where did the people who came before learn how to be violent? One might argue that violence was learned and perpetuated from the earliest humans, but where did they learn it? Additionally, there are many examples of people who do the opposite of the behaviors that were socially modeled for them; pastor's chidlren becoming involved in gangs or drugs, people who grew up in a gang family becoming police officers, etc. If social modeling is correct, then why do these people deviate from, and do the exact opposite of the behaviors that were modeled for them?

To get back to the original question; can classroom bullying be attributed to social modeling and/or vicarious learning? No, I don't think so. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that this is not the reason why children bully each other. I would argue that there is something within our residual evoluationary psychology that makes children bully each other, rather than social modeling. I would argue that peer pressure and the need for acceptance plays a much bigger role than social modeling.

Personally I think that peer pressure and evolutionary psychology play a more important role than social modeling. Humans are an intrinsically social group. In our days as a hunter-gatherer society society ostracization from the group meant almost certain death (Diamond, 1999). This is one reason we still like to form groups and perpetuate an "us vs. them" mentality in everything we do from religion to politics to sports. In a throwback from our hunter-gatherer days we still view strength as a desirable trait and people are incined to try to "prove" their strength by picking on those weaker than they are.

References:

ABC News (2013) How Violent Video Games fit in with Violent Behavior. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/navy-yard-shooter-played-military-style-videogames-relevant/story?id=20285169

Atlantic Wire (2013) Don't Blame Video Games for Monday's Mass shooting. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/09/dont-blame-violent-video-games-mondays-mass-shooting/69499/

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,

CNN (2013) 25 Deadliest Shootings in US History http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

Diamond, Jared. (1999) Guns, Germs, and steel: The fate of human civilizations.

PBS (2011) Iceman Murder Mystery http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/iceman-murder-mystery.html

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

The Paradox of Computer Simulated Time Travel

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Earlier today I was reading a thoroughly fascinating article on Discovery.com. The article (link below for the curious) posited that universe very well might be an artificially manufactured construct created by an Intelligent Design, although not in the sense that most people might think of. While not proposing that God in the biblical sense is responsible for the universe, there are some scientists and philosophers who are arguing that intelligent design might indeed be why we are here reading this blog right now.

The main part of this theory, in summary, is the fact that the universe, our solar system, even our planet all essentially won the intergalactic lottery and had conditions that were just right for life to develop. They argue that if the universe were designed this way, it would certainly explain why everything is just right. Also, even more mind-boggling; if the universe were custom designed for us it would explain the Formi Paradox and answer the question of why there are no other aliens. But, if God is not responsible for this, then who? According these scientists; we are.

Our current day technology allows us to use supercomputers to model, predict, and analyze minute parts of the universe and try to understand it. As our computer technology increases, then the amount of things that we would be able to model would increase also. Theoretically, with a large enough computer, we should be able to model the entire universe.

The researchers hypothesize that our far-distant future descendants might have hypothetically reached that point and are running a simulation right now; a simulation that we are all part of. The researchers even hypothesize that humans might have created artificial intelligence, which created artificial intelligence, and so on and it is this non-living descendant that is actually running the simulation out of curiosity about how their ancient biological ancestors might have lived. While that would conveniently answers questions like the Formi Paradox and the Big Bang, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

For one thing, as with many poorly written time-travel examples from Hollywood, this hypothesis still doesn’t account for the standard temporal paradox that always associates time travel. If, hypothetically, this theory were true, then it would certainly mean our descendants had to have lived in the real universe long enough to make progeny that would have advanced to the point where they would be technologically capable of even running the experiment. But, if this carefully modeled, carefully constructed universe is indeed a simulation and was intended to make everything just right for us to exist and the odds of that happening are a billion to one, then how, pray tell, did our real descendants come to be in the real, uncontrolled universe in the first place? Surely some place that wasn’t carefully constructed would have had even more risk factors and less favorable conditions. So, the researchers would have us believe that we originally existed in an even more tumultuous reality and having somehow, miraculously survived that one, created this just right universe to model how ancient people lived?

Also, another blaring question that is raised by this; computer simulations, even mega simulations, are governed by a specific set of rules and laws. According to the scientists, there is a test that can be performed that would determine if our version of reality really is real. Suppose they find out that it really is just a simulation, then what? What would be the purpose of having a computer simulation be self-aware that it is living in a simulation? Surely, from a scientific process this would ruin their experiment. This type of experiment is known as naturalistic observation and conclusion about the behavior of the people or animals involved are entirely dependent on the fact that they are not aware that they are being watched. As soon as an organism becomes aware that it is being watched its behavior changes and then the results become biased. So why make this super-elaborate experiment only to have it ruined by self-awareness?

While this hypothesis is certainly interesting, it doesn’t seem all that logical to me. Either way it will be interesting to see what results the scientists turn up from their experiments to prove or disprove this theory.

Reference:

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc17  

Grief & Loss

[Johnathan Clayborn]

My heart at aches heavily at the news of the shooting at Sandy Point Elementary School earlier this morning. As of this writing the estimates are that 27 people are dead and 18 of them are school children, most of them in Kindergarten. This really hits home for me as my own son, William, is in first grade and is almost the same age as many of these victims.

Grief is complex, powerful emotion. Zoologists have shown that even animals feel grief. Grief can be slight or it can be completely and totally debilitating. It can just appear suddenly without warning, particularly in cases where the grief is the result of a disaster or catastrophe.

What’s rather interesting is how we handle grief. For one thing, if people perish as the result of a natural disaster; a flood, a hurricane, etc, then it seems like we have a somewhat easier time dealing with that. Sure, there is still grief, particularly for those who lost loved ones, but we sort of recognize on some level that the situation was completely out of our hands. However, when the grief is the result of an act of senselessness, like this shooting, we have a much harder time processing this. Part of that seems to be due to the fact that perpetrators of these heinous acts actually have a choice. They are choosing to commit these acts and they are choosing to take the lives of others. When we cannot process what thought patterns would lead a human being to make such a senseless, irrational decision, we falter in our ability to process and handle the grief.

Another strange quirk of grief; grief is amplified by its proximity to salvation. You might be wondering what I mean by that. Suppose that you have a plane full of people and the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean and everyone perishes. It’s sad, a horrible tragedy to be sure. However, if that exact same plan crashed within a few miles of the runway they were trying to reach, it seems like a far worse tragedy. What changed? The same number of people perished either way. The biggest difference is the fact the people almost made it; they were almost safe. Being that close to being safe and falling short seems to make any disaster worse.

This certainly isn't the blog post I was intending on making today, but I felt compelled to discuss grief and its complexity. You’ll have to forgive me if this isn't one of my longer posts, I’m going to go take some time to myself and try to make sense of this tragedy. 

Are We Evolving?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
This question was posed to me earlier today and it got me thinking. I don't think that most people I know would argue against the notion that evolution has infact happened. Assuming that evolution is true, I think the more obvious questions with regards to evolution should be: are we still evolving, and if so, how much?

From a purely biological perspective with regards to physical characteristics, I would argue that the answer would be "not really", and I'll explain that in a minute.

The sociocultural aspect of our collective societies is evolving; of that there seems to be little doubt. Humans have always evolved culturally. (A fascinating read on the overall topic of human civilizations and evolutionary behaviors is Guns, Germs and Steel by Prof. Jared Diamond). In our modern digital world it seems as though our current cultural evolutionary process is leading us to world that is more close-knit and united.

One of the interesting side-effects of becoming more multicultural as a species is that it invariably leads to interracial breeding on a scale not seen before. There have been several studies on the impacts of this. A quick survey of the census records in the US also show this to the be the case as more and more immigrants from other countries move here. Cultural behavior, and certainly multicultural behavior certainly shapes our genetic makeup as we trade and mix DNA with an ever-growing host of potential mates that was not readily available 100 years ago. The October 2011 issues of Psychology Today discusses this very issue citing a 2003 study conducted by Joan Chiao of Northwestern University. The study linked DNA to behavior in ways that were not so expected; such as China's idolization of Communism and the Western culture's adoration of independence. These behaviors are now understood to be driven by genetics. By that logic, changing our genetic makeup will certainly change our behavior. As other's pointed out, I'm not convinced that this would make us any less pliable or adaptable as a species.

Certainly having a genetic admixture will result in noticable physiological changes; skin tone, hair color and type, height, etc. But, from a biological standpoint the question that I find myself asking is: so what? Okay, so my descendants will one day have a skin tone that is more coppery than my fair Irish skin. Does that afford them any special advantages? No. Does having a different height or a different hair type help ensure their survival? Not really. In today's technological world medicine and medications have gone a long way in stamping out things which would have eradicated "weaker specimens" even just a hundred years ago. From that standpoint the introduction of "weak" genes into the genepool persists whence it would have been stamped out before.

From a fundamental standpoint the purpose of evolution is to provide those specimens with the strongest genes the best chance to reproduce and spread healthy offspring. From what I've seen none of the physiological changes that are occurring in our current admixtures of genes seem to be doing this. Sure, they change our physical appearances, but that's about it. This example dealing with shark Genetics (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/australias-hybrid-shark-reveals-evolution-action-904726) reveals a more arguable demonstration of evolution in action; the sharks are adapting to endure different temperature climates than what they were otherwise used to. What primary advantages does the admixture of modern human genetics provide us? We have houses to shelter us from the elements, we have medicine to cure our illnesses. Even within the human species the sexual dimorphism of Homo Sapiens is already far less pronounced than in other species in our genus. The rest of our traits are spread across a wide array of polymorphic attributes.

From a Taxonomy viewpoint the consideration of the human species in general is rather fascinating. For every other species on the planet we break down their taxonomical classifications into distinct sub-groups based on geography and physical characteristics. For example; the Willow Warbler is divided into three distinct sub-species that are genetically identical and the only differences between them is the location of their habitat and the coloring of their plumage. Their skeletal structures are identical. Humans, Homo Sapiens Sapiens in particular, have a wide range of skin colors, hair colors, natural habitats, slightly genetic makeups that, although compatible, are slightly different. And yet, we are all lumped into the exact same genus and sub-species despite obvious polymorphic differences. Surely this muddles the question of evolution and genetic admixture. If you were to break human beings into separate sub-species based on their genetic haplogroups, then because the specific traits that are being analyzed are so narrow, it would certainly argue a stronger case for continuing evolution.

As you might have guessed I can relate to both sides of the debate that humans are and are not evolving. I personally don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. However, I do feel compelled to point out that in my own studies of evolution over a long period of time the driving factor in pushing major physiological changes within a species seems to be either radical climate change or natural disaster on an epic scale (like a giant meteor). Fossil records of human settlements show that our physiology has remained largely unchanged for the last 200,000 years. If this is true, then how much evolutionary process is truly going on now within the span of a few centuries?