Let's Just Cut The Crap.....

Incentives, incentives, INCENTIVES! Will you please give me more incentives to do the very things I claim to value so highly? If this is how we think as a society, then we value nothing but reward and recognition.

This is a tacit admission that we do not value the very things we claim to value. Rather, we value predominantly, perhaps only, reward and recognition. Not that this is wrong or bad, nor particularly right or good either. Apparently it just is what it is.

With this in mind then, can we cut the crap about claiming to value things in themselves and realize that what we are ultimately after is reward and recognition? Examples follow:

- We need to offer children incentives for working hard in school!
- We need incentives to compel people to better care for themselves!
- We need tax write-offs for charitable donations (to our selfishly selected causes)!
- We need God (or at least belief in Him/Her/It) in order to compel us to be compassionate and merciful
- We need belief in reward and punishment rendered by God to compel us to seek virtue and avoid depravity
- We need others' approval to validate our beliefs and actions

Counterpoint: we shouldn't NEED any of these things if we value, or at least claim to value the underlying values themselves!

My own suspicion is we do not value the values, rather we value only what benefits can be had (if this isn't selfish, what is?) through the practice of said values.

In the end, if society takes an honest account of what it actually values, I'm afraid INCENTIVES are a necessity. For if there were no incentives to do the things we claim to value so highly, I can only imagine the result: a totally self-absorbed society devoid of feeling or sympathy for anything outside of selfishly chosen causes.

What's doubly alarming is that oftentimes the practicing of our selfishly chosen causes is ultimately at the mercy of incentives! Which implies we value very little other than reward and recognition via incentives.

For atheists, this comes as no surprise and is logically concluded. For theists, on the other hand, an account must be made of our ultimately selfish behavior.

Heeding Lessons From History

Many might claim that most if not all of my analogies are totally off the mark. I am much obliged to take this criticism. Being this as it may, I think what needs to be pointed out is that by denying the veracity of my analogies, we make ourselves vulnerable to not heeding lessons from history.

I think history can potentially be a wonderful guide for learning from past “mistakes” but it can only be so if we humbly recognize when we are repeating these “mistakes”. Do you see where I am going with this?

If one writes off all my analogies in a desperate attempt to defend his “rightness”, it is unikely any lessons will ever be learned, be them from me or anybody else.

We seem to have a tendency to deny that today is any different from yesterday making the study of history essentially worthless from a practical standpoint.

Statistics: A Perverted Art?

In my own statistical test of other statistical tests, I have concluded there is a 95% probability that any given conclusion is 800% more likely to be complete bullshit.....though there is only a 20% chance of that when it is cloudy outside! Then again, if my test is typical of most then it is bullshit anyway meaning the other tests might very well be valid.

I'm being facetious to illustrate how statistics are so commonly perverted as a means to explain anything or everything. Do you want to presuppose legalizing guns helps or hinders society? Or how about "proving" global warming is predominantly caused by man (or woman)? Perhaps you want to conclude the opposite? Just selectively choose your data and variables and I'm sure you can “prove” either.

I believe one of the dangers inherent in most of these statistical tests is that it unconsciously encourages many to identify with and support only conclusions already believed or at least wanted to be believed. In this way, it inflates their egos by giving them something to feel “right” about.

“This statistical conclusion performed by The Institute of Environmental Fascists (IEF) confirms my suspicion about us being the primary cause of global warming, therefore it must be true”, says the man. “Oh really, this test performed by Fossilized Carbon Collectors' Institute (FCCI) suggests otherwise,” says another man. One can see the inherent bias of these silly examples and though they are a bit exaggerated, I think the point is made. 

People want to believe things in order to feel superior and righteous about their preferred causes. Perhaps their belief in the “truth” also gives them a sense of control they would otherwise be without.

Let's also suggest the potential for a self-fulfilled prophesy to transpire only because it is foretold by a given conclusion. As an example, I can't help but think how many hypochondriacs have been created only as a result of having an allergy test which “dictates” that a given person should react to a certain substance. Might a reaction come about purely or at least partially in response to the belief that it should or would?

With diseases, social problems, mental problems, environmental problems, blah, blah, blah. The issue I have with statistical tests is not the tests themselves, but rather the underlying assumptions and variables used to reach the conclusion(s) which are almost always chosen only to validate something already believed or wanted to be believed, thereby creating meaningless circular arguments.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm.....

I recently perused a story in the newspaper about a pastor in Louisville inviting "responsible" people to bring their guns (unloaded of course) to church to honor the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment. This seemed particularly asinine to me.

Why do I say this? Well, which segment of the population tends to be the most overzealous supporter of “gun rights”? The overly paranoid of course, those that believe armed perpetrators will likely show up anywhere at any time. In other words, the very people that would likely bring their guns to church upon their pastor's encouragement.

But what happens if an armed perpetrator were to show up during this church celebration of “gun rights” and begin to shoot the place up? Will not these overly paranoid advocates of “gun rights” all bearing their unloaded guns* be completely impotent if they are unable to thwart this perpetrator only because their guns are unloaded and hence useless?

If defense is one's primary concern, is not the whole point to carry the gun loaded everywhere at all times? If not, what is the point? If I had to harbor a guess, it is ultimately ego showing off or desperately trying to. I have no affinity for guns but am neither for nor against “gun rights”. But why would an overly paranoid citizen ever carry his gun unloaded? For safety reasons maybe? This then seems to be a tacit admission that guns are overly dangerous. So why ever carry one? Sheer madness!

*Of course many would likely flout the pastor's demand to bring their guns unloaded, but at this point the gun holders would be disobedient. Are we not supposed to be obedient to authority figures, especially those ordained by God Himself? So why go to church to honor and worship “the Man upstairs” if they are going to deliberately subvert the pastor's will in essence mocking God's authority?