God, the Cartoon Version

Back in the 1970s, I went to high school with Mike Harty at Mercy High School in St. Louis, a co-ed Catholic school. We hit it off immediately back then and we remain good friends today. One thing I enjoyed and admired about Mike is his ability to draw. After high school, as young adults, we periodically got together to draw cartoons. I threw a lot of bad ideas his way and he tried to make them funny. We tried to get them published by several newspapers and syndicates, but we weren't successful.

We've kept those cartoons and I recently pulled them out of mothballs. As I looked at them yesterday, I found that about half of them still seemed funny to me. Yesterday I called Mike and we agreed to risk yet more public rejection/humiliation by publishing some of these cartoons on my website, Dangerous Intersection as well as featuring some of them on FB. We'll publish these in six small batches, starting this this group on the topic of God. I smile as I look at these because Mike has always been religious and I have never been, yet we both enjoyed batting around these ideas. We hope you enjoy some of these too.

One of our two-panel Christmas Cards focused on the related topic of eschatology:

Here is a gallery of our other cartoons on the topic of God:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingGod, the Cartoon Version

The Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

Nick Hanauer gave a speech on the lies on which neoliberalism is built. He characterizes neoliberalism as "dependably orthogonal to the last 50,000 years of moral norms and traditions." Hanauer then turns the focus toward the foundation for neoliberalism, "homo economicus," the belief that human beings are "perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing." This unbecoming portrait of human animals dovetails with other unsubstantiated ideologies. For instance, you will often read that natural selection created a horrific dog-eat-dog world and that we are nothing more than these sorts of insatiable philistine dogs, which is nonsense, as discussed by primatologist Frans De Waal. De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly. Though competition is part of the picture, we have evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other.

Now back to homo economicus. Here is an excerpt from Nick Hanauer's speech:

And how did we get to a so-called “ethics” of business that insists that the only affirmative responsibility of a corporate executive is to maximize value for shareholders?

I believe that these corrosive moral claims derive from a fundamentally flawed understanding of how market capitalism works, grounded in the dubious assumption that human beings are “homo economicus”: perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing. It is this behavioral model upon which all the other models of orthodox economics are built. And it is nonsense.

The last 40 years of research across multiple scientific disciplines has proven, with certainty, that homo economicus does not exist. Outside of economic models, this is simply not how real humans behave. Rather, Homo sapiens have evolved to be other-regarding, reciprocal, heuristic, and intuitive moral creatures. We can be selfish, yes—even cruel. But it is our highly evolved prosocial nature—our innate facility for cooperation, not competition—that has enabled our species to dominate the planet, and to build such an extraordinary—and extraordinarily complex—quality of life. Pro-sociality is our economic super power.

Hanauer sees homo economicus as a salve we invented to give ourselves permission to do terrible things;  "It is also a story we tell ourselves about ourselves that gives both permission and encouragement to some of the worst excesses of modern capitalism, and of contemporary moral and social life."

But what about capitalism? Isn't that would puts our food on our shelves. Isn't capitalism the explanation for why we strut around with our miraculous smart phones? Hanauer explains:

Capitalism is the greatest problem-solving social technology ever invented. But knowing that capitalism works is different than knowing why it works. And contrary to economic orthodoxy, it is reciprocity, not selfishness that guides it—indeed—as if by an invisible hand. It is social reciprocity that builds the high levels of trust necessary for large networks of people to cooperate at scale. And it is only through these networks of highly-cooperative specialists that the complexity that defines our modern economy can emerge.
Capitalism is good and useful, but only to an extent. More is needed for a just and prosperous society. Hanauer offers these four rules:

  • Capitalism is self-organizing, but not self-regulating. Government regulation is necessary.
  • True capitalism is not shareholder capitalism.
  • Capitalism is effective, but not efficient. Capitalism can raise our "aggregate standard of living, but it can also be extraordinarily wasteful, cruel, and unequal."
  • True capitalists are moral capitalists. "Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist. It makes you an asshole and a sociopath."

For now, I'll close on this topic, but I've written often on the purported virtues of the unfettered free market, which is an ideology that I have sometimes termed the "Fourth Person in the Holy Quartet."  No doubt I'll return to this topic as homo economicus continues to destroy most of the institutions that had made the U.S. an exemplary place to live.

Continue ReadingThe Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

R.I.P. Lyle Mays

RIP Lyle Mays. How often have the notes from your keyboards filled my heart and mind? Here is Lyle with Pat Metheny, playing one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard, "Letter from Home." Please take 2 minutes to listen to this. It will melt away anything that is troubling you.

Continue ReadingR.I.P. Lyle Mays

Rethinking the War on Drugs in the Age of Opioid Addicted Europeans

I don't see racism everywhere I look. In my view, most issues are far too complex for "race" to serve as a dominant explanatory factor.

That said, it's rather stunning to see the recent tsunami of news articles (like this one recent news piece from NPR) taking the position that as people of European descent become an ever bigger percentage of drug addicts, throwing their asses in jail is no longer trendy as a first-choice paradigm for addressing the problem. Almost overnight, in this age of opioid addiction, compassionate treatment has become "common sense."

Continue ReadingRethinking the War on Drugs in the Age of Opioid Addicted Europeans

The Illusory Truth Effect

Why do we believe things that aren't true? Sometimes, it's a matter of the Illusory Truth Effect: Repeated Exposure to (even false) information becomes easy to process in our brains and that easy processing makes it seem true.

Shane Parish discusses this in his latest post, "The Illusory Truth Effect: Why We Believe Fake News, Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda." Here's an excerpt:

This is how the illusory truth effect works: we all have a tendency to believe something is true after being exposed to it multiple times. The more times we’ve heard something, the truer it seems. The effect is so powerful that repetition can persuade us to believe information we know is false in the first place. . . . [W]e’re often far outside our circle of competence, reading about topics we don’t have the expertise in to assess accuracy in any meaningful way. This drip-drip of information pollution is not harmless. Like air pollution, it builds up over time and the more we’re exposed to it, the more likely we are to end up picking up false beliefs which are then hard to shift. For instance, a lot of people believe that crime, especially the violent kind, is on an upward trend year by year—in a 2016 study by Pew Research, 57% of Americans believed crime had worsened since 2008. This despite violent crime having actually fallen by nearly a fifth during that time. This false belief may stem from the fact that violent crime receives a disproportional amount of media coverage, giving it wide and repeated exposure. When people are asked to rate the apparent truthfulness of news stories, they score ones they have read multiple times more truthful than those they haven’t.

It seems like the repeated exposure creates a slippery path that runs that information quickly and easily through the brain. William James used this type of metaphor of a "path" in his discussion of memory (this is from "Talks to Teachers, Chapter 12, Memory):

Reflection will show you that there are peculiarities in your memory which would be quite whimsical and unaccountable if we were forced to regard them as the product of a purely spiritual faculty. Were memory such a faculty, granted to us solely for its practical use, we ought to remember easiest whatever we most needed to remember; and frequency of repetition, recency, and the like, would play no part in the matter. That we should best remember frequent things and recent things, and forget things that are ancient or were experienced only once, could only be regarded as an incomprehensible anomaly on such a view. But if we remember because of our associations, and if these are (as the physiological psychologists believe) due to our organized brain-paths, we easily see how the law of recency and repetition should prevail. Paths frequently and recently ploughed are those that lie most open, those which may be expected most easily to lead to results. The laws of our memory, as we find them, therefore are incidents of our associational constitution; and, when we are emancipated from the flesh, it is conceivable that they may no longer continue to obtain.

In his incredible opus, The Principles of Psychology, Williams James elaborates this metaphor, writing about the path along with a marble that rolls down the path. Each time the marble rolls down, it smoothens the path a bit more, making it a more and more fast and direct path.

The psychological law of association of objects thought of through their previous contiguity in thought or experience would thus be an effect, within the mind, of the physical fact that nerve-currents propagate themselves easiest through those tracts of conduction which have been already most in use. Descartes and Locke hit upon this explanation, which modern science has not yet succeeded in improving. "Custom," says Locke, "settles habits of thinking in the understanding, as well as of determining in the will, and of motions in the body; all which seem to be but trains of motion in the animal spirits[Pg 564] [by this Locke meant identically what we understand by neural processes] which, once set agoing, continue in the same steps they have been used to, which by often treading are worn into a smooth path, and the motion in it becomes easy and, as it were, natural."[476]

This is a good metaphor for the process of memory, whether or not the memory is about something real in the world or whether the thing remembered is fake news."

I like this phrase Shane Parrish uses in his quote: "information pollution." I'm going add that to my vocabulary.

Continue ReadingThe Illusory Truth Effect