Proposed Resolution for 2021: Heed the Results of Solomon Asch’s Conformity Experiments

Here's a resolution to consider The Solomon Asch conformity experiments should be taken seriously by all of us throughout 2021. You need to be the one to tell your favorite and coziest groups of people that you disagree whenever you disagree. To do otherwise will guarantee continued social dysfunction and misfiring communication for the next year.

Phil Zimbardo describes Asch's experiments in this short video.

Continue ReadingProposed Resolution for 2021: Heed the Results of Solomon Asch’s Conformity Experiments

Race Conscious “Solution” to the Limited Supply of COVID Vaccines

I've often argued that we need to refocus, to consciously move back toward the central mission of Martin Luther King:

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

~From MLK's “I have a dream” speech

It's distressing to see so many loud voices arguing for the opposite, demanding that we need to become ever more conscious of "race" and claiming that we have made no meaningful progress since the Civil War or since the early 1960s.

Basing anything on "race" is always a massively erroneous and ultimately destructive miscategorization.  It will lead to endless strife and mistrust because "race" tells us nothing meaningful about any of the people with whom we share this planet. There is only one way to get to know each other: Taking the time to learn about each other, one at a time. Using "race" as a proxy as a shortcut for this hard work is inevitably destructive. In its simplistic detachment from real-world facts, sorting people based on "color" is akin to basing public policy on phrenology or astrology.

The above is a short prelude for a recent proposal regarding prioritizing people for the COVID vaccine, pointed out by Andrew Sullivan:

Continue ReadingRace Conscious “Solution” to the Limited Supply of COVID Vaccines

Robert Sapolsky: “Maybe” is Addictive Like Nothing Else Out There

Robert Sapolsky talks about dopamine: It is to drive us toward goals and it has little to do with those moments when we are enjoying our already-achieved goals. Dopamine especially pours out when the reward is uncertain. This fact that a potential reward is not certain, but only "maybe," highly motivates us.

Makes total sense. For many things, it seems like we are getting most of the pleasure as we are getting ready to acquire the thing, not after we already own it. Perhaps this is a Christmas tale . . .

Continue ReadingRobert Sapolsky: “Maybe” is Addictive Like Nothing Else Out There

What is a Cult? Descriptions from Cult Education Institute

There's a lot of accusations that Americans on both the political right and left are now members of "Cults." What exactly is a cult? After doing a bit of research, I found these helpful descriptions / definitions / traits of Cult Leaders and their followers from the Cult Education Institute. The following material is from the CEI webpage titled "Warning Signs":

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
  2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
  3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
  4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
  5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
  6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
  7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
  8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
  9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
  10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

Continue ReadingWhat is a Cult? Descriptions from Cult Education Institute

Differential Investment in Procreating in Terms of Money and Risks

In her column at Psychology Today ("How to Train Your Boyfriend"), Evolutionary Psychologist Diane Fleischman illustrates the time investment differential in terms of money:

We know women have had to carry a baby for 9 months. But over our evolutionary history, a mother would have had to breastfeed for 3 years, on average, before the baby would be weaned. What's the minimum amount of investment a man could put in to have a baby? Let's be generous and say the minimum amount is an hour. This is called "minimum obligatory parental investment" and in human men and women, the asymmetry is bigger than in most other species. . . . If you think about the asymmetry between men and women in the minimum amount they would have to invest to make a baby in terms of dollar amount- a man would have to invest $1 and a woman would have to invest $32,000.

In her article, Fleishman points out many difference in behavior between men and woman (see the extensive list below), as well as reproductive risks, stemming from this procreation investment asymmetry.

Continue ReadingDifferential Investment in Procreating in Terms of Money and Risks