Haven’t you ever read . . . ?

I am often asked whether I've read a particular book, and I usually haven't because there are a gazillion new books published every year. Here's what I say: "No, I haven't read THAT book. Thank you for your suggestion." Here's what I think: Please quit acting as though I haven't been doing any serious reading just because I haven't read the book that YOU just told me to read. For the past 20 years, I have been on a quest to grasp a somewhat detailed understanding of human animals. This has been a rather intense pursuit, jump-started (for about 5 years beginning in 2006) by my auditing of more than 30 hours of graduate level cognitive science courses at nearby Washington University in St. Louis. During the past 20 years, I have read almost entirely non-fiction, and I've been rather careful to limit my topics mostly to the topics represented by the books below. Recently, I decided to inventory what I have been reading. I'm not entirely sure why I did this. Perhaps it is because the end of the year is approaching, which tends to be a time for reflection regarding who we are and where we are headed. What better way for a writer to determine his direction based upon the books he has especially admired for the past two decades? Thus I took an inventory of the non-fiction books I have read that have significantly influenced me. I tend to make many notes on the books I own (I haven't started into electronic books yet), and I retain them in my "library," which is actually a storage room that contain lots of other household items. Yesterday, I ventured into my library with the intent of documenting the books that have especially impressed and challenged me. I ended up selecting less than 20% of the books I own for this honor. What follows below is a list of such books, all of which I have read over the past 20 years. It is not a perfect list. I am sure that there are many dozens of other books that I have overlooked. I probably own 500 books that I have only browsed so far, or not even begun, yet look promising. I'm more and more convinced that I will never read most of my unread books unless I win the lottery and retire. I try to not keep a steady course, though my quest seems hopeless. I'm reminded of this hopelessness every time I stumble on a pile of 30 unread and partially read books by the side of my bed. In my list below, I have only included those books that I have actually read. I would highly recommend any of them. I have not included in many other books I have read that I would consider merely been useful or "good." As I made my list, it occurred to me that I have been greatly influenced by more than books. I have read far more pages of online or in paper magazine articles than book pages. More recently, I've been impressed by many video and in-person presentations/lectures. I have also corresponded with many people over the years on these topics, including many of the authors of the books in my list. I've poured immense time into my reading and writing. It surprised me how much material I have reviewed in 20 years, considering that I also have a day job as a consumer lawyer and also try to spend time with my family. It occurs to me that I am extremely lucky to be living in a time and place where I can benefit from so many incredible ideas developed be others. Each of these authors spends his or her entire life working hard, and then I simply scoop up the their life's work by investing a mere day or two or reading. I have mentioned many of these books and authors in the five years that I've been writing at this website; I find that writing comments about these book helps me to absorb the material better. It also occurs to me that I would not be at all who I am had I not seriously read the books in my list. I make reference to many of these ideas many times each day. To the extent that I have been able to come up with interesting ideas, it is quite likely that "my" ideas came, directly or indirectly, from these books, and that I am thus standing on the shoulders of giants (there I go again with the borrowing). Without further ado, here many of my favorite non-fiction books, broken into a few general categories: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHaven’t you ever read . . . ?

What Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

I recently read Penn Jillette's 10 Commandments for atheists, written as a response to a challenge by Glenn Beck. Most of Penn's rules made good sense. But one went off the rails, I opine. He included one found in most mistranslations of the Christian Ten: "Don't Lie." Penn explicitly adds the caveat: "(You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)" But the premise is basically flawed. The original line in Exodus 20:16 (KJV) is Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This is a very specific form of lie. Even too specific. Not only is it an injunction against perjury, but only against perjury against your landholding neighbor, as opposed to people from other places, or to property such as women and slaves. Of course we all must lie on occasion. How else can we answer, "Isn't she the most beautiful baby ever?" or "Honey, do I look puffy?" Would it be false testimony to confirm a harmless bias one on one? Yet I suggest that the proper commandment should be, "Don't bear false witness." Period. Don't testify to things of which you are not absolutely sure; that you have not personally experienced. Not in a public forum. Don't repeat "what everybody knows" unless you preface it with an appropriate waffle, such as "I heard that someone else heard that..." But this might make it difficult to testify to the all-embracing love of a demonstrably genocidal God. A Google image search of "Testify" gives mostly Christian imagery.

Continue ReadingWhat Most Sets of Commandments Get Wrong

Superior autobiographical memory

A friend of mine who I have known since high school has often quoted actual dates on which events occurred a long time ago. Much of the time, I haven't had a way to disprove him, but on several occasions I was able to confirm that he had stunning recall. After watching the following video from a 60 Minutes show, I emailed Mike, urging him to take a look. The people featured in this 60 Minutes two-part video easily remember non-emotional ordinary events from throughout their lives down to the actual dates on which those events occurred.  If you're like me, you'll be somewhat suspicious of the idea that people can remember long-ago events of their lives so well. If so, watch the video--it will leave you shaking your head unless you have this ability yourself. This extreme memory is a stunning phenomena.  Check out the researcher's statement at about the 10-minute mark of the video that these folks are correct 99% of the time that they offer these detailed responses.    Until watching this show, however, I had assumed that the ability to forget would be essential to good mental health.  Based on the appearance of the superior memory subjects, that doesn't appear to be true (though most of the subjects are not involved in long-term romantic relationships).   These subjects have amazing recall without having any struggle with "cluttered" minds. I definitely don't have "superior autobiographical memory."  I don't need all of superior autobiographical capability, but I wish I had somewhat better recollection. James McGaugh, Ph.D.- University of California at Irvine, has studied these ultra-memory folks and will be discussing his findings at a Psychology Colloquium on Monday, December 5, 4:00 PM, Wilson 214 at Washington University.   McGaugh's team has found (video, Part II at the 2 minute mark) that people with superior autobiographical memory had larger (almost twice as large as expected) temporal lobes and caudate nuclei (the latter of which has been associated with OCD).   See Video II at the 3-minute mark for more on the OCD angle. Here's more on this fascinating topic.

Continue ReadingSuperior autobiographical memory

What Christians think of “atheists”

From the Vancouver Sun, we learn what Christians allegedly think about "atheists":

Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers. The only group the study’s participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, said doctoral student Will Gervais, lead author of the study published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That prejudice had a significant impact on what kinds of jobs people said they would hire atheists to do.
The study is titled, "Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice." I don't believe in any god, but I tend to avoid use of the term "atheist."  I do this because when Christians use the word "atheist," they tend to mean something much different than when non-believers use the term "atheist."   If the subject of religiosity comes up, I describe myself by saying  "I don't believe in god."  If I'm asked whether I'm an "atheist," I say yes, but then further explain that I'm not out to tell other people what to believe in their hearts, and I'm not out to ridicule them for having a personal private belief in a sentient non-physical being.    I explain that in my view it is impossible for there to be a thinking being who who lacks some sort of physical neural network.   If I'm pressed to ask what I think of Jesus, I typically say that I have some doubts that he ever existed, but if he did, I believe he was a human being, nothing more. Based on these sorts of answers, I have almost always been able to have civil conversations and, often friendships, with those who claim to believe in God.   I doubt that many people have ever despised like they would a rapist based on my way of seeing the world. I wonder what the above study would have shown had the it used "non-believer" or "non-religious" or "persons who don't believe in God."   For many Christians, "atheist" has become a word referring to a person who not only doesn't believe in God but who is also hostile to those who do.  That is unfortunate, because many atheists are of the live-and-let-live attitude.  For many Christians, "atheist" has come to represent people who have no set of moral values and for whom "anything goes."  This is especially unfortunate, because that is not how any atheists use the term "atheist." Further, there are many degrees of non-belief and there are many other terms that more precisely describe the type of non-belief.   To lump all of these folks in with the cartoon version of the angry and intolerant atheist (which is the image that many Christians have of "atheists") gives a false view (I believe) of what most Christians think of those who don't believe in god. Notwithstanding anything I've written above, I'm also convinced that American society treats atheists unfairly, oftentimes abyssmally. One especially egregious example is that those who identify themselves as "atheists" are excluded from public office.  I see this as a form of bigotry, especially given (this is my personal guess) that at least 50% of Americans who claim to believe in god don't actually believe in god.  Rather, they believe in the importance of claiming to believe in god, and their actions speak much more loudly than their words. I'll end this post with a wish that someone would re-do the above study using a less inflammatory word to represent those who don't believe in god.  If this were done, I would bet my house that those who "Don't believe in God" would not be seen as less trustworthy than rapists.

Continue ReadingWhat Christians think of “atheists”

The lack of a bad thing is a good thing . . .

Not that I'm feeling down in the dumps, but if I were, I have a method for pulling out of a bad mood. A couple years ago, I wrote a post titled, "I know that I am wealthy when I consider my lack of misfortune." The general idea is that we should appreciate that the lack of misfortune is fortune.  The lack of a bad thing is a good thing. It occurred to me today that we have easy access to vast checklists of misfortune, and that it can make one feel lucky, indeed, to consider all the ways in which one is not medically unlucky.  One example is the type of form you are handed when you go to a doctor for the first time, wherein you are asked whether you have any of the following conditions, followed by things such as cancer, heart attack, diabetes, abscessed tooth, Alzheimer's, hepatitis, pancreatitus, and it goes on and on.   Though I do put a couple of check marks into the boxes, there are thousands of medical conditions that I don't have, which makes me lucky indeed. I'm lucky in other ways, because I don't struggle with any known psychological conditions, and there are hundreds of these too.  For instance, I don't suffer from bipolar disorder, hypochondriasis, kleptomania or any conditions on this long list. I am not required to take anti-depressants.  I'm happy to get out of bed each day.   I don't hate my job, my neighbors or my city.  I'm even appreciative of my country, though things are out of balance.  I appreciate that there are ways to make things better regarding my country. But I'm even luckier.   I don't struggle to keep any addictions in check, and this list is also extensive, including such things as gambling, OCD, drugs, alcoholism, and coin collecting . . . coin collecting???? I appreciate that I don't wake up with an urge to go to a casino or to get drunk.  Really and truly, and I've never had any such urges. I'm also lucky that I'm not unemployed in this bad economy. And though it is 13-years old, my car is working well. And my roof is not leaking.   Hoodlums aren't chasing me down the street at the moment.  I didn't just get bit by a brown recluse spider.  No warmongering superpower is dropping bombs anywhere near my house.  The electrical service is working well, allowing me to use this computer.   My kids are not failing out of school.  My city is not bankrupt.  I am not currently a victim of identity theft.  The pipes in my house are not leaking.  No neighbors are blasting their stereos outside.  I don't worry about hurricanes and earthquakes and tornadoes (though maybe I should worry about the latter two).   The lack of each of these bad things is truly a good thing for which I am thankful. Bottom line is that whatever it is that any of us has to deal with, it could be a lot worse, and a quick review of long lists of disorders and dyfunctions shows us how much worse things could be. Perhaps this post could be said to constitute some sort of skeptics prayer .. .

Continue ReadingThe lack of a bad thing is a good thing . . .