In an earlier post, I summarized an Elliot Aronson interview on the topic of cognitive dissonance. Because I find this to be such a critically compelling topic, I took the time to listen to a recent Point of Inquiry podcast featuring Dr. Carol Tavris, Aronson's co-author regarding Mistakes Were Made…
Senator Larry Craig’s defiant claim that he is “not gay” is an interesting one. He didn’t say “I don’t hang around in public restrooms where men commonly have sex with men.” He said he was not “gay.”
Is it possible for a man to have sex with other men but not be “gay”? I suspect that most people would claim that a man who has sex with other men is, by that very fact, “gay.” But is it that simple?
Scientist Alfred Kinsey argued that “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” were both located on the same continuum running from “Exclusively heterosexual” to “Exclusively homosexual.” This continuum is represented in Kinsey’s scale of sexual orientation. He argued that society’s efforts to pigeonhole people into one type or the other was a political move. It was possible, according to Kinsey, that a man (or a woman) might be predominantly heterosexual, but only incidentally homosexual. Perhaps, this is what Senator Craig meant when he claimed that he was not “gay.” Perhaps he was honestly (and desperately) claiming that he liked sex with women as a rule, though he did the public restroom gig with other men on the side.
Senator Craig obviously feels the pain of the “gay” label a lot more than he feels the pain of being caught in a restroom where men commonly have sex with other men. Thus, his continued protests denying his alleged homosexuality. But maybe he’s protesting the “gay” label for yet another reason. Maybe he is honestly (and …
All of those people who take the Bible literally need to apply the proper rules for killing people by throwing stones. The process is quite straightforward. The purpose is to cause the stonees (the people being struck by the stones) to die of broken bones and hemorrhaging of blood. What are the…
When developing buildings or ideas, it is critical to start with a good solid foundation. In fact, when people fail to build with a solid foundation, is usually not even worth one's while to correct the work. It's best to trash the entire project and start over with a worthy foundation. When it comes to ideas, there are three intellectual foundations that become indispensable. These three foundational ideas were set forth in the opening words of Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999):
Based upon evidence proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (and numerous other cognitive scientists), the battle over these ideas is utterly over. To argue otherwise is, in fact, to argue foolishly. Yet, for many, these three principles have not soaked in. There is constant deep resistance to these ideas among many of the people who present themselves as today's premier philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, teachers, and political leaders. As to why these ideas are so often ignored, there could be many potential explanations. I suspect that many people fear each of these principles because they suggest that we humans lack complete power and control over our lives. That thought makes all of us uncomfortable, of course, though a few of us are willing to take our harsh medicine to heart. Most people, however, are not willing to re-conceptualize traditional accounts of what it means to be human. They are not willing to dispense with a believe that each of us has an ethereal soul that is "free" to think any thought, a soul that is unencumbered by our clunky, fallible, poop and saliva-laden bodies. They like to believe that our conscious thoughts fully capture the full importance of every moment and every drop of sentience and proto-sentience. They prefer to believe that when it comes to words, Humpty Dumpty correctly declared: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." They want to believe that humans have the power to speak forcefully without first having to develop a coherent theory of language, as though words serve as infallible conduits for transporting our purified ideas from here to there. [more . . . ]
- The mind is inherently embodied.
- Thought is mostly unconscious.
- Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
There are lots of reasons for you to be commuting by bicycle, but many of you who could cycle to work are still burning expensive gasoline to get there. What’s it going to take to get you out of that expensive car and onto a high-precision, environment-friendly, health-enhancing bicycle? How about some money? Not just gas money, either. Read on. This post might change your life in a dozen healthy and bank-account enhancing ways.
More than half of Americans live less than 5 miles from the place where they work. That’s easy striking range for a bicycle. Studies have shown that trips of less than 3 miles are often quicker by bike, and urban trips of 5 to 7 miles usually take about the same time. Here are more statistics to consider:
According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 25 percent of all trips are made within a mile of the home, 40 percent of all trips are within two miles of the home, and 50 percent of the working population commutes five miles or less to work. Yet more than 82 percent of trips five miles or less are made by personal motor vehicle.
I’m one of the many people who live about five-miles from my place of employment. Traveling five miles to work takes me only about 25 minutes. This is only about 10 minutes more than it would take to drive to work in good traffic.
I have commuted to work by bicycle since 1998. Making the …