Walks and Listens to Podcasts at the Same Time

I get a lot of my information from long-form Podcasts. I am increasingly getting my exercise by briskly walking and I walk five miles per day. I don't want to get into a habit of sitting while I listen to podcasts. I want exercise, and I love getting two-fer's--exercise and high quality information at the same time. I don't want to plug my ears with earbuds or to wear over-the-ear headphones while I'm walking, because I want be aware of the sounds around me: people, animals and traffic. I also don't want to disturb others by blasting a podcast from my phone while I walk around.

This is an unpaid endorsement. I want to share some information about a product I recently purchased that I'm enjoying. It satisfies all of my objectives stated above and it costs about $50. It is a hands-free bluetooth neckband speaker that you wear like a collar. It's comfortable and it will not fall off even when I'm doing chores around the house while I listen. Here's the one I'm using:

There are other models of these "wearable" or "neckband" speakers, but I've only tried this one, by a company named "Long Run." It produces excellent quality sound for podcasts, but it's almost like the sound is coming from inside my head. I don't use this collar for music, but I've tried this out and the music sound quality is decent--it won't give you deep bass, but I'm happy to make that trade-off for all of the advantages this device offers. You can also have two-way phone conversations using this device and that works well too.

I've worn this speaker for more than 10 hours already and it passes all of my tests with flying colors. When you are wearing it, the volume can be set at a robust-seeming level. I was concerned that this was too loud and it might be disturbing people nearby. But then I took off the collar while it was playing and I was impressed at how much lower the volume seemed. The trick is that the collar broadcasts the sound directly toward your ears, minimizing the sound moving out away from you.

I'm sharing this information because I suspect other people who walk a lot also seek a good hands-free speaker for podcasts.  This is one that works for me.

Continue ReadingWalks and Listens to Podcasts at the Same Time

Intersex Conditions Are Not Nearly as Common as Red Hair

I subscribe to evolutionary biologist Colin Wright's new Substack Newsletter, Reality's Last Stand. In his most recent article, "Intersex Is Not as Common as Red Hair," Wright deals with a claim commonly heard from LGBTQ+ activists, the claim that 1.7% of people have intersex conditions, supposedly making it as common as having red hair. Most activists make this claim without any ill-intent. They want to show that intersex conditions are common and the people with these conditions should not be seen as abnormal. The "facts" touted by the activists, however, don't add up.

Many LGBTQ+ activists get their information from a book titled Sexing the Body, by Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000), who got her number from a study asking people to physically describe "idea" males and "ideal" females.  For example,

Their “ideal female” has two X chromosomes, functional ovaries that result in normal feminizing puberty, intact oviducts attached to a functional uterus, cervix, and vaginal canal. This ideal female must also have labia minora and majora present, and a clitoris that ranges between 0.20 and 0.85 cm in length at birth.

These "ideal" definitions fails because they include "many conditions that cannot be considered intersex in any clinically relevant sense." The central error was to equate “differences of sexual development” (DSDs) with “intersex.”  To illustrate Wright referred to a chart of Fausto-Sterling's data (that was created by Twitter user @zeno001):

Using this data, Wright points out how misleading the 1.7% claim is.

. . . 88% of Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7% figure is taken up by one condition: late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH). These individuals have completely normal male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. The sex of these individuals is not ambiguous, so to label LOCAH as an intersex condition is a far cry from what most people and clinicians conceptually envision the term to capture.

The next most prevalent DSD on Fausto-Sterling’s list iclude any chromosomal deviations from classical XX and XY (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, etc.). However, these conditions do not result in ambiguous genitalia and therefore cannot be considered intersex in any clinically relevant sense. . . . .

Lastly, vaginal agenesis, the next most common DSD on the list, is not generally considered an intersex condition, as girls with this condition are genotypically XX, possess perfectly normal ovaries, and can even become pregnant and birth their own children following vaginoplasty. They are unambiguously female.

When these common DSDs are removed, and intersex conditions are more precisely defined as “conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,” Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7% figure drops dramatically. According to Sax, “Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%.”

With Wright's facts-first approach, the 1.7% claim commonly touted by activists bears no resemblance to reality.  As Wright reassures readers, this overstated statistic has no bearing on our duty to treat all intersex people as fully human. They are due the same kindness and respect as any other person. That should never be an issue for anyone, of course.

Continue ReadingIntersex Conditions Are Not Nearly as Common as Red Hair

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 “Mourner’s Veto”?

In his article at Quillette, "Resisting the Mourner’s Veto," Christopher J. Ferguson describes a series of attempts by Woke activists to cancel speech they consider unpopular. This includes Joe Rogan, Abigail Shrier, Jordan Peterson and University of Chicago Professor Dorian Abbot. Each of these attempts has used what Ferguson terms a "Mourner's Veto":

These emotional attempts to suppress controversial or unpopular speech have increasingly made use of what I call the “Mourner’s Veto”—individuals will say that a speaker or a piece of writing has caused them to become distressed or sad or angry or frightened, and they will support these claims with allegations of “harm” or even threats to their “right to exist.” Reasonable debate and discussion then becomes impossible as activists make unfalsifiable but furiously emotive claims about alleged threats to their safety and wellbeing amid much weeping and claims of exhaustion and mental fragility. It is not healthy for the limits of permissible speech to be dictated by the most sensitive person in the room, nor to allow emotional appeals to supplant robust argument as the most effective strategy in a debate.

Ferguson points out three potential problems with the "mourner's veto":

First, the reliance on “lived experience” conflicts with a wealth of psychological research indicating that we routinely misremember, misattribute, selectively interpret, and/or distort (consciously or unconsciously) information to fit our personal narratives. This by no means invalidates the sincerity of every emotional outcry, but it is hopelessly naive to assume that they represent a more authentic or authoritative kind of truth. Second, to the extent that such strategies enhance social capital and power, it is inevitable that bad actors will exploit them, simply making stuff up in support of their agendas. People like this may be a tiny minority, but they can cause a disproportionate amount of havoc and it is not always easy to tell who is cynical and who is not. Third, by their nature, emotional appeals are often aggressive, daring opponents to question the veracity of claims and risk inevitable blowback.

The remainder of Ferguson's article focuses on corporate strategies for dealing with mourner's vetos. These suggestions include a lessened reliance on social media.

Continue ReadingWhat is a “Mourner’s Veto”?