Professor David Nutt Confuses Facts and Judgements

There might of course be a hidden agenda larger than the issue of making statement based on scientfic facts in the case of the removal Professor David Nutt.

As a natural scientist and an academic it will have been important to him to air information in a spirit of free speech in the hope that his learned reputation as an objective researcher entitled him to a point of view that would be believed.

This might be regarded as politically naive or very astute. A scientist will operate on the assumption that there is a difference between facts and beliefs. It is clear that Professor Nutt believes that the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves and that social factors do not apply. In making a case for 'the facts' he is emphasising his belief that Politicans approach truth in a pragmatic rather than objective way.

The fact is politics is about social judgement. It is about pragmatic truth not objective truth. The scientific facts about the impact of drugs are different from the socially believed impacts. Further more the scientific 'facts' about social impacts depend on assumptions about the 'metrics' that are deemed valid. If the £Sd of medical and policing impacts are the only measure then perhaps he has a point, if other less objective factors are considered then perhaps he doesn't. How do you measure the social consequences and impacts of leniency in this case? How do you know the very long term effects in individual cases? What are the philosophical assumptions of his position?

So what was Professor Nutt's real agenda?

Will The BNPs BBC Appearance Open Their Minds?

The liberal idealists of the BBC have fallen into the trap that almost every day dreaming liberal falls into. They have assumed that everyone in the world is open minded and delights in being persuaded of alternative perspectives so that they might change their point of view.

This might be fine slugging a bottle of Pinot over a nice dinner with learned friends. This is not what happens when confronted by people who have entrenched dogmatic mind-sets.

The principle of the BBC's current affairs programme Qustion Time is founded on an expectation that views are expressed and debated in an informed and intelligent way. This cannot be expected from the BNP. Typically they characterise problems in simplistic ways and offer simplistic solutions. Which is exactly the diet of the intellectually lazy. The less effort you put into understanding complex social and political problems and the less effort you need to put into inventing solutions is precisely the reason an appearance on Question Time is a waste of time. Nothing will be achieved.

Aha! I hear you say, but we'll let them hoist by their own petard. Sadly no. They are so utterly convinced of their own rectitude that they will be impossible to shift. Liberal democracies are built on sophisticated understanding of issues and informed debate. The BNP will simply rant and derive a perverse kudos by 'appearing' to have the same merit as the others who will be appearing.

Aha! again I hear you say, but giving them air time will show them in their true colours, any 'logical' person will see the flaws in their arguments once they are confronted by sophisticated responses. The problem here of course is two-fold. Firstly Question Time viewers are probably not your typical BNP voter so they don't need to have the BNP message revealed for what it really is. Secondly any BNP orientated viewers will simply listen to the points that support their world view and reject the rest out of hand, so nothing will be gained.

Believing that getting the BNP on Question Time and that suddenly the scales will fall of their eyes and the eyes of proto-BNPers in a massive 'on air epiphany' is almost bordering on compulsive optimism. Some might call it gullibility!

Interested in more?
Appealling to alienated communities
BBC explain their decision

The Dinosaur Behaviour of The Royal Mail Workforce

image thanks University of Chicago

Future business archeologists have discovered what look like the remains of a huge organisational juggernaut that was believed to have last roamed the earth in the early part of the 21st century.

The beast has provisionally be named Royalist Mailastodon.

Speculating on its demise Professor G.Ullibility suggested that the animal failed to adapt to changes in its environment, choosing to behave in increasingly out moded ways. It is thought that it devoted alot of its scarce energy to posturing rather and ritual stand offs rather than develop new ways of living in a changing world.

The scale of the fossil find and the arrangement of the bones further suggests some sort of death wish behaviour. All of the animal finds so far have huddled together and seemed to have simply given up on the quest for evolutionary competitive advantage. "Its like they just went on strike" the Professor said.

Three guilty of airline bomb plot

via news.bbc.co.uk

Whilst the physical battle is being fought in Afghanistan. The war is being fought in the mind.

"Ali and Sarwar went to deliver aid to the refugee camps - and their experiences radically altered their world view.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader of the group, was shocked by the appalling conditions. His anger was compounded by the failure of the 2003 mass protest against the Iraq war." BBC

Howard Gardner suggests that changing minds is as difficult as pushing string.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Gullible 20 pledge tougher bank action

via news.bbc.co.uk

The aptly named 'G' fo Gullibility 20 claim to have come with a way of controlling the banks.

They have come with no specific limits on the amounts our banking friends can get.

Does the G20 seriously think that the bankers are running scared? Of course not. What they say sounds good.

Have you ever heard a paper tiger roar.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Don't Hang Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab

via news.bbc.co.uk

So the surviving Mubai terrorist wants to be executed. What possible reason does he have for thinking that anyone should give him what he wants. His victims had no choice.

We'd be gullible if we hung this Mumbai terrorist. A far greater punishment would be to keep him alive. It might also be important to insist that he develop his education during the rest of his life by studying alternative world views.

He might even reach an epiphany where he recognises the appalling nature of his crime and atones for it by convincing people pursuing a similar path to give it up.

The longer he is alive the more we frustrate his original ambition. Surely this is something he must fear, and we must give him the time to reflect on that.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Are The British Gullible About Afghanistan?

via news.bbc.co.uk

Dr Huw Davies writes a fascinating article in this BBC article about British involvement in Afghanistan. Given the recent shift of strategy to increase face to face combat instead of using air support it is tempting for the armchair strategist to reach for history books and predict the improbability of success.

The key of course is to recognise that the 'context' is different from before. The British and their allies are in the country to deal with a specific group of ideologues, and whilst they might have local knowledge it is only their terror tactics that provide local support. In other words their apparent 'supporters' do not believe in them, unlike say the Viet Cong, who admittedly used 'terror' tactics and also had a base of support in the population at large.

So are the British being gullible thinking they will achieve a positive outcome? I don't actually think so.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

BNPs Griffin's Foolish Idea To Sink Immigrant Boats

via news.bbc.co.uk

'There's nothing so practical as a theory' to paraphrase Kurt Lewin. This means that your 'philosophy' determines how you act. In particular it means that how you 'see' a problem determines how you 'see' the solution (sic)

So for Simple Nick the solution to a perceived immigration problem is to sink the boats they travel in. Well we all know about GIGO - garbage in garbage out. in this case we have foolish thoughts in foolish proposals out.

Just imagine...this is Simple Nick in 'restrained' mode. What would he be like if there were no restraints?

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Every Quantitative Measure We Have Says Robert McNamara Has Died

via news.bbc.co.uk

By his own admission Robert McNamara admitted the gullibility of having blind faith in your assumptions.

Famous for claiming about US endeavours in the Vietnam War that "Every quantitative measure we have shows we are winning this war" His statement is a classic of managerialist thinking that shows just how crazy over-reliance on numerical metrics is when trying to determine social behaviours and outcomes. He came from a school of thought that claimed that only rational scientific methods should be used for determining policy. Take the subjective and the emotional out of the equation and you are closer to the truth.

The fact is Mr McNamara has died. It is also true that his thoughts and opinions live on as fascinating historical perspectives on a diverse and high power career. So has he really died?

His legacy? Whilst maybe not directly attributable to Mr McNamara the 'sanitised' measurement and reporting of warfare is from his time. bodycount, megadeath are just a couple of terms that echo from the past. We might also remember that the term strategic hamlet does not refer to a well earned cigar whilst pondering the latest loss of ground to the enemy!

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

The Rise of Hate 2.0

via news.bbc.co.uk

We'd be gullible if we thought that the digital space was any different from the FtF space. The full diversity of sense-making and behaviour from people of various persuasions will clearly be able to find a voice and constituency in the fluid and far reach medium of digital conversations.

This recent BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8097979.stm is certainly thought provoking.

This merely serves to underscore the need to develop the education and critical skills of all digital media users. This will enable them to readily challenge the flawed logic of the hate-mongers and spot a gross generalisation and simplification at a 1000 meters.

People on the whole have become more media savvy. They know that people have agendas when they communicate. The disturbing feature of social media is that it enables 'the disturbed' who might have been previously disjointed to connect. And in this 'connection' to believe that they are establishing a general norm instead of a perverse small group norm.

Do we see a Hate 2.0 career path here? Does leaving a flame comment mean you will become a Troll, does becoming a troll mean you are predisposed to finding affinities with more established hate groups, does an on-line hate group manifest itself in physical action?

There might be a saving grace in the very nature of social media itself! The power of crowds only really works in the physical realm. Crowd psychology is a powerful thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology The Nazis may have utilised the new technologies of film and radio but it was only in the setting of mass public meetings that the virulence of their thinking took hold.

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous

Police break up new Tehran rally

via news.bbc.co.uk

Am I missing something? Does the Iranian regime assume that millions of their own are people are gullible enough to be duped by social media messages from 'The West'? How does that work? Surely taking issue with the dogmatic views of a powerful regime requires 'critical thinking'.

Which means that if the the 'subversive' messages from the West' are as flawed, baseless and biased as the regime say they are then the very people they are meant to influence would see straight through them too (because they are smart independently minded people) and therefore they would support the regime.

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous

Iranian Election - Images of a Dalek Nation

image credit BBC


















The BBC report that the Supreme Dalek -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has congratulated Dalek Ahmadinejad on his election win . Win? you ask. We'd be gullible to think that any other result was possible.

The similarities between the Iranian regime and the Daleks are not a surprise. Wikipedia explains that they "are a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse (it is believed by many other characters that all of their emotions were removed except hate, leaving them with a desire to purge the Universe of all non-Dalek life"

Chillingly the Supreme Dalek has warned off his rivals against any 'provocations'. As the situation develops we should listen for the cries of 'Exterminate! Exterminate!"

As events unfurl in Iran on the 13th of June 2009 striking parallels can be seen with the history of the Daleks. Originally called the Kaleds a fascist authoritarian race they embarked on a nuclear, biological and chemical war with the Thals in an attempt to eradicate them. How Thal-like the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi seem.

What other similarities can you spot between the Iranian Regime and The Daleks?

The Difference Between Statesmanship and 'Politicks'

So what's your theory for becoming a successful politician? A glance at the front pages of two UK newspapers shows the difference.Here we have the Politickal version.





Career politicians who devote their energy on managing the system to their personal advantage.A world of introverted personal powerplays that resembles the social posturing of a celebrity reality TV show. Political survivors and professional duckers and divers who focus attention on their aspirations, and gaming the system.

And here we have the Statesmanlike version.





Someone who is intellectually capable of grasping the big picture. Someone who is on the pulse of globally important issues that effect the lives of billions of people. Someone who wants to make a difference to others.

Britain is suffering from two politcial diseases. One the 'MBA'ing of politics, that defines success as someone who is characterised as a capable 'manager', someone who has sussed the political code, someone who can deploy basic methods of organisational management and the other the 'Celebification' of politics where British political process is understood as nothing more than reality TV freak show that requires a similar depth of attention and understanding to follow.

You'd be gullible if you mistook our politicians for leaders instead of mere executives. Cue Big Brother voice over..."James is sulking in the garden and Gordon is the kitchen sharpening some knives"

Jacqui Smith Falls On Sword Before She Takes The Knife

Jacqui Smith has decided to end her ill-fated tenure of her ministerial position.

After a series of political mis-judgements, not the least of which included picking political fights that she stood little chance of winning she is off.

MP gullibility seems to be standard issue at the moment. Invariably based on a misplaced sense of Hubris Any senior politician that doesn't appreciate that pride always comes before a fall must be the most gullible of them all.

It simply isn't good enough to be able to manage a department, to be personable. It requires proactiveness, vision, imagination, astuteness, and sound judgement.

History will judge whether Ms Smith was cutting edge or not!

UK to Become Banana Skin Republic

As the MPs expenses fiasco reveals excesses on a daily basis we now here that Phil Hope is to repay a massive £41,709

The UK may as well dissolve its parliamentary system and become a fully fledged Banana Skin Republic

Becoming a Banana Skin Republic is apt because parliament is "Frequently the subject of mockery and humour, and is usually presided over by a dictatorial military junta that exaggerates its own power and importance" if the wikipedia article on the subject is to be believed.

Additionally a Banana Skin Republic "typically has large wealth inequities, poor infrastructure, poor schools, a "backward" economy, low capital spending, a reliance on foreign capital and money printing, budget deficits, and a weakening currency"


Supporting the idea House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin says"Change is needed" David Cameron expressed delight at the Prime Ministers decision to go for Banana Skin Republic status alledgedly saying that he had feared at one point that the country might be re-named Absurdistan

It is also rumoured that a Birmingham based premier league club is renaming itself Pancho Villa too.

Expense Claims Proving Expensive for UK Parliament

The Expense Claims fiasco is proving expensive for the basic credibility of Parliament in the eyes of ordinary men and women in the UK.

What seemed like everyday parliamentary rough and tumble now looks like something alot more serious. The integrity of a significant number of MPs is bringing the reputation of the whole institution into question.Communities Secretary Hazel Blears is merely the latest example

How gullible are those MPs who claim they were operating within the rules? Surely these people are sent by us to Parliament to critically appraise all parliamentary processes on our behalf and change things if they are no good. They are not sent there to play the system and feather their own nests.

Have we got a bunch of self-interested single loop thinkers running the country? Its beginning to look like it. I thought that the so called 'Westminster Bubble' was about the self-referencing conversations between MPs and the media, it is clear now that this bubble isolates MPs from the very people they are meant to serve. How could they be so out of touch with the Zeitgeist of the moment, to think that they could behave as they do when ordinary people are loosing their jobs?

We have been here before! April 20th 1653 to be precise. What goes around comes around.

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!"

Oliver Cromwell.

Read More:

MPs Prestige At Low Ebb
Guy Fawkes' Sunday Sleaze - MPs expenses musical guide

Massive Rush For University Places

image credit Sheffield Hallam University



The science of social influence predicts that the present surge in interest in university education will gather momentum.

Worries about job security and the ability to secure employment from the diminishing reservoir of jobs means that more people than ever are seeking university places. This can only drive up demand as people see university education as 'social proof' that it it is a good idea. This in turn will generate scarcity, which will increase the value of places.

So, is a university education a good idea during these uncertain times? Well if it can be funded it might be a haven away from the trials and tribulations of a stormy job market. 3 years should see you through the worst of the recession I guess. On the other hand is a university education right for you? Remember universities are places of academic study and endeavour and this comes with certain obligations and expectations. Sure many of the so called 'new' universities are climbing down from their ivory towers and providing more vocational courses. Don't be gullible and think that a university education is exclusively learning more about a subject 'in depth' and that because you know 'more stuff' that well entitle you to a job.

People still by people. For sure the university experience should develop your self confidence and self esteem, but it would be gullible too if you thought that the degree in itself will guarantee you a job when you re-surface in 3-4 years time. Just be mindful of all of the people who are thinking just like you are at the moment and armed with their new degrees they will be hunting for jobs when the economy picks up. The degree should not be thought of as a 'competitive difference' in its own right.

Be prepared to see your 'world view' change. A degree is a process of intellectual transformation, even if you study hard sciences or social sciences. You will go through periods of frustration and elation, motivation and demotivation. Crucially don't ever be duped into believing that you are embarking on a process of 'getting all the answers'. You are embarking on a process that continually confronts you with how little you know and how much there is to know.

A degree can be inspirational. Giving you ideas and thought processes that kick start you on an independent path. No more being dependent on other people's businesses for your income, no more putting your eggs in someone elses basket, no more being the the 'thing' that is cut loose after years of management rhetoric telling you 'what a valuable team player your are', or just 'how vital you are the organisations success'

A degree can help you row your own boat, and possibly even build one. If you make one good decision this year then it's probably 'don't miss out on increasingly scarce university places'. Now that would be gullible wouldn't it!

Read more:
is a degree worth anything in a recession

University Choice Resource:
Choosing a British University

A Kick In The Nuts For Harsh Torture Techniques

You might ask why is torture used? or perhaps why is torture good? why is torture bad? and even why is tirture wrong?

President Obama has said that no officials will be held to account for for harsh torture techniques This is a position that has dismayed some campaigners Nevertheless Barack Obama has made a stand and taken action to ban these techniques in future and he should be applauded for it.

Presumably by creating the category 'Harsh Torture Techniques' this means there is a category called 'Soft Torture Techniques' and that somewhere there is an official memo which defines what these are. Is it the distinction between phsyical harm and psychological harm? Perhaps not; especially if psychological distress results in physical symptoms.

Is that why 'torture by threat of nasty insect' has been banned I wonder? I guess torture is all about playing on someone's fears. So perhaps a definition of 'harsh' torture is all about techniques that induce a fear of being killed and 'soft' torture is fear of anything else that you fear, such as being tickled, or eating lemon meringue pie?

The ultimate 'soft' torture would have to be 'phobaphobia' or 'fear of fear' because as we all know 'we have nothing to fear except fear itself'. In which case no government aides need ever be prosecuted for torture because the prisoners could simply 'scare themselves sh@*tless' and confess everything without direct intervention! (Wow can this idea be patented I wonder)

Physical pain is scary and debilitating though and that's why torturers have used it rather than the psychological techniques on their own. I knew someone who worked in the British Territorial Army and as a psycholgist they specialised in 'resistance to interogation techniques'. I was fascinated to know the psych-methods they used for unlocking the prisoners mind and mouth and was keen to hear more...well, they told me...'they all talk when you kick 'em in the nuts'!

This leaves us with 'the comfy chair'. So let me torture you with laughter as you watch this classic from Monty Python.



Read More:
Abuse Isn't Torture If a Doctor Is There
2000 photos of prisoner abuse to be released April 29th 20009

Captain Phillips Freed

image credit Blindkat





It is good news that Captain Richard Phillips has been freed. Rescued not Ransomed too.

The Pirates have paid the price. The price of Piracy that has been paid throughout the ages. These people were gullible to think that they could have got away with it. For 3 of them their punishment was swift, and they might consider themselves fortunate given the nature of Pirate Punishment in the past.

Pirates Beware:
Navy Seal Snipers

Will Captain Richard Phillips be Ransomed or Rescued?

Has the policy of paying ransom money to Somali pirates been an exercise in gullibility? or is Abdi Garad the Somali pirate commander the gullible one in thinking that he and his men are going to get way with it?

Unfortunately Captain Richard Phillips is caught between a rock and a hard place. A pawn in the power plays between the US Navy and the Somali swashbucklers. He may even have been a sprat to catch a mackerel? Who knows what conspiratorial reasoning lies behind the tale. There might, however, be a saving grace.The pirate threat that "This matter is likely to create disaster because it is taking too long and we are getting information that the Americans are planning rescue tricks like the French commandos did" might not arise because the Pirates are about collecting large sums of money and surviving to spend it, not dying in the process!.

If, God forbid, something does happen to Captain Phillips then the Pirates won't stand a chance of getting away with it. They'd be gullible to expect any other outcome.

So what do you reckon, ransom or rescue?

Read More:
The Other Side of the Somali Pirate Story thanks go to Saboma for this link.