Scientists discover gene and part of brain that make people gullible

Scientists discover gene and part of brain that make people gullible

So now we know.

Gary Hart Rationalises The Selby Rail Crash

Gary Hart who fell asleep at the wheel loosing control of his vehicle which then left the road and hit a train killing ten people displays that classic aspect of humans. The rationalistion.

He does not accept the part he played in the problem, preferring to to manage his cognitive dissonance by claiming "I believe in fate and I was meant to be there that morning."

Justice Minister Goads Middle Class

It seems rather perverse that someone with the title Justice Minister should be telling a huge section of the voting public that they are to get prepared for suffering caused by a very tiny number of the voting public. Kenneth Clarke is reported on the BBC as believing the Middle Class are clueless. "I don't think Middle England has quite taken on board the scale of the problem."

Do us all a favour Ken. Of course we do! We paid the collosall sums out of our tax pockets to keep the banks afloat. We also know that bankers are laughing and whilst the very people that bankrolled them suffer they guzzle huge bonuses for simply messing about on spreadsheets and computers all day.

The Egyptian people have provided a clear path to peaceful regime change and this could well set a precedent. How dare Kenneth Clarke patronise the hard working people of this country by insinuating that they are somehow childishly ignorant of the mess the bankers have created for our country.

Kenneth Clarkes comments are unjust.

Salute The People Of Egypt

The people of Egypt have moved the world and won the admiration and respect of people everywhere. Their resolve, their dignity and their bravery are to be much admired. I wish your country and countrymen peace and prosperity.

Happy Christmas Bah Humbug

There are some things that really cheese me off about Christmas. Not Christmas itself I hasten to add but the things that happen just because it happens to be Christmas.

Number One - Retail Store Sales because the purveyors of rampant consumerism whinge for weeks prior to Christmas that people aren't shopping enough, then milliseconds into the Christmas holiday they promote 'Sales' seemingly ignorant of the fact that they they created their own problems by selling stuff at ultra cheap prices on the 26th of December. People aren't stupid. Why pay more just for a Christmas day present in full knowledge that it will be more than 50% cheaper in 24 hours time!


Number Two - Dwelling on terrible news that is of no real concern for people that are not directly affected. This mawkish obsession with bad news at 'Christmas Time' is too much and abnormal. In the past most of us would be none the wiser, and feel much happier and safer as a result. It seems ridiculous to expect that people can emotionally take on constant streams of 'bad news.

Number Three - Finding someone to blame for something, such as the Heathrow disruption. There are significant numbers of people on the 'look out' for kicking someone else. Boo hoo they cry, my Christmas was ruined because I couldn't get my flight a the airports to blame. Get over it. Its one day and there are 364 more where you can get together.

Problems are personal, relative and private, and cheap Gucci will not make them go away.

Lord Young A Sorry Apology

There is something quite disturbing about the remarks about the economy, and the people affected by the recession by Lord Young to the Daily Telegraph. His apology is like that of a petty criminal who apologises in court not because he is truly sorry but because he is sorry he has been caught out.




He has been caught out because the deeper machinations of his sense-making, his core values and his beliefs have manifested themselves in some astonishing claims about the British Society and the British Economy. These are comment of man who has clearly never felt the 'fear' of loosing your ability to provide for yourself and your family, here is a man who inferring that people who are made redundant are work shy scroungers.

If we are to consider the 'generative mechanisms' that lie underneath Lord Young's callous statements, one of them of course is to speak 'as if' the economy is devoid of human beings. To describe 100,000 people as potentially a 'margin of error' is despicable. The economic way of explaining the world (not one covered in glory for predictive accuracy) is that of the 'closed system', where the numbers and the money are cleanly separated from humans and feelings. You only have to look at other regimes that thought of people as 'numbers' to see where that attitude comes from. Go on, check the documents, the millions of people with their inky part numbers on their arms, the numbers that were reported as processed to the centre. This is a deeper and darker belief that has found its way out into the light.

To suggest that people have 'never had it so good' is deluded if you give a kind interpretation (bless him he can't help it, its his age you know)Realistically it is outrageous. He has clearly never lived in a world where uncertainty, stress, financial pressures, despair, anxiety worry are never conflated with the term 'good'.

Lord Young should be sacked. It is the first time I have been moved to protest on the streets. This man should be removed with the speed of the cuts that are affecting the rest of us. How dare he speak of human beings as mere numbers. Here's a book he needs to read.

Are Lecturers Being Dunces Over Public Service Cutbacks?

Whilst it is understandable for any group of employees to try and defend their positions and income it seems rather ill-judged for lecturers to implicitly condone the reckless behaviour of the vandals at Goldsmiths by suggesting that:

"The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts." 

There are logical problems with the deliberate use of English in their statement. They have isolated an act from its context. The smashed window was part of episodes of aggressive behaviour. It was an act borne out of generative mechanism relating to a set of ideas that condone the use of violence to make a point. It downplays the significance and meaning of the act.

The claim above also suggests that breaking windows is analogous to a management process that (whether well judged or not) is re-structuring processes and monies. Nothing in that process is being physically broken. Now I've been there, in the commercial world where for whatever reason my job was under threat. I've lost my job and it is not a pleasant experience. Did I go the merchant banks that I thought played a significant part in that experience and smash their windows? No. I faced up to the situation and moved on.

I am there now. As an academic I believe that people have a right to access Higher Education. I believe that the country should invest in HE as the R&D department of UK plc too, and it has to be investment that is valued. of course axiological judgements will be made, and that is how the issue should be debated. What do we as a society value and what is valued in our Higher Education experience and output.  That said Higher Education doesn't simply have a right to exist because it is Higher Education. It needs to provide true value (epistemologically, pedagogically and practically) and that value has a value that is worth paying for by the people who study. The relativist agenda that suggests that all things are equal (except my point of view which is the best of all) is child like in its grasp of social reality.Some people might not be bright enough or financially capable of having HE. There should be mechanisms to help the exceptional not processes to facilitate the ordinary.

The violent tantrum of the students at Goldsmiths will, if they educate themselves, be realised as incapable of changing anything. It was a destructive act not a generative act. Where are the ideas for solving the problem of funding HE from these bright sparks? The lecturers who have supported the violence have done their students a disservice. They have endorsed a partial grasp of social reality, they have not encouraged imaginative thinking, they have not developed a true sense of critical thinking on and in the nature of HE provision.

 




 

Does Wikileaks Abuse Freedom Of Information?

Is knowing the plain truth (whatever we mean by that) always a good thing? The whole Wikileaks thing has got me thinking. On the face of it freedom of information seems like a very good idea. Think for more than a few moments about it and the topic becomes much more complicated.

Like most ideas the Wikileaks issue touches on the problem of intention. For example, if I was to ask you if cutting somebody with knife was a good idea, it would all depend on the intention of the person doing the cutting. A malignant intention would be doing it to harm me, like a mugger or a burglar, whereas a surgeon might be cutting me to save my life.

The same goes for knowing things. Sometimes it's in the best interests of everyone for people to be circumspect with the facts. In the classic case of  the woman asking her partner 'does my butt look big in this dress', it is not necessarily the case that speaking the 'truth' is an appropriate response. To me the founder of Wikileaks has a child-like and irresponsible attitude to the 'is my butt big' type of situation. He rationalizes the publication of all information as a good thing simply because he holds a catch all philosophy that making the information available is a good thing. This is naive because making information available has consequences and those consequences can harm other people. He is saying that free access to information trumps the effect it has. Surely this can't always be the case. There are bigger pictures to consider.

The question isn't between a world where there is no information versus a world where everything is available. Wisdom and judgments come into play. Telling your partner that her butt looks massive might be true and it might not be taken as polite, helpful, or conducive to a good on-going relationship.

You have to ask what is the motivation driving the fixation with such a simplistic stance to the provision of freely available information. What is going off in the head of the founder of Wikileaks? Why is the provision of information totally divorced from consequences regarded as a 'good idea'? It borders on a socio-pathic disregard for the impact of actions on others. Is there a case for a therapeutic intervention here? What might have happened if Wikileaks was around in the second world war? Would Wikileaks have felt it was appropriate to let the Nazis know about Radar installations? Enigma code breaking, the arrangements for D Day? I presume I'm OK saying these things because being free to express myself regardless of the embarrassment, risks for others or hurt it might create is OK. Surely I'm just being a true Wikileakerist?

Wikileaks is a concept that smacks of the half baked idealistic thinking of first year undergraduates. Naively idealistic and totally simplistic in its grasp of the systemic complexities it purports to address. Wikileaks is a gullible idea. Yes Wikileaks you have the right to know that your digital butt does look big in this.

UK Government's Budget Cuts Hidden Agenda?

Mark Easton raises an interesting point about who will be affected by the UK government budget cuts. Implicit in his article is the fact that the budget cuts will result in profound social change with particular consequences for women.



Things don't just happen in the real world. Actions are predicated on underpinning philosophy. The inference in Mark Easton's article is plain. A conservative philosophical perspective of family life an the role of women in society (unless they are rich an financially independent) sees women better off performing a domestic role. There is nothing so practical as a good theory said Kurt Lewin.

They've also one the stakeholder analysis, who has power and interest. Cut back areas of major female employment because the political consequences can be managed. Plus we have the added bonus of more consistent female influence in younger years an that will improve anti social behaviour, families will be locked together due to fearful dependence on a male breadwinner, and hey ho we are back to where our social values ought to be.

The budget cuts are as much about social engineering as social prudence.