Peg Tittle's Blog, page 26

If you can’t say anything nice, maybe there’s nothing nice to say. Say it anyway.

If you’re a woman, you’ve surely been told, reprimanded, ‘If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.’  To the extent that there may be nothing nice to say, that standard of politeness has crippled us.  It has made us keep our opinions to ourselves.

My neighbours have their tv on all the time; as a result, they do very little thinking on their own.  Not only because there is no silence, typically required for thought, but also because they’re exposing themselves so relentlessly to a worldview censored by a handful of conglomerates motivated primarily by self-interest.  And then, because there’s nothing going on in their heads, they can’t stand the silence, so they keep the tv on all the time …  But do I say “Shut that thing off and wake the fuck up!”?  Of course not.  That would be rude.

They also travel a lot, by RV and by plane, checking off destinations on their bucket list.  (They also keep their thermostat at 21 degrees, make single-stop trips by car into town all the time, and eat meat every day.)  Do I point out that they’re leaving a huge ecological footprint, that they’ve contributed to the climate change, that they’re partly responsible for the increasing number and severity of storms, even the forest fires that have twice ravaged areas in their own province, and that they’re therefore being rather selfish and inconsiderate?  No.  I ask whether they had a good trip.

It the standard were applied to men as well, on the one hand that would be worse: everyone would be self-censoring, no one would be honest, dissent would be internalized and then extinguished altogether.  However, as it is applied mostly to women, it enables one of the worst elements of sexism: it makes us mute.

Social Experiment: 10 boys unsupervised; 10 girls unsupervised

Check it out:

 

 

How to Write a Scientific Paper, Schulman – from the delightfully funny AIR

I’ve recently discovered the website of AIR – Annals of Improbable Research – a magazine which I subscribed to way back when. I’ve been working my way through the site and highly recommend same to others interested in a sort of ‘Monty Python does Science’ humour.

Just read How to “Write a Scientific Paper”
https://improbable.com/airchives/pape...

Also recommend “Does a Cat Always Land on its Feet”.

And this one: https://improbable.com/airchives/clas...

Couldn’t find one “The Aerodynamics of Potato Chips” (I’ve actually still got a list of favourite giggle-inducing titles on my wall from way back when …), but it’s also a good one.

Enjoy the site!
(And you can still subscribe to the journal and/or the mini-Air newsletter in addition to surfing their site!)
(They’ve also got a podcast now …)
(And a book: This is Improbable Too: Synchronized Cows, Speedy Brain Extractors, and More WTF Research–gotta love the title)
(And of course, the annual IgNobel Prize …)

On getting paid. Or not.

So I was reading James Morrow’s The Wine of Violence and when I got to “Will the Journal of Evolution publish it?  Publish, it, hell, they’ll make me an editor” (p25), I stopped, puzzled for a moment.  Then it hit me.  To Francis, the character whose thoughts those are, becoming an editor means status and income.  To me, it has just meant more work.  That’s how it is for women.



Case in point: for five years I served on the Ethics Committee of our local hospital.  That meant I attended monthly meetings; I also offered to be on the Education sub-committee, which meant I prepared and delivered a special topics seminar each month, the Consultation sub-committee, which meant I’d meet with physicians who wanted assistance making decisions, and for which I researched and prepared an ethical-decision-making ‘tree’ (for which one of the physicians thanked me profusely, saying it has made such a difference, he was henceforth able to find a way through all the complexities and competing claims…), and the Research sub-committee, which meant I’d meet as needed to discuss research proposals put to the hospital, and for which I researched and prepared, again, a tool for decision-making (which has since been circulated among other hospitals who now use it).



The nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators on the committee were paid because their participation was on ‘hospital time’; the minister and lawyer on the committee were also paid for their participation by their parish and law company.  As a sessional at the local university, I was paid per course; any community service I decided to take on was ‘on my own dime’—that is, on a purely volunteer, unpaid, basis.



At one point, the committee arranged for the ethics officer of another hospital to come give a talk.  He was paid to do so.  He didn’t say anything I couldn’t say (and indeed hadn’t already said in one form or another).



After five years, a new hospital was built with lots of bells and whistles; I thought it a good time to propose that I be hired as an on-site part-time ethics officer.  No.  Just—no.



Women are expected to help, to assist; what they do is done as a favour.  No one expects to pay them; it’s why we ourselves don’t expect to be paid.



Men, on the other hand, expect to be paid.  And they are.  They are the ones we help; they are the ones we assist.  They do.  We just help.



But take away any man’s help, any man’s assistants, and let’s see how much he achieves,  how many programs he develops, implements; how many books he writes; how many companies he creates and runs.

40 Useful Concepts – from Twitter via Dead Wild Roses

https://deadwildroses.com/2022/12/01/...In 40 tweets I will explain 40 useful concepts you should know.1. Ostrich Effect:
We often try to avoid info that we fear will cause us stress. Thus bills and work emails remain unopened, bank balances remain unchecked. This is counterproductive because ignoring a problem doesn’t eliminate the problem or your anxiety; it only prolongs them.2. Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon:
When we notice something new, like an unusual word, we start seeing it more often. It feels like it’s become more common but really we’re just more alert to it, and we confuse our attention with reality itself. Hence conspiracy theories. 3. Nobel Disease:
We idolize those who excel in a particular field, inflating their egos and afflicting them with the hubris to opine on matters they know little about. By celebrating people for their intelligence, we make them stupid.4. Warnock’s Dilemma:
Online content that provokes people gets more engagement than content people merely agree with, which incentivizes content creators to be provocative. 

So much is alarming and enraging only because so much is trying to get your attention.

5. Google Scholar Effect:
We all get our answers from whatever tops the search results, so these results come to dominate a topic, muscling out unluckier viewpoints. Google has trapped us in an orgy of intellectual incest where everyone is drawing from the same tiny meme-pool.6. Paradox Of Unanimity:
Researchers Gunn et al. (2016) found that when eyewitnesses unanimously agreed on the identity of suspects, they were more likely to be wrong. 

The more people agree, the less likely they are thinking for themselves.

Therefore, beware of consensuses.

7. Epistemic Humility:
Instead of trying to be right, try to be less wrong. Avoiding idiocy is easier than achieving genius, and by beginning from the position that you don’t know enough (which you don’t), you’ll gain more awareness of your blindspots and become harder to fool.8. Mimetic Desire:
Craving is contagious; watching other people want a thing makes us want it too. It’s why ads are so effective. But it puts us all into unnecessary competition as we fool ourselves into chasing what others are chasing simply because they are chasing it.9. Overblown Implications Effect
We think people judge us by a single success or failure, but they don’t. If you mess up 1 meal no one thinks you’re a bad chef, and if you have 1 great idea no one thinks you’re a genius. People just aren’t thinking about you that much.
—@emollick 10. Ellsberg Paradox:
People prefer a clear risk over an unclear one, even if it’s no safer. E.g. They’d rather bet on a ball picked from a mix of 50 red & 50 black balls than on one where the exact ratio of red to black balls is unknown. Helps explain market volatility.11. Veblen Goods:
We often attach value to things simply because they’re hard to get. People will be more attracted to a painting if it costs $3 million than if it costs $3. The price becomes a feature of the product in that it allows the buyer to signal affluence to others. 12. Peter Principle:
People in a hierarchy such as a business or government will be promoted until they suck at their jobs, at which point they will remain where they are. As a result, the world is filled with people who suck at their jobs.13. Gambler’s Fallacy:
We often feel we’re owed luck for being unlucky. “The coin was heads 10 flips in a row, the next flip has gotta be tails!” But probability has no memory; it won’t make amends for its past behavior. Therefore, treat every possibility independent of the past. 14. Do Something Principle
We often procrastinate because we’re intimidated by our task. So make your task less intimidating by dividing it into steps and focusing only on the next step. Action creates traction, so each step you take will facilitate the next. 

h/t: @IAmMarkManson

15. Meme Theory:
An ideology parasitizes the mind, changing the host’s behavior so they spread it to other people. Therefore, a successful ideology (the only kind we hear about) is not configured to be true; it is configured only to be easily transmitted and easily believed. 16. Lindy Effect:
The longer a non-biological system has existed, the longer it’s likely to exist, because its age demonstrates its ability to weather the fickleness of fashions and the erosion of eons. 17. The Liar’s Dividend:
Teaching people about deepfakes and other disinfo doesn’t make them skeptical of falsehoods as much as it makes them skeptical of reality. Amid such confusion, they default to believing what they want to, discounting anything they don’t like as disinfo. 18. Shibboleth:
An absurd ideological belief is a form of tribal signaling. It signifies that one considers their ideology more important than truth, reason, or sanity. To one’s allies, this is an oath of unwavering loyalty. To one’s enemies, it is a threat display.19. The Potato Paradox:
Alice has 100kg of potatoes, which are 99% water. She lets them dry till they are 98% water. What is their new weight? 

50kg.

Sound crazy? A reminder that the truth is often counterintuitive.

20. Throat-Clearing:
Before criticizing their own tribe, people feel the need to reaffirm their loyalty to the tribe. “I support X but…” 

They do this because their peers cannot comprehend that someone could see flaws in anyone other than the enemy team.

h/t: @SarahTheHaider

21. Law of Triviality:
A company needs a nuclear reactor and a bike shed. Few workers understand reactors, but all understand sheds, so the shed becomes the focus of debate as everyone tries to enact their vision. 

Projects that require the least attention tend to get the most.

22. Chilling Effect:
When punishment for what people say becomes widespread, people stop saying what they really think and instead say whatever is needed to thrive in the social environment. Thus, limits on speech become limits on sincerity. 23. Reiteration Effect
Joseph Goebbels said* “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” and he was right; repetition can make people believe things they otherwise wouldn’t. 

*Goebbels didn’t really say this, but everyone thinks he did because of the Reiteration Effect.

24. Naïve Realism:
We know others are biased, but think we see the world as it is. Thus, teaching people about biases & fallacies doesn’t make them doubt their own beliefs, it only makes them even more doubtful of their opponents’. 25. Purity Spiral:
Members of political tribes inevitably begin competing with their fellows to be the most ideologically pure. The constant one-upmanship toward moral superiority causes the whole group to gradually become more extreme. E.g. Maoist China, Twitter echo-chambers.26. Kayfabrication:
Politics is pro-wrestling in suits. Opposing parties are collaborators in a greater system, whose choreographed conflict entertains and distracts us from what is really going on. 

h/t: @EricRWeinstein

27. Postjournalism:
The press lost its monopoly on news when the internet democratized info. To save its business model, it pivoted from journalism into tribalism. The new role of the press is not to inform its readers but to confirm what they already believe. 28. Curiosity Zone:
Curiosity is the desire to fill gaps in knowledge. Thus, curiosity occurs not when you know nothing about something, but when you know a bit about it. So learn a little about as much as you can (like you’re doing now!), and it will spur you to learn even more. 29. Sorites Paradox:
What’s the minimum number of grains of sand needed to make a heap? We don’t know, because human language (in this case the word “heap”) is imprecise. If our language can’t even quantify a heap, how can it resolve the complex questions we so fiercely debate? 30: Brandolini’s Law (aka the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): 

It takes a lot more energy to refute bullshit than to produce it. Hence, the world is full of unrefuted bullshit.

31. Algorithmic Blindspots:
We find growth while searching for other things. Algorithms give us exactly what we want on demand, so we never need to search, and never find what we never knew we needed. 

If you wish to grow, defy the robots’ recommendations.

h/t: @david_perell

32. Longtermism: 

a) Future people matter morally as much as people alive now.
b) There are likely many more future people than people alive now.
c) Small changes now can have huge repercussions in future.
If these are true, should we be doing more for future generations?

33. The Two-Minute Rule:
If a task would take less than two minutes, do it immediately. This is because adding the task to your mental to-do list, keeping it in your memory, and managing the anxiety of not having done it will take far more effort than just doing it now. 34. Promethean Gap:
Technology is outpacing wisdom; we’re changing the world faster than we can adapt to it. Lagging ever more behind accelerating progress, we’re increasingly unable to foresee the effects of what we create. We’re amassing the power of gods, yet we remain apes. 35. Information-Action Ratio
The mark of useful info is that it makes us act differently. Most info we consume doesn’t make us act differently; we just passively graze on it like cattle before defecating it undigested. 

Stop mindless scrolling and seek out info that changes you.

36. Gurwinder’s Third Paradox:
In order for you to beat someone in a debate, your opponent needs to realize they’ve lost. Therefore, it’s easier to win an argument against a genius than an idiot. 37. Media Naturalness Theory
Writing has existed for <2% of human history, so our brains are not evolved for reading; we need vocal/facial cues for context. Thus, accept that you’ll be misunderstood online, but never stop tweeting, for the only way to write clearer is by writing. 38. Tilting At Windmills:
An online stranger doesn’t know you; all they have are a few vague impressions of you, too meager to form anything but a phantasm. So when they attack “you”, they’re really just attacking their own imagination, and there is no need to take it personally. 39. Principle Of Humanity:
Every single person is exactly what you would be if you were them. This includes your political opponents. So instead of dismissing them as evil or stupid, maybe seek to understand the circumstances that led them to their conclusions. 40. Empty Name:
We can be convinced that a concept is real by the mere fact that it has a name, but the world is full of names for things that aren’t real (e.g. Batman). As such, assume nothing is true just because it has a name (including every concept in this megathread!) Thank you for lending me your eyeballs.

The Assistants by Camille Perri – highly recommended!

Just finished reading Camille Perri’s The Assistants — highly recommended! It’s Nine to Five updated and with a great moral element; better than any nonfiction book about the income inequity between the top 1% and the rest of us … With attitude, to boot!

“Robert had tie-clips that cost as much as those [student loan] debts. one man’s private-jet ride to Key West was another woman’s second chance at life. …” (p219)

And the sexual harassment seminar — delightful!!

 

Another reason to hate men

Another reason to hate men:

“By 2050 at the latest, and ideally before 2040, we must have stopped emitting more greenhouse gases [typically caused by the burning of fossil fuels]  into the atmosphere than Earth can naturally absorb through its ecosystems (a balance known as net-zero emissions or carbon neutrality).  In order to get to this scientifically established goal, our global greenhouse gas emissions must be clearly on the decline by the early 2020s and reduced by at least 50 percent by 2030.”  The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, (architects of the Paris Agreement), pxxii

Snowmobiles and ATVs “emit 25 percent as many hydrocarbons as all the nation’s cars and trucks put together, according to an EPA study.”

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1999/02-19/0062_environment__snowmobiles__atvs_du.html

“In one hour, a typical snowmobile emits as much hydrocarbon as a 2001 model auto emits in about two years (24,300 miles) of driving. “

https://mymuskoka.blogspot.com/2010/01/snowmobile-pollution.html

“Two-stroke PWC engines dump 25 – 40% of uncombusted fuel in the lake, the air, or on the land.”

https://mymuskoka.blogspot.com/2010/01/snowmobile-pollution.html

“In a single hour of run time, a 2000-model PWC will dump about 4 gallons (15 liters) of unburned oil and gas into the water [source: CO Parks].”

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/watercraft-destroy-planet.htm

Snowmobiles and ATVs “emit 25 percent as many hydrocarbons as all the nation’s cars and trucks put together, according to an EPA study.”

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1999/02-19/0062_environment__snowmobiles__atvs_du.html

Over 95% of those who drive snowmobiles, ATVs, and jetskis are men.

That is to say, men are producing fossil fuel emissions — lots of fossil fuel emissions — just for fun.

(And that’s quite apart from “”Snowmobiles create a noise corridor five miles wide” and “PWC produce noise levels in the range of 85-102 decibels (dB) per unit — levels at which the American Hospital Association recommends hearing protection (above 85 dB).”  https://www.stopthrillcraft.org/statistics.htm)

WLRN podcast: A Feminist Analysis of Christianity

https://wlrnmedia.wordpress.com/2020/...

 

December, Like It’s 1989

December, Like It’s 1989

Tell it.
  Geneviève Bergeron, civil engineering
  Hélène Colgan, mechanical engineering
  Nathalie Croteau, mechanical engineering
  Barbara Daigneault, mechanical engineering
  Anne-Marie Edward, chemical engineering
  Maud Haviernick, materials engineering
  Maryse Laganière, finance department
  Maryse Leclair, materials engineering
  Anne-Marie Lemay, mechanical engineering
  Sonia Pelletier, mechanical engineering
  Michèle Richard, materials engineering
  Annie St-Arneault, mechanical engineering
  Annie Turcotte, materials engineering
  Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, nursing.

“Hey, come on.
  Not all men are like that, okay.”
  Not really a question.
  Reductio ad absurdum.
  That’s an order, okay?

Men are proud, they have all the good qualities.
  A penis.
  Inalienable rights.
  Access to female bodies.
  (Everyone knows the females don’t have real minds, okay?)
  Not really a question.

Look, don’t men suffer?
  Aren’t they brave?
  Aren’t they manly?
  Aren’t they courageous?
  Aren’t they rational?
  Not really questions.
  They deserve what they get.
  That’s an order, okay?

Cold day, ordinary winter day, right?
  Not really a question.
  “He told us to leave, and we did.”

Just walked out.
  Not one of them tried to tackle him.
  Not one of them tried to grab the semi-automatic.
  Just walked out.
  They were very rational.
  Didn’t want to get hurt.
  Weren’t they brave?
  Weren’t they manly?
  Weren’t they courageous?
  Not really a question.
  Reductio ad absurdum.
  Not all men are like that, okay?

Don’t ask the question.
  That’s an order.
  Pat Parker said it, paraphrasing here…
  “Brother, that system
    you hit me with
      is called
        a fist.”

Tell it.
  Geneviève Bergeron, civil engineering, 21;
  Hélène Colgan, mechanical engineering, 23;
  Nathalie Croteau, mechanical engineering, 23;
  Barbara Daigneault, mechanical engineering, 22;
  Anne-Marie Edward, chemical engineering, 21;
  Maud Haviernick, materials engineering, 29;
  Maryse Laganière, finance department, 31;
  Maryse Leclair, materials engineering, 25;
  Anne-Marie Lemay, mechanical engineering, 23;
  Sonia Pelletier, mechanical engineering, 22;
  Michèle Richard, materials engineering, 28;
  Annie St-Arneault, mechanical engineering, 21;
  Annie Turcotte, materials engineering, 23;
  Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, nursing, 21.

six decembre mille neuf cent quatre-vingt neuf

C. Osborne

http://www.moonspeaker.ca/AllocentricPerceptions/Poetry/decemberlikeits1989.html

Why won’t misogyny die?

Because believing you’re better simply because you’re male is, like believing you’re better simply because your skin is white, the only way to high(er) status that doesn’t depend on actually doing something.