What happens when...

...a brain scientist has a stroke

Prepared to be wrong

I have yet to see a video of a talk from TED that hasn't been really good. And this is no exception. The quote I like, "If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original."

Books I like

Just this morning, I realized one aspect of why I like Blue Like Jazz. It reads like a blog. Each chapter is a separate story that can stand on it's own. But reading all of them, you get a bigger picture of the author and what the author thinks. This is true of Velvet Elvis, too.

Or it's possible (but highly unlikely) that since most of my reading of late has been blogs instead of books, I'm just justifying my preferences and trying to equate blog reading with book reading... Yeah, right! Glad that thought was so easy to dismiss.

Quote of the Day

For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

Here's the rest of the article.

UPDATE: I hadn't finished reading the article when I submitted this post. I like this quote even better.

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

Hankerin' 2

At church tonight, my pastor talked politics. There were a number of things that he said that directly opposed something I said in my previous post:

I think God still thinks that all of our governments are unnecessary.

That may have been a bit strong. He was specifically talking about the role that a Christian should play with politics. He was explicitly *NOT* telling anyone how to vote. But he did make two points that that I want to comment on:

1. The power that the government has is delegated to it by God.
   
2. We should get out and vote.
   

First things first. I agree with point 1. I obey the laws of this country and do not plan on doing otherwise. However, I think that the government that we have in this country is a shell of it's original intentions. The system of government that we have is, by far, the most free system of government in the world. But I think it's been in a slow and steady decline. And I don't see much hope for improvement. Our government was borne out of the concept of freedom. Yet, we have a the Kelo decision, and all of its successors. We're supposed to have equal protection under the law, yet if you're a bank, you can get special legislation that gives you immunity from patent law. If you are unlucky enough to have bought a piece of land that the government decides has an endangered species on it, you lose whatever property rights you had.

What is the commonality of all these things? These decisions all hinged on miscarriage of government power. In all of these cases, the government granted special permissions to a few at the expense of others. In one case to gain more tax revenue (increasing the size of the government). In another case, it was to have access to a very wealthy industry (allowing encumbants to remain in power). And in the last case, it was pandering to a group of socialists to override private property rights (helping to fulfill the socialist dream of the government running absolutely everything). IMHO, we have a government run amok.

And not a single one of the options left to us for president has any hope of making it better. Two of them want to socialize medicine, and the other one is proud of having severely restricted freedom of speech, and now vows to further restrict freedom of association. In fact, they all seem to be racing to "do more", and in doing so reducing the basic individual liberties that this country was founded on. Those individual liberties are the source of the wealth of this country. If you're serious about battling poverty, you can't be sanguine about the restriction of liberty.

Frankly, I can scarcely see any significant differences in the two major parties any more. For decades the democrats have been saying one thing then doing another. The biggest example that I think of is the unintended consequences that have come out of FDRs new deal and LBJs great society. But more recently, Bush proved that republicans are not immune to this disease. Whatever happened to permanent tax reform? What about spending control? How about social security reform as promised? Instead we got an government entitlement program - from the "small government" party.

My pastor made the point that it's possible for government to go beyond the authority that has been delegated to it. I tend to think that our government has done that and it's only going to get worse. So while I respect the authority of our government, and like David (the old testament dude), comply with it's authority, I still think that there is huge change required, and most of it in the reduction of government. In other words, getting back to a government that is aligned with the power that God has delegated. Which means forcing the government to give up a huge amount of what it's usurped.

As to point #2, at this point I can't see myself actually voting in the presidential election. I am so disappointed with the candidates that we have available that my non-vote has got to speak at least as loudly as my vote. Now, I will certainly remain engaged in what I think is rational policy. And I'm much more prone to vote in local elections. But the choice of remaining presidential candidates stinks so badly that I can't muster the nerve to associate my vote with any of them. People died so I could have the right to vote. I really don't think that any of the lot remaining are worthy of that sacrifice.

Hankerin' for an Argument

A friend of mine lent me a book that he really enjoyed. I've been wanting to read it for two reasons: First, I saw the author give a talk at an event and it was mind blowing. It took me weeks of pondering it before I felt normal again. Second, my friend who lent it to me is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. If he liked it, it's gotta be good.

And it's good.

The book is Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. It's somewhere between a memior and really good explanation of Christianity. I'm half way through and I'm finding it hard to put down.

Of course, I'm a little surprised that I like it as much as I do. Because the author appears to be pretty far on the left side of the political spectrum. In one section he said:

"Satan, who I believe exists as much as I believe Jesus exists, wants us to believe meaninless things for meaningless reasons. Can you imagine if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue us from the pit of our own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half the world was living in poverty? Do you think they would change the way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? If we believed the right things, the true things, there wouldn't be very many problems on earth."

I get his main point. That we believe trivial things for trivial purposes and that leads to weird results. I agree with this. But I'm bothered by the underlying assumptions. The assumption that poverty can be fixed by the actions of the wealthy. That if Americans were more "in tune" with what's really going on we'd behave differently and that would cure the world of it's ills.

I'm guessing, but I think his prescription is this: the wealthy sharing their wealth with the poor solves the poverty problem. I think that usually makes the poverty problem worse.

I don't have any idea what Americans would do if we believed less trivial things. But what I actually think would do a better job of fixing the poverty problem would be exporting the liberties we have here to everywhere and making everywhere less encumbered by stupid human rules. How much poverty exists becuase of liberty crushing government? How much are those governments propped up by the good intentions of wealthy people who send their money to the dictators?

I wish I could have a discussion with Donald Miller. I wish I could convince him that some of us in the non-left camp are very concerned with world poverty. But as for me, I happen to believe that the best way to achieve it lies not with the modern liberal bent, but with the promotion of freedom. I want to convince him that the source of wealth, in this broken world, is something entirely unexpected. I'd like to try and convince him that emergent phenomena are God's pre-programming in us to get something that He wants. And that wealth is created out of an emergent phenomenon.

I'd try to convince him that if you really want to help the poor, it's a good idea to look at what has actually worked and what hasn't. I think God is a bigger believer in the power of freedom than I am. He made us free despite the fact that he knew it'd cause all this pain and suffering. And He's constantly talking about the evils of bondage and the promise of freedom. So I happen to think that when He's in charge, it will look almost exactly like the libertarian utopia... except it'll have God in it reminding us not to impose any other rules than his. It was, after all, the Israelites who demanded a King, despite protestations from God that it wasn't necessary. I think God still thinks that all of our governments are unnecessary. And I agree.

All of this being said, I might be wrong about the assumptions that I'm reading into the author. But I see them all over the place in this book, and it drives me crazy.

And I still can't put it down for how much I'm enjoying it.

Tassels

I suggested "Velvet Elvis" as material for study to my men's group.
I'm re-reading it. These are my (completely raw) thoughts on
Chapter 4: Tassels

Failure: 097
One of my favorite motivators is not being afraid to fail. I love
this concept. I try to live by it. Of course, there's two types
of failure. One that is neutral to your relationship w/God and
one that is negative to your relationship to God. An example of a
neutral failure might be making a career change that was a bad idea.
I really don't think God cares what career we have so long as we
keep Him in it. An example of a negative failure would be breaking
one of His commandments. I've become convinced that a huge fear
of neutral failures keeps me from experiencing God's glory in the
successes that might arise.

And it's everywhere. My former boss, the one who recently laid
me off, could not move forward on a project unless it was 100%
planned out before the start. What drives this is a fear of
failure. But, the problem is that on a project you're lucky if
you can anticipate 80% of the solution that you're trying to build.
So you have to leap. You have to take a stab at the 80% and hope
that you'll figure out the remaining 20% on the way. If you insist
on any where close to 100% at the beginning, you'll end up paralyzed.

Honest & Raw: 101
"The more honest and raw we made it the more people loved it."
How is this concept different than this concept, "The more we just
teach the Bible, the more people love it." Or, "Our success is
based on the fact that we just teach the Bible." Same thing with,
"All we cared about was trying to teach and live the way of Jesus."

Salvation Now: 108
"God wants us to be the people he originally intended us to be."
Accepting Christ is only the very first, small step in that
transformation. So how am I doing? I see different changes.
I see some things that are good. But there are incessant struggles.
So what defines me? Is it the struggles or the good?

And the answer is both. I've managed to compartmentalize myself.
On the one hand, I do appreciate the changes that have happened in
my life. I rejoice in them. I allow them to define me. But I
also curse the struggles with sin that have not been overcome.
I believe that God's transformation in me is both true and false
at the same time. These changes in me are not a result of me.
Yet these other things that haven't changed are evidence that I'm
not responding to God's transformation.

It's easy to cling to the idea that the latter is just Satan
whispering condemnation in my ear. That's what I want to believe.
It's comforting. But I don't know if it's true. I don't know which
is true: that I'm saying to God, "Thy will be done" or that God is
saying to me, "Thy will be done".

Superwhatever: 116
What is my superwhatever? Do I have one? What impossible image
am I trying to live up to? My first instinct is my wife's father.
I really can't live up to the subtle expectations that my wife has
of me that I be just like her father. But is that a cop out?
Am I just being lazy?

Which gets us to...

Sabbath: 117
I love the concept of Sabbath. I was eavesdropping on someone last
week telling a story about the differences between men and women.
Men have boxes. None of the boxes touch each other. And one
of the very important boxes, for men, is the empty one. The one
with nothing. "Nothing time" is a very important time in my life.
I need some of it... weekly.

But the story doesn't end with just men's perceptions. Women don't
have boxes. In fact in women's world, there's a humongous web.
And every point on the web is connected to every other point on
the web. There is no nothing. Any attempt to isolate yourself
has ripple effects on everything else. Nothingness is a negative.

So, how do I reconcile my need for nothingness? Am I right in
needing it. The Bible seems to support this. But the Bible
was written by men. How would it have been written if women took
their perspective to it? But more importantly, how do I work in my
nothingness time without causing a huge ripple effect on my wife's
highly connected web? No matter what happens, one of us suffers.
Either I give up my nothingness, or I create a negative ripple on
my wife's web. Maybe she's right. Maybe I really am supposed to
be superdad.

This yoke is not always easy.

I love this idea: Sabbath is a day to remind myself that I did not
make the world and that it will continue to exist w/out my efforts.
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant I can become about my
efforts. As if the whole fabric of society will be at a loss
w/out me.

Maybe I don't have to be superdad. My father certainly wasn't
and yet here I am working hard and humbly to figure out how to be
better than I currently am. And I *know* that it involves God.
More than anything, I wish that for my children. To be able to
assess their lives, and involve God in whatever changes are needed.
So if my father wasn't superdad, how much am I required to be
superdad for that to happen?

And yet I'm still haunted by the ripple effects that this might
have on my wife's web. I don't know which is right.

News flash.. I'm a nerd. Who knew?

Something frightening...

My friend Justin loves to tell stories of his mom, Maureen. Maureen is little quirky in about the same way that a desert is a little dry. Her quirkiness is very entertaining to her 4 sons. When they get together, one will eventually ask about any new "Maureen stories". And, of course, all the brothers know that this is not an occasion to describe her general status or well being. It's a time to marvel at, and be amused by the ways in which Marueen sees and interacts with the world.

One example is an incident where she tells Justin to be very careful with people named Mark. Maureen was, at the time, employed alongside someone called Mark, and that guy was not someone to be trifled with. "As if," Justin would recount, "the very name of Mark conveys danger about the person who had the bad luck of receiving that name."

Justin's least favorite Maureen stories had to do with her concern over his bodily well being. Even when Justin was a fully grown adult, Maureen would regail him to put on a jacket because she was cold. It didn't matter that Justin might say, "But, mom, *I* am NOT cold." The fact that she was cold was sufficient evidence to decide the matter.

Maureen eventually developed an obsession with the amount of fluids that Justin consumed. "You don't urinate enough," she would claim. "You need to drink more fluids so you urinate more." This concern developed quite unexpectedly after Justin was in college. And while it was probably irritating to not be believed about his own assessment of his thirst, it was nevertheless a gem of a "Maureen story". To be saved for later and retold. Which is, of course, how I heard it.

Which brings me to my frightening experience.

I was on my way to bed tonight and I found a stuffed pokemon toy that belonged to my 2nd son (6 years old, 2nd of 4 sons). Earlier, when I was putting him to bed, I had asked him where "Turtwig" was - yes, I know the names of their pokemon toys, but that's not the frightening part. My son said that he had recently lost that one. So I felt pretty good about finding it for him and went to deliver it to him while he slept. I was hoping it would result in a happy surprise when he woke up

When I went in there, he had kicked off his covers. And in my head, I did a quick analysis. He's kicked off his covers - that would suggest that he's warm. But he's balled up really tightly in the fetal position. That would suggest he's cold. How do I break this tie? Well I'm a little chilly. He's probably a little cold. So I covered him back up.

On the way out the door, it hit me: I'm turning into Maureen.

I comfort myself with the thought that it's a disease that has a much higher incidence among parents. And I, like Maureen, have 4 sons. I wonder if this is a risk factor. I haven't been very concerned with their fluid intake. But still. It's 1:45 am. And I can't sleep. The comforting part isn't very.

:)

The right table

Here's the tables that I should have put in the last post.  I think they do a better job of making my point.

The point that Jon was making:

Couple	Intention	Preventing	Consequences
Tom & Sue	Trying	No Prevention	Baby
Joe & Amy	Not Trying	No Prevention	Baby
Bill & Jane	Trying Not To	No Prevention	Baby

Jon's point is that the difference in the intention column doesn't have any impact on the consequence.  Thus all three of the things in the Intention column are equivalent.   While differences in the Preventing column will have statistically significant difference in the consequence column.  Jon's real point: don't talk about trying or not trying or trying not to if you're not actively doing anything about it.

The point that I was making is this:

Couple	Intention	Preventing	Consequences
Tom & Sue	Trying	No Prevention	Baby Definitely Happy
Joe & Amy	Not Trying	No Prevention	Baby Could be happy or sad
Bill & Jane	Trying Not To	No Prevention	Baby Definitely Sad

My point is that there is a difference in the consequences.  The lines are not the same.  Hence, trying, not trying, and trying not to are different, even if all those people are not actively exercising prevention. 

Where I can agree with Jon is that the practical impact of "intention" on consequences is much less than the impact of active prevention on the consequences.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  This point should absolutely be emphasized to anyone who is sexually active and does not want, or is incapable of caring for a child.

Trying

My friend Jon and I got into a debate about what "trying" means. Another friend commented that he and his wife were not being careful about getting pregnant, but that they "weren't trying". Jon commented that if you're not actively preventing it, and you know what the consequences are, then you are, in fact, trying. The crux of Jon's argument is that there's an action that happens (sex) which has a probability of a consequence (baby). These actions and consequences are exactly the same when you're trying and when you're not actively preventing. Hence trying and not preventing are the same thing.

I disagreed, but I couldn't seem to dissuade Jon from this point of view. I argued that he was talking about responsibility, and that intent and responsibility were not linked. If two couples are both not actively preventing pregnancy, and one is trying while the other is not trying, both couples will be equally responsible if they produce a baby. If we're talking about responsibility, I completely agree with Jon. But I thought we were talking about "trying", which I don't think is the same thing.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, I came up with a much better response after the discussion was long over. When someone says "trying" they usually mean that they have a goal they wish to achieve. So if someone is "trying" to do something (including get pregnant) they are sad if they fail. When someone is "not trying" they're not sad if they fail. Imagine two couples:

Couple	Intentions	Results	Are they sad about this?
Tom & Sue	Trying	Get pregnant	No
Joe & Amy	Not trying	Get pregnant	Yes
Tom & Sue	Trying	Did not get pregnant	Yes
Joe & Amy	Not trying	Did not get pregnant	No

Look at the couples who are trying. They're satisfaction with the result is exactly the opposite of those who are not trying. So, there are differences in the results. The actions and the consequences are not exactly the same. And I think this is what our friend was trying to say. When he said, "we're not trying" I think he meant that if they don't get pregnant, they won't be sad.(*)

I understand why Jon, as a highschool teacher, makes this argument. It's meant to shock teenagers from some stupid excuse. It's meant to say that if they're not actively preventing pregnancy, they might as well be trying to get pregnant. I understand that stance. Its useful as a tool to dissuade teens who might become sexually active, or worse, become sexually active without any attempts to prevent a baby -- for which they will struggle to provide care. But I don't think that "trying" is the same thing as "not preventing". I think that's a redefinition of what most people mean when they say "trying".

(*) Ironically, when our friend asked his wife if they were "trying", she pretty much said yes. But I think my point stands despite the specific circumstances of our friends' lives.

Update:
I've added a new entry with a much better set of tables that explains what I was thinking.

Monogomous wives?

Steve Landsburg has published a book called "More Sex is Safe Sex". I found out about this from econlog. Back in January 2005, I read the article that Landsburg wrote with the same title. That article no longer appears to be available. In any case, I had some questions for him, so I sent him this email:

I just your article titled "MORE SEX IS SAFER SEX". This has produced a series of questions that I have been unable to resolve on my own, and was wondering if you could provide some insite.

In your "monogamous wives" parable you mention that all the men demand two sexual partners and all the women demand one. As a consequence, prostitution starts up, and the prostitutes end up being the source of HIV for most of the men. Basically, if any one person in this country is infected, the prostitutes turn into the transmission point to ensure that everyone in the country becomes infected.

You argue that if the women were to take another partner, then prostitution will die, and most everyone will not be infected.

1. Question 1: Doesn't this assume that the prostitutes are the source of the disease?
   

   
   As example, I offer the following image, where men are represented by letters and women are represented by numbers. A & 1 are married, B & 2 are married, etc. A line indicates that they're having sex.
   

   
   A B C D E F G H
   | | | | | | | |
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   

   
   If we assume that each woman's additional partner will be the husband of her neighbor to the right, then we end up with this:
   

   
   A B C D E F G H A
   |/|/|/|/|/|/|/|/
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   

   
   Now as soon as any one of them gets infected, all of them will get infected. There's two ways that this isn't true. The first is if one of the infected people dies before they can propagate the infection. With the effectiveness of drugs at prolonging life with HIV, that seems like a bad assumption. The second way this isn't true is if the prostitutes are the original source of the infection. At which point everyone's demands are being met and there's no impetous for an external source of infection.


2. Question 2: What if the prostitutes aren't the source of the disease?
   

   
   Using my notation above, and assuming that the prostitutes aren't the source of the disease, I can construct a similar graph which optimally limits the spread of the disease and meets the assumption of 2 partners per person:
   

   
   A B C D E F G H
   |x| |x| |x| |x|
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   

   
   This additionally assumes that there's an even number of couples. In this case, the best solution is a fixed "wife-swapping" scenario. Now if any one of them gets infected, the infection will spread to only 3 other people (4 total)


3. Question 3: But if that's good, then why isn't monogamy even better?
   

   
   A B C D E F G H
   | | | | | | | |
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   

   
   If any one of the people get infected, then the spread is limited to only one other person. Yes, in order for this to work, men need to be monogamous, which violates the assumption that all men demand at least 2 partners. But doesn't this demonstrate that such a demand is part of the problem, and that monogamy is more effective at limiting the spread of the disease?


4. Question 4: What about other complications, like having children?
   

   
   Looking at my graph from Question 1 we get:
   

   
   A B C D E F G H A
   |/|/|/|/|/|/|/|/
   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
   

   
   Assume 16 children. The bigamist scenario is on the left and the monogamous scenario is on the right.
   

   
   A1 => boy(A1)   A1 => boy(A1)
   B1 => girl(B1)  A1 => girl(A1)
   B2 => boy(B2)   B2 => boy(B2)
   C2 => girl      B2 => girl(B2)
   C3 => boy       C3 => boy(C3)
   D3 => girl      C3 => girl(C3)
   D4 => boy       D4 => boy(D4)
   E4 => girl      D4 => girl(D4)
   E5 => boy       E5 => boy(E5)
   F5 => girl      E5 => girl(E5)
   F6 => boy       F6 => boy(F6)
   G6 => girl      F6 => girl(F6)
   G7 => boy       G7 => boy(G7)
   H7 => girl      G7 => girl(G7)
   H8 => boy       H8 => boy(H8)
   A8 => girl      H8 => girl(H8)
   

   
   Unfortunately, this bigamist scenariol creates a problem becuase the next generation has genetically close ties to more people than would be if each monogamous couple had two children, increasing the risk of birth defects in the 3rd generation. In the monogamous situation, a girl would avoid genetic problems if she avoided bearing the child of one person: her brother. But in this bigamist scenario, girl(B1) has boy(A1) as a half brother whom she has to avoid, and boy(B2) as a half brother whom she also has to avoid. Bigamy has doubled the riskiness factor for birth defects for the next generation.


5. Question 5: If we follow this through successive generations, don't we end up with a population of people who only have one safe mate in order to produce offspring? In other words, don't we end up right back at monogamy?


6. Question 6: Have I missed something fundamental that is keeping me from understanding what you're paper is saying?

I appreciate any clarity you'd be willing to provide.

Thanks,
mjh

He wrote back. He said:

Unlike some of the other arguments in the essay, the "monogamous wives" example is not meant to be terribly realistic but just to indicate, in the context of a very simple model, that certain things are logically possible.

In your question 1, the disease dies as soon as one person fails to pass it on, either through death or by missing an assignation. With the prostitutes, that's not true. And with the prostitutes, it doesn't matter where the disease starts; it still gets passed on to everyone pretty quickly.

The only point you've missed was that this particular example can yield a great variety of conclusions depending on your auxiliary assumptions (as you've shown), but the only point I was making with it was that certain conclusions are *possible*, not that they're *necessary*.

Of course other parts of the essay do make points that should hold in any model; in particular, when there are positive externalities to sexual activity, there can't be enough sexual activity without subsidies.

Perhaps I didn't understand his response, but I found it to be unsatisfactory. It seems to me that his model is unrealistic. Who cares if something is possible in a given model? If that model doesn't match reality then there's little value to the recommendations that come as a result of that model? What are the set of assumptions that are realistic? If my assumptions are closer to reality, then doesn't the recommendation that "More Sex is Safer Sex" actually hold false?

Abolish Highschool

I read an article in Education Week calling for changes to how teenagers are treated in society.

although it’s efficient to cram all apparently essential knowledge into the first two decades of life, the main thing we teach most students with this approach is to hate school. In today’s fast-paced world, education needs to be spread out over a lifetime, and the main thing we need to teach our young people is to love the process of learning.

...Are young people really inherently incompetent and irresponsible? The research I conducted with my colleague Diane Dumas suggests that teenagers are as competent as adults across a wide range of adult abilities, and other research has long shown that they are actually superior to adults on tests of memory, intelligence, and perception. The assertion that teenagers have an “immature” brain that necessarily causes turmoil is completely invalidated when we look at anthropological research from around the world. Anthropologists have identified more than 100 contemporary societies in which teenage turmoil is completely absent; most of these societies don’t even have terms for adolescence. Even more compelling, long-term anthropological studies initiated at Harvard in the 1980s show that teenage turmoil begins to appear in societies within a few years after those societies adopt Western schooling practices and are exposed to Western media. Finally, a wealth of data shows that when young people are given meaningful responsibility and meaningful contact with adults, they quickly rise to the challenge, and their “inner adult” emerges.

...We produce such turmoil by infantilizing our young and isolating them from adults. Modern schooling and restrictions on youth labor are remnants of the Industrial Revolution that are no longer appropriate for today’s world; the exploitative factories are long gone, and we have the ability now to provide mass education on an individual basis.

Teenagers are inherently highly capable young adults; to undo the damage we have done, we need to establish competency-based systems that give these young people opportunities and incentives to join the adult world as rapidly as possible.

Making the assumption that the research is true, I have two reactions to this.

1. This is appealing because
1. It's a pretty strong case for homeschooling, or in the worst case, ensuring that the schooling that your teen receives is introducing them to adulthood instead of confining them in childhood.
2. It seems to agree with Love & Logic which suggests that parental control needs to steadily decrease throughout the entire child's life and be replaced with an expectation of adult behavior.  Most people do it exactly the opposite, too little control for infants and toddlers and increasing control as the desire for independance grows.
3. It appeals to my distrust of government provided education and of government provision in general.
   
2. But it's also unappealing because I don't want to introduce my children to adult issues before it's time.  This author is arguing that the time is earlier than we think.  My immediate reaction is that we already push our kids into adulthood too early as it is, although I don't really have any supporting data that comes to mind for why I think this.
   

I think I'm going to purchase the book and read it.  I don't have a teenager but it's only a few years away.  This is the kind of thing that I want to mull over for a while before I decide whether or not I want to try and integrate it into my parenting.

Penn & Teller

Showtime has a program that I very much enjoy. It's the magician team of Penn & Teller running around debunking things that they view as wrong. It's called "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t". I really enjoy it. It's not for the faint of heart, though. Penn Jillette is a connoisseur of profanity. Don't watch it with the kids around.

But I'm in a quandary. In 2004, they did an episode on the Bible. They presented testimony of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies. And for the most part I can just interpret away the problems that they came up with. By this, I mean that they took a rather narrow interpretation and poked holes in it. A broader interpretation is harder to poke holes in. For example, the two creation stories in Genesis. I don't happen to believe in creationism. I happen to fall on the side of evolution as the mechanism of creation. Theistic evolution does a really good job of explaining my position. So the "conflicting" views in Genesis 1 & 2 are not that big of a problem. The main message of Genesis is that God did it. I don't seriously take the Genesis accounts as a reliable physical description of what happened.

And then there's the horror that Penn expresses when he retells the story of God killing all the first born sons in Egypt. Of course, that's a horrific event if you're convinced that this life is the only thing. It's also horrific if you think that the children are victims. But it's not so horrific if you believe that God loves those children more than their parents do. It's also not so horrific if you believe that God can call home any human at any time he pleases and that in doing so, God will treat them justly, fairly, and compassionately. Death is only the worst possible thing in the world if this is the only world there is.

I'm also reminded of Rob Bell's description of how to interpret the Bible, and what a "yoke" is. And of how we're to constantly re-evaluate the meaning of the Bible. We're to constantly say, "Hey, maybe I had that interpretation wrong." Especially when we're confronted with new truths that are blatant. All truth is God's truth. So if we see truth in the world that apparently conflicts with the Bible, it might just be that we didn't correctly interpret the Bible. It might also be that we didn't correctly evaluate the truth in the world. Nevertheless, it's freeing to realize that we're not forced to stick with Biblical interpretations that don't make sense. This is a somewhat controversial position amongst some Christians, but it really resonates with me. As a result, many of the inconsistencies presented by Penn & Teller fall under the umbrella of "You've heard it said, but I tell you..." new yoke interpretation.

Unfortunately, it gets harder to interpret away the heart of Christianity: the death and resurrection of Jesus. If that one didn't happen, then Christians everywhere can cry in their beers and go home. If Christ didn't rise, then how can we say that God defeated death? If God didn't defeat death, then how can Jesus be a savior who can take on for himself the wages of sin? How is he anything more than just a man? How can I be any better believing in his salvation for my life? In fact, if he's just a man, then I'm remarkably worse off believing this. I'll act like my eternal position is resolved when it's not.

The show does not do very much to debunk the resurrection. It simply says, that it's hard to prove. It doesn't provide any counter evidence to suggest that it's demonstrably false. But it does tell an analogous story about how, less than 3 decades after the death of Elvis, there are people insisting that they've seen him alive. And if the gospels in the Bible are all written 60-70 years after the death of Christ, it's pretty easy to see how this might just be part of the human condition that afflicts devotees of a hero.

On the other hand, I don't see any Elvis followers sticking with their stories so much so that they're willing to be executed instead of recanting, whereas most of the most influential early Christians did just that when it came to Jesus' resurrection. I also don't see anyone demanding the execution of the "Elvis lives" crowd. In any case, the Elvis analogy can only go so far.

Before I watched the episode, I whipped off a quick prayer: "Lord protect me from what might be coming. I want to watch this because I believe that all truth is your truth. Keep me focused on the truth and give me answers to Satan's intellectual temptations that I will almost certainly experience." I think He's done a pretty good job of answering that prayer. Most of this blog reports the answers that I got. But I'm still a little shaken by the experience. I find myself resonating with the comment Penn made that it's really not fair to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible. I wonder if all of my "interpretations" above are just fancy ways of doing that.

Still, the thought of returning to atheism holds only a minor pull with me. That pull being this: maybe it's true. The pull is slightly stronger now than it was before. But it's not nearly as strong as the pull of the community in which I now reside. It's not as strong as the realization of how much better my life is as a Christ follower than not. And that truth seems much more real to me than the possibility that atheism is true.

Witness

I had a discussion with a friend recently. I was trying to make the point that, depending on your point of view, some things that seem irrational might make sense. I don't recall the context, but the example that I came up with was the fact that I was fairly concerned about his not being a Christian.

"If you really believed in Hell, that would almost certainly motivate your behavior towards those friends of yours who you think might be headed there. Which reminds me, that I'm pretty concerned about you."

"It doesn't concern me. It doesn't match my world view."

"Which is what?"

"That there's insufficient evidence to conclude that there's god or hell or anything after you die."

"Ok. But you believe lots of things that don't rely on proof, don't you?"

"Like what?"

"Imagine this scenario: you're in New York, and you look out your hotel window and witness a murder. This particular murderer is very thorough and manages to very effectively conceal what had happened. But nevertheless you are completely convinced that what you saw was a murder... but you can't prove it. You're sure it's true, but the murderer was so thorough that you can find no trace. Moreover, you didn't get a good enough look at the victim or the suspect to really identify them. In this scenario, would you attest that what you saw was true, even if you couldn't prove it?"

My friend changed the subject, "Eye witness accounts are incredibly inaccurate. This has been thoroughly documented and tested."

"That's not the point. The point is that there are things you believe but can't prove."

He conceded the point and we went on to discuss other things. But I've been thinking about his response. I don't think it's a very good one. Ok. Sure, eye witness accounts are incredibly inaccurate. But they're not so inaccurate as to cause us to not trust anything we witness. For example, I hand someone a fork and they take it. Their intial reaction is not to distrust the fact that there's a fork there. We act like the things we see are real. We act like it all day long and react accordingly. Our reactions tell us what we really need to know about our beliefs about the validity of witness.

Does that make eye witness testimony entirely thorough? No, of course not. Do I trust entirely my experience of God? Could I be wrong? Yep. There it is. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am. I could be wrong that I'm typing into a computer right now. I could be imagining it. But I don't think I am. I act like it's real. Similarly, even though I could be wrong about God, I don't think I am.

There is some part of me that feels a pull to doubt God's existence. I've decided to actively ignore that pull. My friend hasn't. I remember being on his side of that decision. I'm sure he's convinced that I'm deluding myself. Which is ironic, because I would now say that he's deluding himself into ignoring the obvious. We're both in reciprical situations. He's unwilling to experiment with Christianity. He's convinced it's not worth anything. I'm also unwilling to experiment with non-Chrsitianity for the same reason. I would say that I've already run that experiment and it failed. Of course, he'd say the exact same thing.

I don't have a whole lot of hope that he's going to change his mind. The good news for me is that it's not entirely my responsibility to change it.

Ranting Waiter

I've been really enjoying waiterrant.net. The author is a fantastic writer. I find myself needing to rethink how I'm going to contribute to this blog as a result.

Ain't irony great?

I can't help but laugh at this from the AP (HT: Cafe Hayek):

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

Of course, Russ Roberts does a much better job of fisking the entire article than I could, so I'll let well enough alone. I just think it's hilarious.

UPDATE: Updated link to working link.

Exposed!

I shared the fact that I have a blog with some friends last night. One of the reactions was to the name of my blog: dullgeek. It got me thinking about why I called my blog that.

Of course, the first reason is that I don't really think I'm all that particularly interesting. Amongst this group of friends, I'm viewed as the nerdy one with an obsession for "The Lord of the Rings". I enjoy this reputation, even though it's entirely unfounded. I did make one reference to LoTR (notice the ubergeeky acronym?) but that single reference was it. And if you use this blog as a guide to what I'm thinking about, I think that this entry is the first time in the couple of years that I've had this blog where I even mentioned LoTR. It's hard to see an obsession with that data.

Of course, I find the things that I write about to be terribly interesting. I have no such illusions, however, that anyone else will be interested. Hence the dull portion was prescient. The interest level (as demonstrated by the comments) is tragically low. I know of at least two other people who have read it. And I think it's fair to say that in this case, it's also "at most" two other people who've read it. I'm not offended by this lack of interest, nor are my feelings hurt. In fact, I'm more likely to be proud of the fact that I made an accurate prediction.

But another reason that I chose that label is that I know that I'm not as sharp as some of the authors of blogs that I read regularly. See my links section. I hope to sharpen myself through this endeavor. But I will always be relatively dull compared to others. I'm ok with that, too.

Those Nasty Credit Card Users!

This article drives me a little batty. 

In most instances today, it would be silly to pay an annual fee for a credit card simply because most cards don't have them anymore. But in a Senate Banking Committee hearing examining credit card practices this week, one consumer advocate suggested those who pay their balances in full every month (about half of all cardholders) should pay a small annual fee to credit card companies.

Why? To pay their fair share.

To pay my fair share?  Three questions:

1. If I'm agreeing with the terms of my credit card statement, how am I not already upholding my end of the bargain?  Most products are more expensive because they include the cost of the transaction fee that the credit card companies receive on every transaction I make.
   
2. If someone else is NOT paying their full balance off, and as a consequence is paying exhorbitant interest fees, how should that be my problem?
3. Why, oh why is it necessary for some third party to interfere in my agreemeent with the credit card company?
   

The credit card companies will hate this legislation.  What will happen is that they will lose the transaction fees of all "deadbeats".  The incentive that I have to use a credit card is the rewards programs and the free 30 day loan they give me every month.  But if all of that is offset by mandatory annual fees, I'll just switch to a debit card which does not have such fees.

So I doubt very much that this will happen.  But why is it necessary to even propose such meddling?  Why is it necessary for the goverment to have its finger on absolutely everything that I do?

Dumbest moments...

CNNMoney is running an article titled: "100 Dumbest Moments in Business". Here's #9:

A computer glitch in the tax rolls of Porter County, Ind., causes the valuation of a house in the city of Valparaiso to shoot up from $122,000 to $400 million - boosting its annual property taxes from $1,500 to $8 million. Though the county's IT director spots the mistake and alerts the auditor's office, the wrong number nonetheless ends up being used in budget calculations, resulting in a $900,000 shortfall for the city and a $200,000 gap for its schools.

How is this a dumb moment in business? This isn't business stupidity (for which there are plenty of examples in the article) this is government stupididty. Let's call a spade a spade.