So you are saying . . . . . !

Another case of Jordan Peterson setting a great example for us.

The video demonstrates a classic example of how people cannot see what is in front of them, or hear what is said because their brain (and their prejudices) gets in the way. This happens again and again in the above interview and each time Peterson stands his ground.

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip and the author of several nonfiction works of satire, commentary, and business, explains below what is happening – and how it is a common human problem.

This filtering through the prejudices of commenters and commentators is a major cause of misrepresentation in the media. That is why I prefer to go to the original sources, hear what the person has to say, and not simply accept what is being said about them.

Mind you, there is still a problem in communicating my conclusions to anyone else who has their own biases to confirm.

Why is communication so difficult?

Confirmation bias – we all suffer from it but how can we reduce its effect?

Confirmation bias – we all suffer from it. It’s just part of being human. Sure, we are capable of rational thought but it is often overridden by our emotional messages. And even in the best situations, our attempt at rational thought is inevitably contaminated by our emotions.

This video from Above the Noise • PBS explains what is going on in a popular way. Even resorts to brain scans.

Word of warning, though. It inevitably suffers from its own confirmation bias. Right up front, it produces a graph comparing Facebook clicks on “fake news” articles compared with clicks on “mainstream news” articles!! As if that is a proper analysis.

We all know mainstream media regularly publishes fake news. What they are probably comparing is Facebook clicks for mainstream media articles compared with alternative media articles. That is just not an intelligent differentiation when talking about “fake news.”

So take the video with a grain of salt.  Look at it critically and intelligently.

In fact, probably the best way of avoiding, or at least reducing confirmation bias is to approach all information, from whatever source, critically and intelligently. To think for oneself. Avoid group thinking and official interpretations.

The Putin Derangement Syndrome

Rolling Stone has come out with a name for a madness which seems to be sweeping the US  – and even more widely – at the moment. The Putin Derangement Syndrome.

The latest clinical evidence for this illness must surely be this report from the BBC on the deaths of 14 or more Russians in a Metro bombing in St Petersburg.  A report suggesting that somehow President Putin was responsible!

Such “reporting” is simply obscene. But in this world where the people with a Putin derangement syndrome seem to prevail such stupid allegation becomes evidence and then fact.

Will the St Petersburg bombing of 2017 be added to that already long list of Putin’s crimes? You know – the Moscow apartment bombings, the Moscow Metro bombings, the murders a Denis Voronenkov (murdered in  Kiev by a member of the neo-Fascist Azov brigade but blamed on Putin), Boris Nemtsov, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, etc., etc. All attributed to Putin, no evidence – but the simple allegations have become facts in the minds of this suffering from the Putin Derangement Syndrome.

Hell, it has apparently become necessary candidates for cabinet office in the US to give the politically correct answer to the questions – Do your believe Putin is a murderer? or Do you believe Putin is a war criminal?

Bugger the evidence – we just want to you come on board and show that you also suffer from the Putin Derangement Syndrome before we let you do this job.

And what about those who have died? Do we not wish to honour them? How does the Washington Times honour those people and their families by publishing (at least for a time) a photo of a protest in their report? As if the gathering was somehow celebrating the atrocity.

And in Germany, the government decided they wouldn’t taint the Brandenburg Gate with the Russian colours because the atrocity was not “exceptional.” Yet after similar attacks in Paris, Brussels, London, Istanbul , Nice and Jerusalem, the Berlin landmark was shown in solidarity with the victims in the national colors of the respective countries. After the massacre of an Islamic assassin in a gay club in Orlando in Florida with about 50 deaths last summer, the Brandenburg Gate was immersed in the rainbow colors of the gay movement.

In attacks in other countries, Berlin showed less selectivity. – Quelle: http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/26303642 ©2017

OK, give the malady a clinical name. Call it the Putin Derangement Syndrome. Or perhaps, just be a bit more honest and call it old-fashioned racism (see Western racism and the stereotyping of Russians).

Whatever – I just find the attitude obscene.

Similar articles

Why don’t feminists fight for Muslim women?

I will probably get some negative feedback for posting this video (as I did with Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy). But Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes some important points worth a proper discussion.

I think she is too simplistic about some things. Such as attributing modern values to our Judeo-Christian heritage – if that was the over-riding factor our values system would be far more backwards.

But often groups fighting for improvements in the values systems of our society can be hypocritical in their attitudes towards the problems in other societies. This appears to be the case with at least some feminist groups – but is also true of some other groups which consider themselves “progressive.”

Thanks to Why Evolution is True: Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the failure of feminists to fight for Muslim women.

Similar articles

Permission to have that conversation

In May, Maajid Nawaz presented this important talk at the 2016 Oslo Freedom Forum. It’s important because he attacks the concept that religion, and especially Islam, should be protected from criticism. And especially he attacks the concept that we should not talk about the problem of Jihadism, or Islamic terrorism. We should not avoid calling a spade a spade.

Maajid says the West, and particularly the USA, has it all wrong. The policies of intervention, imposing “democracy” and the killing of terrorist leaders and civilians via bombing and drones, will never solve the basic problem – that extremist jihadism appeals to many Muslims, even western born Muslims.

He is advancing the need to counter jihadist ideologies with alternative moderate policies – but points out this is hardly happening. And how can it happen if people are too “politically correct” to discuss and condemn actions like the stoning of women, female genital mutilation, imposed marriages, etc.

Maajid has the right credentials to back up his message. He is a former member of the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and used to advocate jihadism.  He was imprisoned in Egypt from 2001 and 2006. His experience led him to change his thinking and he left Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounced his Islamist past and called for a “Secular Islam“.

Now he is a co-founder and chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank that seeks to challenge the narratives of Islamist extremists.

Maajid wrote about his experiences and changes of thinking in his book Radical: My Journey Out Of Islamist Extremism.

More recently he discussed these problems with the atheist Sam Harris. Their discussion is published in the book Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue.

Similar articles

Debating fluoridation and tyranny – Tom O’Connor responds

Individual consent – what does it mean and how is it obtained?

This article below is a guest contribution from Tom O’Connor responding to my article Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation. I invited Tom to discuss the issue here, and offered him a right of reply because I think there is value in discussing the points he raised in his Timaru Courier opinion piece and  that I critiqued in my article.

Unfortunately, in this issue, the scientific arguments are very often a proxy for underlying values issues, at least on the part of opponents of fluoridation. It is in the nature of values issues that there is no “correct” answer (in contrast to arguments about facts). Nevertheless, the values issues are important so I hope they can be developed in discussion here around Tom’s original opinion piece and his response here. In the end, such issues are decided by democratic and political means so open discussion of the issues is important.

---

Firstly I am not opposed to the use of fluoride to combat tooth decay per se. Nor do I have any “anti-fluoride mates” as you put it. If the government wants to make fluoride freely available there are many ways of doing that without imposing it on everyone.

There are three main elements to the fluoride debate. The first is the efficacy or otherwise of fluoride as a preventative for tooth decay.

The second is the use of reticulated potable water as a means of delivering anything other than clean water to the community.

The third is the issue of mass medication, or mass treatment or mass therapy of people without individual consent and practical convenient and affordable alternatives. Legislating to declare a medical treatment is not a medical treatment simply on the ground that the dose rate is measured in parts per million is one of the most stupid and dishonest things I have ever seen any government do. Many medications are measured in such minute quantities.

The Grey Power Federation objection to the proposed addition of fluoride to potable reticulated water is based on the third element only. We do not have a policy in the first element simply because we do not have the expertise or scientific qualifications to develop such a policy. We have not considered the second element.

That policy has been, in my view, adequately explained in the Timaru Courier opinion piece you refer to. The following comments are therefore mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Grey Power members or anyone else.

Efficacy

As you rightly point out there is probably nothing to be gained in participating in the endless argument between proponents and opponents of fluoride as an oral health treatment. Both sides have accused the other of engaging in pseudo-science and scare mongering. Both are, to some extent, probably accurate and in agreement on that point alone. However, where doubts exist, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.

Reticulated water

Territorial local authorities have the responsibility to provide potable water to their communities where no other sources are available or suitable. The principle responsibility of local authorities, as outlined in the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand, administered by the Ministry of Health, is to ensure drinking water is as free from all other substances and organisms as possible. Using reticulated potable water to convey anything else, be it medical or not, is contrary to that principle.

The use of chlorine to remove micro-organisms and other pathogens is designed to remove unwanted and potentially unsafe matter from drinking. At the end of that process there is not supposed to be any detectable chlorine. That there often is demonstrates the difficulty of getting the addition of trace elements correct. That is a very different matter to the deliberate introduction of an additional substance which many people don’t want.

Mass treatment and individual consent

This is not the first time mass medication or treatment has been introduced in New Zealand. Iodine deficiency, as a cause for goitre, was discovered in the early 1900s and to address the problem table salt was iodised at up to 80mg of iodine per kilogram of salt in 1938. This was accompanied by an extensive public education programme and there was always un-iodised salt as a practical, convenient and affordable option on grocer shop shelves for those who did not want it.

Suggesting that those who object to fluoride in the water they pay their local authority to deliver can obtain alternative supplies from a community tap or buy it from the supermarket is unacceptable. These options are not possible, practical, convenient or affordable for many people.You may also recall a recent proposal to add folic acid to all bread products as a means of addressing a reproductive issue for women. The public outcry which saw that proposal dropped was not solely based on doubts about the efficacy of folic acid but the fact they many people simply did not want their bread medicated with anything for any reason.

You may also recall a recent proposal to add folic acid to all bread products as a means of addressing a reproductive issue for women. The public outcry which saw that proposal dropped was not solely based on doubts about the efficacy of folic acid but the fact they many people simply did not want their bread medicated with anything for any reason.

There are practical and cost effective methods of providing fluoride for those who want it. Forcing it on those who don’t want it is simply unacceptable in a free society.

Tom O’Connor

---

I will post a response to Tom’s arguments in a few days. Meanwhile, readers are welcome to make their own arguments in the comments section.

Ken Perrott

Similar articles

Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation

Tom O’Conner, president of Grey Power, describes community water fluoridation (CWF) as the “Tyranny of the Majority” (see “Fluoridation of water a trampling of our right,” Timaru Courier, May 26th).

Well, it is nice to see an anti-fluoridation piece which does not resort to scientific misrepresentations and distortions.* These fallacious “scientific” arguments a really just a proxy for the underlying political or values beliefs of the person advancing them. It would be more honest if we discussed these instead of wasting time on the scientific arguments. So, thank you,Tom.

But what about this “tyranny of the majority” argument? Most anti-fluoride campaigners will probably support it.  While we might have  an idea of what it means here is a more specific definition offered by Wikipedia:

“The phrase “tyranny of the majority” (or “tyranny of the masses“) is used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, political, or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.”

Freedom of choice

So I think O’Conner has let his emotions get out of hand here. Sure, CWF usually results from a majority decision, but there is no deliberate penalising of any minority group. In fact, “fluoride-free” community taps are often provided by councils to make sure the minority freedom of choice is maintained. Where is the tyranny in that?

There may be a number of reasons for people to object to the quality of the provided tap water – the taste, presence of chlorine, colour, etc. Tap filters are common – and specific filters are available for removing fluoride, chlorine. colour, tastes, etc. Bottled water or water from different “natural” sources are also used by people who object to tap water for one reason or another. In some countries people (and especially tourists) never drink tap water – they use bottled water.

Whenever I check with anti-fluoride campaigners I find they already exert their freedom of choice by obtaining their drinking water from a separate source or using a fluoride removal system like an appropriate tap filter, distillation or reverse osmosis. You have to ask – if they have already exerted their freedom of choice, what the hell are they talking about with this argument? Perhaps the freedom to prevent the choice of those who voted for a safe and effective social health measure – CWF?

Fluoridation is medicine myth

O’Connor evokes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – in particular the clause which says:

“Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”

This clause in Part 2 of the Act – Civil and political Rights – includes rights such as not being deprived of life,  subjected to torture or cruel treatment and not being subjected to medical or scientific experimentation. This suggests he is again being rather extreme to see CWF as a form of forced medical treatment. Hell, it isn’t even a form of forced drinking of tap water given that no-one is denied alternatives.

In fact, New Zealand legislation  is clear that fluoride is not a medicine when used at the low concentration present in fluoridated water. Anti-fluoride campaigners have attempted to challenge that in court but every attempt has been rejected. See, for example, NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [9 October 2014] and NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [4 September 2015]

Tom O’Connor plays down these decisions – always hopeful that the next appeal by New Health NZ will succeed. But in doing so he is attempting to push  the proverbial uphill.

[By the way, New Health NZ is an astroturf organisation set up and financed by the NZ Health Trust – the lobby group of the NZ “natural”/alternative health industry. It has deep pockets – see Big business funding of anti-science propaganda on health]

But, to hell with the legislation. O’Connor argues:

“it is illogical to argue that fluoride is not  a medical treatment but then introduce it to drinking water to combat tooth decay.”

Then what does he, and his anti-fluoride mates, think of chlorination of  our drinking water supplies. This disinfection process is not a medical treatment but is clearly meant to prevent disease. According to O’Connor’s logic, it should be seen as a medical treatment and thus subject to the Bill of Rights!Incidentally, many opponents of CWF are also opposed to chlorination. But tend to be less public about this preferring to see CWF as the “low hanging fruit” and mobilisation against chlorination a future project once CWF has been defeated.

Incidentally, many opponents of CWF are also opposed to chlorination. But they tend to be less public about this preferring to see CWF as the “low hanging fruit” and mobilisation against chlorination a future project once CWF has been defeated.

O’Connor extends his logic:

“If it [CWF] is a medical treatment the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits its introduction to communal drinking water. If it is not a medical treatment to combat tooth decay, there is no logical reason to introduce it to communal drinking water. There is no middle ground.”

The fact that exactly the same logic can be applied to iodised salt or the disinfection of communal drinking water by chlorination surely shows the danger of bush lawyers taking it into their own hands to define and interpret the law.

Just imagine if a minority managed to prevent communal water disinfection by using the Bill of Rights, the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment, their perverted concept of “freedom of choice” and arbitrary definition of chlorination as a “medicine.” Doing this, and at the same time denigrating democratic decisions as the “tyranny of the majority” they would, in fact, be imposing their own tyranny of a minority. One that denied a safe and effective water treatment process prevent sickness and spread of diseases.

*Note: Mind you, O’Connor still manages to misrepresent the scientific aspects by saying:

“The key issue here, however, is not the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoride as a treatment for oral health. That is an unresolvable argument between competing proponents and opponents which lay people are  not equipped or even obliged to decide.”

Sure – the debate may not be resolvable, given that is driven by ideological factors. But the science is resolvable. The effectiveness or otherwise of CWF is an objective fact which can be determined by proper investigation of reality. Yes, that requires scientific and health experts and not lay people.

The wise lay person recognises her limitations in areas outside her expertise and takes the advice of the expert. We listen to the advice of mechanics about our cars, builders about house construction, engineers about road construction, oncologists about cancer treatment, etc. We should do the same with the science related to CWF.

Similar articles

The “interfaith” trap – particularly for atheists

The video above shows some of the hassling of Maryam Namazie by members of the Goldsmiths Islamic Society when she gave a talk to the London’s Goldsmiths College on the topic “Apostasy, blasphemy and free expression in the age of ISIS.” The talk was sponsored by the Goldsmiths Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society but was opposed by the Goldsmiths Islamic Society and the Goldsmiths Feminist Society who attempted to get her invitation withdrawn. Warwick University Students Union and Trinity College Dublin had also originally withdrawn invitations to Maryam Namazie, citing fears of incitement to hatred of Muslims.

The video is long and the sound quality is not good. However I persisted and found interesting the fact that female Muslims in the audience were not able to ask their questions until  near the end – after the male disruptors had left!

Now University of Sheffield

The other day I saw a similar example of this attempted censorship at the University of Sheffield. But this time, the Sheffield Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (SASH) itself was the censor – they “turned down a suggestion by a student to invite Maryam Namazie to speak at the university. The reason? Her ‘hard anti-Islamist approach’ is not ‘conducive’ to the direction that the society wishes to go in” (see Atheist students are losing their faith in free speech).

So this is yet another example of the way group thinking and irrational arguments are being used to prevent open discussion of important issues like human and women’s right? (I discussed this in my articles Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy and Misrepresentation, misogyny and misandry – these should concern sceptics). But it is also an example of how “interfaith” activity, and indeed finding common cause with groups holding different beliefs, can result in the suppression of such vital discussion.

The author of the article is Hallam Roffey who is a writer and a student at the University of Sheffield. He writes:

“This isn’t a wind-up. Not only is the suggestion that you can be ‘too hard’ on Islamism baffling, but the fact that this statement came from an atheist, secularist and humanist society is almost beyond parody. To clarify, this is a society which aims to defend human rights and promote secularism declining to invite a renowned and influential ex-Muslim, secularist and human-rights campaigner. (Namazie has done extensive work supporting refugees, and has tackled both religious fundamentalism and far-right bigotry.)

“In its response to the inquiring student, SASH said that it would like to concentrate on ‘interfaith’ activities instead, stating that ‘interfaith between faith societies is vital’. Apparently, inviting Namazie, which may not be welcomed by some members of Sheffield’s Islamic Society (ISoc), would be antithetical to their objectives.”

So, in effect, this student society has thrown away some of its basic aims simply to further its “interfaith” activities.

Photo credit: AP/Valentina Petrova

I find that incredible. While I accept that cooperation between groups of different beliefs is important and laudable what is this worth if it involves giving up such important principles. Would the Christian societies at Sheffield give up their bible studies and prayer meetings in order to further “interfaith ” cooperation with the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society? Would the Islamic Society give up their involvement in Ramadan activities for such vague “interfaith” reasons?

I think not.

I think that this example shows how the involvement of atheists and humanists or “interfaith” organisational activities can be a trap. After all, many of these sorts of activities already assume ideas and customs which exclude atheists (eg religious observations and collective ‘interfaith” prayers). Atheists should limit cooperation to issues where there is common ground – and they should not limit their own activity on issues like human rights because one or other of the theist groups do not support them.

Or is this just   a fashionable “political correctness?”

Mind you, I wonder if this “interfaith” issue is just a handy excuse for those who rejected the request that Maryam speak. I wonder if the bogeys of “anti-feminism” and Islamophobia” are not the real reasons, at least for some, in the way these arguments have been used in attempts to suppress the voices of others – like Richard Dawkins.

Hallam Roffey says:

“SASH was particularly concerned that there would be a repeat of ‘what happened at Goldsmiths’, when Islamist students disrupted a talk being given by Namazie. But this only projects a pretty dim view of Sheffield ISoc. As a Sheffield student myself, I’d like to think that ISoc members would be up for the debate, and would not act at all like those thugs at Goldsmiths. Not all Muslims resent apostates.

“What’s more, the subtext here is that Namazie was in some way to blame for the Goldsmiths incident. Though SASH insists it does not condone Goldsmiths ISoc’s actions, it is nevertheless siding with Islamists at Namazie’s expense. This is cowardly and pathetic.”

I agree – this sort of suppression of discussion on topic human rights issues is cowardly and pathetic.

Similar articles

Traditions and social arrangements out of step with social diversity

Image credit: “Americans Turning Away From Organized Religion in Record Numbers“

A new report from The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life recommends changes which challenge the current traditional role and power of religion in the UK. Among its recommendations are:

National and civic events should reflect the pluralist character of modern society and “national forums such as the House of Lords, [should] include a wider range of worldviews and religious traditions, and of Christian denominations other than the Church of England.”

Repeal of the legal requirement for schools to hold acts of collective worship and its replacement by a requirement to hold inclusive times for reflection.

All pupils in state-funded schools should have a statutory entitlement to a curriculum about religion, philosophy and ethics that is relevant to today’s society – that is education about religions and beliefs – not religious instruction.

More relevant coverage of religion and belief by the BBC. “The BBC Charter renewal should mandate the Corporation to reflect the range of religion and belief of modern society, for example by extending contributions to Radio 4’s daily religious flagship Thought for the Day to include speakers from non-religious perspectives such as humanists.”

Fairer treatment of complaints about media coverage of religion and belief with the establishment of a panel of experts on religion and belief to advise the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

So far these are still only recommendations. Government action will be required to enact required changes and you can bet the recommendations will face stiff opposition from the establishment.

Religious and belief landscape transformed beyond recognition

The commission’s work shows clearly that the current treatment of diversity, of religion and belief is not suitable for modern society. The existing arrangements and traditions must change to take account of the changes that have occurred in recent years. The report says:

“Over the past half century, Britain’s landscape in terms of religion and belief has been transformed beyond recognition. There are three striking trends:
• The first is the increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities. Almost a half of the population today describes itself as non-religious, as compared with an eighth in  England and a third in Scotland in 2001.
• The second is the general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice. Thirty years ago, two-thirds of the population would have identified as Christians. Today, that figure is four in ten, and at the same time there has been a shift away from mainstream denominations and a growth in evangelical and Pentecostal churches.
• The third is the increased diversity amongst people who have a religious faith. Fifty years ago Judaism – at one in 150 – was the largest non-Christian tradition in the UK. Now it is the fourth largest behind Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism. Although still comprising less than one in ten of the population, faith traditions other than Christian have younger age profiles and are therefore growing faster.”

The Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life was convened by the Woolf Institute, Cambridge, to consider the place and role of religion and belief in contemporary Britain. Membership of the commission is representative of the diversity of beliefs in the UK and it surveyed opinion throughout the UK with local hearings and submissions.

Some idea of its history and activity is given in this video

The final report is fittingly entitled “LIVING WITH DIFFERENCE
community, diversity and the common good.” It can be downloaded from here.

Relevance for New Zealand

I think we need something like this in New Zealand – specifically to make recommendations to government, educational and policing bodies and local authorities. So far, such approaches to  New Zealand diversity have been rather wishy-washy and have not produced recommendations requiring legal or by-law changes.

However, there always seems to be a problem in such considerations in that non-religious representation tends to be token. Inherent in the situation is that there are a large number of religions and sects, many with small memberships. On the other hand the non-religious, while comprising about 50% of the population, has very few organisations to represent their interests.

Often the majority of participants in such consultations and deliberations assume the issue is religious diversity, rather than belief diversity, and consider only methods of accommodating religious differences.

In such situation the non-religious participants can be ignored or not properly listened too, despite their large constituency.

Still – I would love to see some of the recommendations from the British commission about education, parliament, constitutional relationships and national and civic events discussed here.

Similar articles

 

Rapid change in attitudes to marriage equality

Click the image to go to the video (unfortunately I can’t embed the video here).

The video demonstrates “The Stunning 15-Year March to Marriage Equality Around the World.” And it certainly shows how rapid this change in community values has been.

I suppose many people will look at the map and feel they occupy the moral high ground because we are citizens of a country that has accepted marriage equality. The map certainly differentiates between those who have accepted and those who haven’t.

But the very rapidity of this change in community values is also a lesson. We should expect more countries to accept marriage equality in the near future. and secondly, we should be a bit humble and not make judgments on people and countries who have not yet accepted marriage equality.

After all, we were in that position a very short time ago.

Thanks to:  Same-sex marriage world map: Countries where gay unions are permitted after Supreme Court (VIDEO)..

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1