Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Secret Rain

Leave a reply

Upon the dusty road that assaults the skin,
where sweat crusts in salt upon the brow,
and the air transmutes into iron, pressing down—
the traveler bows low beneath thirst’s oppression.
There, even haughty princes in bejeweled robes
would ransom kingdoms for one moment’s grace
beneath its cool, flowing caress.

At the silent poles, where marrow freezes,
and the soul hardens into ice,
the body craves not gilded halls
nor velvet cushions or opulent feasts—
but melts only beneath a humble miracle
heat that neither sears nor burns,
touch that neither bruises nor pricks,
but tenderly melts those icicles of bone.

To linger beneath is rebirth—
rivuletted fingers caress every fold,
each sorrow, each exhaustion,
with patience more tender than any lover.
It finds the hollows where longing huddles,
the crevices where memory clings,
and washes away, yet does not erase,
leaving one luminous and reborn—
a desert that at last remembers spring.

What banquet, what marble palace,
what perfumed chambers of emperors
could rival this steamy embrace?
The satiny bed is for forgetting;
this rain of liquid rapture
is for exalting, naked,
body and soul rejuvenated.

Yet how fragile the covenant—
once, waters fell aplenty
to lavish themselves upon our skin;
tomorrow, perhaps, the cisterns echo hollow,
and their gift is offered no more.

So cherish it.
Filter, gather, pour again, unending.
Treat each drop as a jewel,
the last note of a never-repeated song.
When the sky withholds its kindness,
and Earth’s wellsprings but distant longings,
recall how it felt:
your secret rain within four walls,
solace no monarch could command,
joy, intimate and infinite,
vanished, but never mercifully forgotten.

How We Liberals Destroyed Democracy

2 Replies

The title of this article is intentionally provocative. But for good reason. Democrats should at least consider their shared responsibility for destroying our democracy. I’m not trying to be fair and balanced and comprehensive here. I and others have opined ad nauseum about the flaws and dangers of conservative thinking. But in this article I wish to focus on the role of liberals.

Regardless of what we will admit to ourselves or to others, the Supreme Court immunity ruling and the subsequent reelection of Trump has effectively ended our long noble struggle to hold on to our democracy in America. I don’t believe it is hyperbole to acknowledge that we are now firmly, and probably intractably, marching along the path to becoming just like Russia, a brazen kleptocracy flaunting a thin facade of democracy.

And whether they will admit it in that way to themselves and others, half the country is effectively OK with that. It would not have been their first choice for our fate, but they would rather live in a dictatorship than continue to tolerate the excesses, real or perceived, of many democrats, at least of those driving the agenda. I predicted this based on game theory a while back (see here).

To be fair, conservatives have largely tolerated if not embraced a stunning amount of social change since the 1960’s and even before. The end of slavery was social change, women gaining the vote was social change, a sweeping host of equal rights practices was social change, interracial marriage was social change, women entering the workforce and arguably taking half the jobs in the country away from men was social change, the changing expectations of men in the home and in society was social change, accepting gay pride parades and gay marriage was social change. Those are just the broadest reminders of the incredible social change that conservatives tolerated if not always embraced.

But democrats weren’t satisfied. They pushed too hard, too aggressively, too gleefully on social, race, and gender issues mostly. I would suggest that the critical point at which their incessant pressure turned dark and counterproductive was the cancelling of Al Franken. It continued with a cancel culture that vilified everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Matt Damon. It took the form of policing gender pronouns, rallying behind gay wedding cakes, drag queen story hour, transgender surgery, bathrooms, and military service. The entire year leading up to Trumps election I watched liberal women on MSNBC fixate on women’s issues and overtly tell men they should support us or shut up. The list goes on and on and on.

So don’t tell me that democrats are purely the victims here and conservatives are the bad guys. I revile much or even most of what conservatives stand for, but democrats kept making more and more extreme demands until the point at which conservatives said, I’ve had enough of even trying to make this marriage work, I’m out.

One can continue to insist that all those demands were just and right. But even granting that, one must at least question the tactical wisdom of how we went about fighting for them. One can argue that regardless of the provocation and pressure, upending our democracy is a self-destructive and disproportionate response. True enough. But if liberals are capable of any self-examination they must consider their own hubris and lack of restraint in forcing this response.

In the media today there is a lot of coverage of democrats gleefully saying “I told you so” to conservatives in reference to the disastrous actions of Trump. But perhaps conservatives are also justified in saying “I told you so” to the democrats who have been so incessant and extreme in their long history of cattle-prodding conservatives into ever more unpalatable concessions without any apparent expectation of the extreme blowback that was virtually assured to come… and now has.

National Defense and Social Security Myths

1 Reply

Most of us Americans figure we’re pretty well-informed about the realities of our national economy – at least in the big picture. Here are the Top 5 budget categories that you’ve probably seen cited everywhere by most every expert and trusted source:

  1. Social Security: $1,354 billion
  2. Medicaid (also NIH, CDC, FDA and more): $889 billion
  3. Medicare: $848 billion
  4. National Defense (direct budget only): $820 billion
  5. Unemployment (and most family and child assistance programs): $775 billion

Lists like this are usually invoked in order to provide support for a particular (false) mainstream narrative.

Mainstream Narrative: National Defense spending is not where we should be concerned. Rather it’s those big social entitlement programs that are the real problem, and the most worrisome of all is Social Security. In fact, we need to take immediate drastic action to prevent Social Security from bringing us to economic ruin!

But bear with me while I call that narrative into question.

First, that National Defense number of $848 billion is far too low. That only includes certain budgeted expenses. It does not include Supplemental Funding (which pays for most of our wars). Veterans Care and Benefits, Overseas Contingency Operations, Additions to the Base Budget, Interest on War Debt, and many other separately allocated costs.

To understand how misleading that is, imagine trying to convince your spouse that your gambling budget is only a very reasonable $200 per night. But that is just your betting limit. You neglect to include your Vegas hotel, limo rental, meals, bar-tabs, payments on the debt incurred by your previous losses, lost work, and additional payment for any “special deals” that you just can’t pass up.

Similarly, if we tally up all the buried line items that should fairly be included under National Defense spending, the total cost is far higher. The actual figure depends on which items you choose to include, but a conservative total of about $1.7 trillion is what my AI-assisted research came up with. No matter how you cut it, a more honest accounting puts National Defense spending well above Social Security levels. It should be number one by a large margin on any honest list.

Also, military spending has incredibly low stimulative value. While it provides some jobs, it does not stimulate secondary growth as does say a bridge or a building. It is essentially “lost” economic value except for the relatively few who extract wealth from it. But I digress. Maybe I’ll expand on that in a future blog article.

In any case, that addresses the first half of the false narrative, the deceptively low figure cited for military spending. Now let’s shift to the other half, Social Security spending. The figure of $1.3 trillion spent on Social Security is arguably just as misleading as is the figure for military spending.

People paid into their social security fund. Virtually all of that $1.3 trillion is money that is simply being paid to people who invested into it. There is only a relatively small deficit which amounted to $41.4 billion in 2023. That deficit was entirely paid out of the social security trust fund; excess revenue that was set aside in previous years to cover future shortfalls.

Now, those of you who are sophisticated about these things might say – wait a sec. Social Security is not like a savings plan where individual contributions are set aside. Instead, each working generation must fund the benefits paid to the retired generation.

But I contend that that explanation is another part of this false narrative. Regardless of how it is managed, Social Security is for all intents and purposes a savings plan. And isn’t that how all savings banks work? None of them literally put your money away in a lockbox. The money you deposit is used to fund withdrawals by others. When you eventually decide to withdraw your savings, that money will in a sense come from those future depositors.

To provide another analogy, what would you say if you went to take out your savings from your local bank and they tried to explain to you that they don’t have enough revenue coming in to give you back your money? You see, they say, it’s really not a savings plan as much as it is a pay as you go plan. You’d say that’s not acceptable.

We should not be manipulated into thinking of paying into social security as paying for others current benefits, but as paying for our own future benefits. But we tend to buy into the former perspective because we’re worried the funds won’t be there for us. That’s another part of the false narrative.

While it is true that, if we make no changes, Social Security will become “insolvent” in 2033, that is intentionally made to sound more scary than it is. It only means that at that time we’ll have to reduce benefits or increase revenue. It doesn’t all just collapse like some Ponzi scheme.

In fact, it isn’t that hard to “fix” Social Security. Just in the last few years there have been multiple bills proposed to keep Social Security solvent through the population wave. These include the Social Security Fairness Act, Biden’s 2025 budget proposal, and the You Earned It Act. All of these were voted down.

These legislation, and the many that preceded them, were not voted down because they would not work. They were voted down precisely because they would work. Just as with the border crisis, too many lawmakers don’t want to fix it. They want to keep fear mongering about it failing, and they cannot do that if they actually were to fix it.

Even worse, for some legislators it is more like their management of the Post Office. Their interest is in seeing it fail. They wanted the Post Office to fail so that their private business donors could profit from this business. Similarly, their big donors desperately want to get their hands on all that social security money. To those Privateers, Social Security funds are like Blackbeard’s Lost Treasure Hoard.

If President Bush’s full-court press to privatize Social Security had not failed in 2005, all of our Social Security funds might be invested in Bitcoin futures right now. Don’t think for one moment that the Privateers have given up on getting their hands on Blackbeard’s treasure.

If I sound conspiratorial, I’ll admit partially to that. While I don’t believe that a Capitalist cabal of billionaires sits around smoking big cigars and plotting the pillaging of our Social Security trust fund, I do believe that these efforts arise naturally as an emergent collective behavior borne of a lust for profit.

As did those before us, we need to wisely continue to resist these efforts to siphon wealth from the general population into the hands of the few. Toward that end, here is my alternate narrative that I hope you will consider.

Alternate Narrative: Those in power strive to bury, obfuscate, and minimize our level of military spending for many reasons, but mostly just so the population will not push back against it. One method they use to distract from military spending is to compare their fake accounting against social spending numbers, numbers that are also at times misrepresented. Social Security is both their most shiny object to distract us from their levels of military spending and the greatest prize for Privateers who want to control those funds. For our own sake as well as our posterity, we need to resist both excessive military spending and the privatization of critical social services.

The Harris-Trump Debate Debate

Leave a reply

Last night many of us saw the 2024 Harris-Trump Presidential Debate on ABC. What any clear-minded viewer should have seen was a stark contrast between an eminently smart, qualified, and ethical woman with a passion for public service who was forced to enter into debate with a stupid, disqualified, and completely unethical wannabe dictator to whom public service is no more than a grift in service of an unbounded appetite for self-aggrandization and settling personal scores.

Let’s be perfectly clear, while some of Trumps’ statements might have contained some arguable grain of truth, or might be sane-itized in some fashion to sound coherent, he was substantively lying or mistaken about practically everything he asserted.

That is not to say that, as someone who is generally Liberal on most issues, I was perfectly satisfied with Harris’ performance or positions on every issue. Contrary to what some on the Right might like to think or claim, she is certainly not my personal wet-dream of a candidate.

Following are some of the particular things that disappointed me about Harris’ performance and positions in last-night’s debate:

  1. On guns, Harris forcefully emphasized her support for guns and for the 2nd Amendment. I would have liked her to vow to begin reducing the number of guns in private hands and to rationally reinterpret the calamitous 2nd Amendment, or better yet support repealing it completely.
  2. On the military, Harris emphasized her desire to ensure we have “the most lethal military in the world.” I would prefer that we aspire to having the most efficient, effective, and ethical military in the world.
  3. On the pullout from Afghanistan, rather than merely touting what a great job we did, I would have liked to have seen Harris express some of the deep sense of loss that any military commander-in-chief should feel when they lose soldiers and commit to doing everything in her power to prevent the loss of life on both sides while acknowledging the inevitable losses that will occur in military conflicts.
  4. On Gaza, I would have very much preferred if Harris stopped playing both-side-isms on this issue and differentiate herself from the Biden entrenchment of unqualified support and unlimited military funding for Israel, with only platitudes for the victims in Gaza.
  5. On abortion, while it was good that she clarified that post-birth abortions are not actually a thing, Harris left hanging the issue of late-term abortions by so obviously avoiding it. It is disappointing that she, like most of the abortion community, fuel unwarranted paranoia about the frequency of late-term abortions by failing to address it head-on with actual facts.
  6. On fracking, Harris’ support felt like pandering to Pennsylvania. I would have preferred that she accompany her support for fracking with an initiative to improve the industry by helping it to reduce the unnecessarily high levels of methane emissions throughout the entire fracking pipeline.
  7. On taxation, I would have preferred that Harris stick with the more progressive Biden taxation levels and other fiscal policies for the ultra-rich.
  8. Harris disappointed me by failing to adequately call out Trump’s insistence that a tariff is not a tax. She did refer to it indirectly as a Trump-tax, but she was not clear that she was referring to the tariff. The moderator did a better job of fact-checking Trump on this very important and insistently repeated false claim.

All of this is not to nitpick Harris, but to point out that her positions aren’t entirely in line with my own on important issues that I care about deeply. But presidential candidates hardly ever align completely with our own views on every issue. And often it can be a difficult calculus to decide which to support.

Harris is also very moderate leader. I wish we could elect a more positively radical leader to tackle things like climate change and wealth inequality more aggressively and more quickly. But radical leaders, even those who are radical in positive ways, can’t get elected in a healthy pluralistic democracy. And we certainly should never seriously consider electing a dangerously radical leader like Donald Trump ever again.

So regardless of how your issue-by-issue calculus works out, and regardless of your deeply felt priorities, it is not even a legitimately debatable question about who to support in this election. This election is about whether you are willing to recklessly risk your nation and your future on someone who is utterly corrupt and destructive, merely because you like some of his positions or don’t like some of hers.

Our Automobile Obesity Problem

Leave a reply

In his “press conference” today, August 8th, Donald Trump regurgitated too may lies to reiterate here. And there is no need. Most of you are sane enough to know that virtually everything Trump says is either factually wrong or a bold-faced lie. However, I do want to talk about his particular lies regarding electric vehicles, as his stupidity or dishonesty on this topic may not be immediately obvious to everyone. Also, talking about these particular lies of his sets the stage to discuss the problem of automobile obesity.

This wasn’t the first time Trump has spread misinformation about electric vehicles (see here). He has been doing so for quite a while. Today he repeated false claims that electric vehicles are “twice as heavy” as comparable gas-powered vehicles. They are in fact a bit heavier because of the weight of current battery technology, but at most by only about 30%.

As one example, our family car, the all electric Mini Cooper SE, weighs 3,175 lbs. The otherwise identical gas-powered version weighs 2,813 lbs. This is a difference of under 13%. Cars with longer range are heavier, but the maximum difference is under 30%. For Trump to round that up to 200% is technically called a lie, whopper, or, colloquially, bullshit.

Moreover, the electric version is far cheaper to operate, has far lower maintenance costs, is far more convenient to charge up, performs far better, spew far less carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, and can utilize far greener sources of electricity now and in the future.

But Donald never settles for just one lie about any given topic. He then went on to repeat his claim that if we “all” had electric vehicles we would have to rebuild “all” our bridges in the country lest they “all” collapse under the added weight of electric cars. This is, unsurprisingly, yet more nonsense. Our roads and bridges are built to support caravans of 80,000 lb semi trucks. The weight increase of electric vehicles would be relatively insignificant and responsible engineering organizations have tactfully characterized this claim as “massively overstated” (see here).

Trump assuredly did not come up with these bogus claims on his own, but he is clearly unable to assess the validity of wild assertions before he repeats them, or he just doesn’t care to do so.

But if we take Trump at his word, and take seriously his worry about all our bridges collapsing because of an added load of 20% or so, then shouldn’t Trump also be urging everyone to simply buy smaller cars to save our fragile bridges?

This transitions us to the topic of our big, fat, gas-guzzling American cars.

Have no illusions. American cars have gotten really fat and are only getting fatter. American cars have grown a foot wider, two feet longer, and much higher just over the last decade. Their average weight has increased over 1000 lbs since 1980.

In comparison, European cars are roughly 27% leaner than our fat American cars. This difference is on a par with the weight difference that Donald Trump is so concerned about in going to electric.

And let’s be clear, Europeans need, use, and love cars just as much as Americans. They just like them lean and mean, not fat and bloated. We don’t “need” big pickup trucks that we hardly ever carry anything in, or giant SUV’s to take that yearly trip to the mountains. We could buy small and rent to meet occasional needs. Overall that would be far more financially sensible than buying and maintaining a huge vehicle you hardly ever fully utilize.

The EPA estimates that for each 100 lbs added to a vehicle, the fuel economy decreases by 1-2%. That adds up to a lot of money.

But smaller cars are not only economically sensible, they are environmentally sensible. In fact, it’s hard to think of any single thing you could do as an individual to fight climate change more significant than to buy a smaller car, whether gas or electric.

Due to their greater size and weight, American cars consume from 11% to 23% more gasoline than do their equally satisfying European counterparts. That results in a literal ton of carbon dioxide. You could reduce your personal CO2 footprint by over a metric ton per year just by buying a lighter, smaller car.

Frankly, you are not doing much for the environment by buying an electric Hummer or Escalade or F-150, or even our new normal of ballooned up Civic. We should buy electric AND buy small to gain the most benefit not only for the environment but for our own finances. If you buy small and electric, I guarantee you will not miss your gigantic boat of a car for very long. You’ll quickly come to love your small athletic electric and will likely find that it meets all your needs very well.

Buying small also means not being so obsessed with range. Usage studies show that most drivers don’t actually need anything near the battery range they think they do and demand. That added battery weight only gets lugged around unused creating more CO2. Our Mini has a 100 mile range and that has been plenty for us and statistics confirm that it is plenty for most consumers. Again, if you need to travel farther you can easily rent or take mass transit.

Unfortunately, most manufacturers have given up on making smaller cars for our gluttonously upsized American car market. But if we create demand the supply will quickly follow. The government as well as environmentally responsible carmakers should do everything it can to incentivize a national automobile diet plan for America.

I know we’re addicted to our huge cars and we think we can’t live without them. But we can. I know we can. Believe me, you’ll feel so much better after you lose that extra 1000 lbs of car fat, and you’ll be helping save the planet to boot.

Shallow Science Reporting in The Atlantic

Leave a reply

On June 3rd, Jonathan Lambert published an article in The Atlantic entitled “Psychedelics are Challenging the Scientific Gold Standard” (see here). The tagline was “How do you study mind-altering drugs when every clinical-trial participant knows they’re tripping?“

I’ll first mention that articles relating to psychedelics are always attractive clickbait. That’s not necessarily bad. One might hope that such clickbait will attract readers enough to impart some more generalized science knowledge and insight.

But sadly this article instead spreads serious misinformation and creates harmful misconceptions. The other day my wife, who is an accomplished epidemiologist, shared her frustration over the many misinformed and misleading scientific arguments presented in this article.

I’ve already written quite a bit about the issue of terrible scientific reporting in this blog and in my book, Pandemic of Delusion (see here). So in this installment I’ll try to use this as a learning opportunity to share some more accurate scientific insight into clinical trials as well as to correct some of the misinformation presented in this article.

The author claims that the study of mind-altering drugs presents new challenges since participants can easily tell whether they are tripping or not. Being aware of which treatment you have received could result in a distortion or even an invalidation of the results.

But this is hardly a new or even remotely unique challenge. There are a wide range of non-hallucinogenic treatments that have side effects that are also easily apparent to the participants. In fact it is an extremely common situation for epidemiologists, one that they have dealt with successfully for many decades in any study where the treatment has noticeable side effects like nausea or lethargy.

The author then goes on to present this as a fundamental issue with Randomly Controlled Trials (RCT) as a clinical study design strategy. An RCT is a widely-accepted and well-proven practice of ensuring that participants are assigned to the different trial groups being tested and compared in a completely random manner. As Mr. Lambert correctly points out, RCT is the “Gold Standard” for clinical designs.

In his article, the author attempts to make a case that this “gold standard” is insufficient to meet the challenge of studies of this kind and that “We shouldn’t be afraid to question the gold standard.” This quote came from a source, but it is still being chosen and presented by the author to support his conclusions. I would be highly surprised if his source intended this comment to be interpreted as used in this paper. I know my wife is often incensed by the way that her interview comments were selectively used in articles to convey something very different that what she intended.

As an aside, I want to mention that generally when journalists interview scientists, they expressly refuse any offers to "fact check" their final article, citing "journalistic integrity."  I find this claim of journalistic integrity highly suspect, particularly when interviewers like Rachel Maddow commonly start by asking their guests "did I get all that right in my summary introduction?" This only improves, rather than compromises, their journalistic integrity and the accuracy of their reporting.

In any case, while every study presents unique challenges, none of these challenges undermine the basic validity of our gold standard.

But to support his assertion, the author incorrectly links RCT designs with “blinding.” He states that “Blinding, as this practice is called, is a key component of a randomized controlled trial.“

For clarification, blinding is the practice of concealing treatment group assignments from the participants, and preferably also from the investigators as well (which is called double blinding), even after the treatment is administered.

But blinding is an entirely optional addition to an RCT study design. Blinding is not a required component of an RCT design, let alone a “key component” as the author asserts. Many valid RCT designs are not blinded, let alone double-blinded. For more details on this topic I point you to the seminal reference work by Schultz and Grimes published in 2002.1

The author makes similar mistakes by conflating RCT designs with placebo effects. To clarify any misconceptions he has created, many, many studies, including randomized trials, do not include a placebo group nor are they always necessary or sensible. In many typical cases, the study goal is to compare a new drug to a previous standard, and a placebo is not relevant. In other cases, the use of a placebo would be unethical, such as in trials of contraceptives.

Next the author advocates for new, alternative study designs like “open label trials” and “descriptive studies.” But neither of these designs are new nor are they in any way superior to randomized trials. In fact they are far inferior and introduce a host of biases that an RCT is designed to eliminate. They are alternatives, yes, but only when one cannot economically, technically, or ethically conduct a far more rigorous and controlled RCT study.

Non-randomized trials can also be used as easy “screening” studies to identify potential areas for more rigorous investigation. For example, non-randomized studies initially suggested that jogging after myocardial infarction could prevent further infarctions. Randomized studies proved this to be incorrect, probably due to other lifestyle choices made between those who choose to exercise and those who do not. But again, their findings should be taken as tentative until a proper RCT can be accomplished.

And there are many options that trained researchers can utilize to study hallucinogenic drugs, as they do with a wide range of detectable treatment scenarios, without compromising the sound basis of a good randomized trial design. As just one example, they could administer their control group with an alternative medication that would cause many of the same symptoms, even tripping! This is done fairly routinely in other similar situations.

There are many other criticisms one could and should make of this article, but I’ll wind down by saying that psychedelics are not “challenging the scientific gold standard.” We do not need to compromise the integrity of good scientific methods in order to study the efficacy of hallucinogens in treating PTSD or any other conditions.

And further, we should push back against this kind of very poor scientific reporting because it propagates misinformation that undermines good, sound, established scientific techniques. The Atlantic should hold their authors to a higher standard.

  1. Kenneth F. Schultz and David A. Grimes, “Blinding in randomized trials: hiding who got what,” THE LANCET • Vol 359 • February 23, 2002 ↩︎

The Vatican Combats Superstition

2 Replies

The Church has always worked tirelessly to portray itself as scholarly, rational, and evidence-based. Going way, way back, they have tried and largely succeeded in marketing themselves as a bulwark against false gods, superstitions, and dangerous beliefs.

In “The Demon-Haunted World,” Carl Sagan told about Jean Gerson back in the 1400’s who wrote “On the Distinction Between True and False Visions.” In it, he specified that evidence was required before accepting the validity of any divine visitation. This evidence could include, among many other mundane things, a piece of silk, a magnetic stone, or even an ordinary candle. More important than physical evidence, however, was the character of the witness and the consistency of their account with accepted church doctrine. If their account was not consistent with church orthodoxy or disturbing to those in power, it was ipso facto deemed unreliable.

In other words, the church has spent thousands of years fabricating pseudo-rational logic to ensure that the supernatural bullshit they are selling is the only supernatural bullshit that is never questioned.

Their pseudo-rational campaign of manipulation is is still going on today.

Just recently, the Vatican announced their latest marketing initiative to promote themselves as the arbiters of dangerous and confusing supernatural claims (see here). They sent their salesmen out in force promoting it, and if their claims were not accepted by the media with such unquestioning deference, I would not need to write this article.

Just as did Jean Gerson in 1400, the modern Vatican has again published revised “rules” for distinguishing false from legitimate supernatural claims. But unlike most of the media, let’s examine a few of these supposedly new rules (or tests) through a somewhat less credulous lens.

The first requirement, according to Vatican “scholars,” is whether the person or persons reporting the visitation or supernatural event possess a high moral character. The first obvious problem is that anyone, even those of low moral character, can have supernatural encounters. So what is this really about? The real reason they include this is because it’s so fuzzy. It gives them the latitude to dismiss reports inconsistent with their doctrine based on a character judgement, and it ensures that if they are going to anoint a new brand-ambassador, that person will not reflect poorly on the Church.

They include a similar criterion involving financial motivation. Again, while a financial interest should make one skeptical, it is not disqualifying. And the real reason this is included, I suspect, is to provide the same benefit as a moral character assessment. It provides further fuzziness to allow them to cherry-pick what sources they want to support, and which they want to disavow.

But the most important self-perpetuating rule is the next one. The Vatican explicitly gives credence to any claims that support church theology and the church hierarchy, and expressly discounts any claims that are not in keeping with Church doctrine as ipso facto bogus.

In other words, since Church doctrine is the only true superstition, any claim that is not in keeping with Church doctrine is logically and necessarily false. This is the exact same specious logic put forth by Jean Gerson in 1400. The Vatican clearly knows that a thriving business must keep reintroducing the same old marketing schemes to every new generation.

Rather than dwell further on the points the Vatican wishes us to focus on, let’s think one moment about what they did not include. Nowhere in their considered treatise on fact-based thinking do they ever mention anything remotely like scientific or judicial rules of evidence. Nowhere do they mention scientific-style investigation, scientific standards of proof, or any establishment of fact for that matter. They emphasize consistency with Church doctrine, but nowhere do they even mention consistency with known universal laws. And certainty nowhere do they suggest a sliver of a possibility that any of their existing beliefs could possibly be proven to be incorrect by some legitimate new supernatural phenomenon.

I won’t go on further as I like to keep these blog posts short, but I hope this is enough to help you see that everything in this current Vatican media campaign is more of their same old, “we are the only source for truth” claim. It’s the same strategy designed to hold an audience that has been adopted successfully by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and any number of cults.

The Church is essentially a money-making big-business like Disneyland, selling a fantasy experience built around their cast of trademarked characters with costumes and theme parks, and big budget entertainment events. Imagine if Disney spent thousands of years trying to retain market share by assuring people that they are the only real theme park and that all the rest of them are just fake. Then further imagine that Disney went on to promote scholarly articles about how they are the only reliable judges of which theme park characters are real. That’s the Church.

Disneyland and Universal Studios are just a feel-good entertainment businesses and they admit it. Disney doesn’t insist that Micky Mouse is real and Universal Studios doesn’t claim that only the Autobots can save us from the Decepticons. What makes the arbiters of truth at the Vatican either liars or delusional or both is that they never stop working to convince everyone that their divine mission is to protect us from – all those other – false beliefs.

The Right Direction for AI

Leave a reply

In this blog and in my book, Pandemic of Delusion, I have focused a lot on AI and particularly on its tremendous potential to shape our thinking for better or for worse. While AI represents a frighteningly powerful technology for spreading lies and misinformation, it is also the greatest hope we have to combat misinformation and overcome our own cognitive vulnerabilities.

I’ve often repeated that AI can, should, and must be implemented responsibly in a way that nudges us toward clarity, facts, and reason and away from confusion, misinformation, and lies.

But I expressed that sentiment based on limited experience. I assumed that AI actually can be implemented using algorithms that can fairly and accurately assess the factual accuracy of a proposition. It was also a somewhat aspirational expression of hope and faith that responsible technology companies really will strive to do just that.

Today I feel as little bit more confident that my faith, hope, and trust in AI to make things better was justified. I’ve been playing around with an AI-based search engine called Perplexity (see here). Perplexity utilizes AI language models to produce not only pure search results like Google, but to assimilate, assess, and present a coherent answer to your question. It’s similar to ChatGPT, but it draws upon live information and provides source citations for verification.

But there’s another more important difference. While ChatGPT is well-suited to conversational dialogues and creative activities, Perplexity is more focused on providing factual and reliably-supported information, analyses, and conclusions.

I asked Perplexity:

“How specifically does Perplexity prevent feeding me misinformation?”

What it told me was:

“Perplexity is a measure used in natural language processing to evaluate the quality of the language models. Misinformation tends to have higher perplexity compared to truthful statements, and this characteristic can be leveraged to detect and debunk misinformation. By analyzing the perplexity of language model outputs, one can identify deceptive content and distinguish it from reliable sources based on the cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. Therefore, perplexity can be used as a tool to help prevent the propagation of misinformation by identifying content that exhibits characteristics associated with deceptive or unreliable information.”

This is really, really heartening and encouraging. While a perplexity measure is only a start and is certainly not the only approach that AI can use to nudge us toward facts and reason, it demonstrates that algorithms can be implemented to assess the quality of information. Further, perplexity.ui proves there are people and companies who are able and willing to provide incredibly useful tools in a responsible fashion.

As another example, I asked Perplexity:

“How was the 2020 election stolen by Joe Biden?”

Despite the intentionally leading nature of the question, the answer from Perplexity was perfect:

“The claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden has been thoroughly investigated and debunked. Multiple fact-checking sources and legal cases have found no evidence of widespread fraud or illegal ballots cast for Joe Biden. Former President Donald Trump and some of his allies have continued to repeat these claims, but they have been refuted by election officials, judges, and legal investigations, Despite the persistence of these claims, there remains no credible evidence to support the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

In both answers from Perplexity I omitted the references it cited.

By contrast, when I asked Google the same question it provided a long list of articles and links, representing a hodgepodge of assertions from all over the spectrum. Scanning down the list and their short summaries, I only got more confused and uncertain about this very clear question with a very clear answer.

Yet I fear that many people will still feel uncomfortable with accepting conclusions provided by tools like Perplexity. Part of their discomfort is understandable.

Firstly, we generally hold an increasingly false assumption that “more information is better.” We feel that if we are exposed to all viewpoints and ideas we can come away with much more confidence that we have examined the question from every angle and are more able to make an informed assessment. Google certainly gives us more points of views on any given topic.

Secondly, when we hear things repeated by many sources we feel more confident in the veracity of that position. A list presented by Google certainly gives us a “poll the audience” feeling about how many different sources support a given position.

Both of those biases would make us feel more comfortable reviewing Google search results rather than “blindly” accept the conclusion of a tool like Perplexity.

However, while a wide range of information reinforced by a large number of sources may be somewhat reliable indicators of validity in a normal, fact-rich information environment, these only confuse and mislead us in an environment rife with misinformation. The diverse range of views may be mostly or even entirely filled with nonsense and the apparent number of sources may only be the clanging repetition of an echo chamber in which everyone repeats the same utter nonsense.

Therefore while I’ll certainly continue to use tools like Google and ChatGPT when they serve me well, I will turn to tools like Perplexity when I want and need to sift through the deluge of misinformation that we get from rabbit-hole aggregators like Google or unfettered creative tools like ChatGPT.

Thanks to you Perplexity for putting your passions to work to produce a socially responsible AI platform! I gotta say though that I hope that you are but a taste of even more powerful and socially responsible AI that will help move us toward more fact-based thinking and more rational, soundly-informed decision-making.

Addendum:

Gemini is Google’s new AI offering replacing their Bard platform. Two things jump out at me in the Gemini FAQ page (see here). First, in answer to the question “What are Google’s principles for AI Innovation?” they say nothing directly about achieving a high degree of factual accuracy. One may generously infer it as implicit in their stated goals, but if they don’t care enough to state it as a core part of their mission, they clearly don’t care about it very much. Second, in answer to “Is Gemini able to explain how it works?” they go to extremes to urge people to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Personally, if they urge me to use an information source that they disavow when it comes to their own self-interest, I don’t want to use that platform for anything of importance to me.

The Insidious Effect of Big Lies

Leave a reply

In this blog and in my book, Pandemic of Delusion (see here), I have written a lot about how it is that we are all so woefully susceptible to lies and misinformation. We are clearly far more vulnerable than most of us are willing to believe, particularly with regard to our own thinking.

Just as there are lots of ways that vines can wiggle their way into a garden, are many mechanisms by which lies can infiltrate our neural networks and eventually obscure the windows of our very perceptions.

And as with invasive species of vines, one infiltration mechanism is a simple numbers game. Our neural networks are “trained” through repetition. So regardless of how skeptical we imagine we are, the more lies we hear and the more often we hear them, the more we become increasingly comfortable with them.

Another counter-intuitive infiltration mechanism is size and scope. In many cases, the whopper of a lie is easier for us to accept than more modest lies. We conclude that surely no one would make up such a big lie, and surely a lie that big would be exposed it if were not true. So therefore it must be true by virtue of its audacity alone!

Implicit in this is the concept of anchoring, but I have not yet discussed this explicitly. The concept of anchoring is most often used in economics to describe the effect of pricing. If you “anchor” the retail price of a rock at say, $100 and then mark it down to say $10, most consumers conclude that $10 is a great deal on a rock that’s totally worthless. This perception is enhanced if you see lots of “competing” rocks being sold for similarly high prices and purchased by others.

As it relates to lies and misinformation, anchoring has a similar effect. When we hear a really, really big lie we sometimes accept or dismiss it outright. But the effect of the big lie is more insidious than that. First, as we have said, if we hear it often enough we will become inexorably more accepting of it. But also, the big lie anchors our skepticism.

Big lies anchor our skepticism in two ways.

First, a big lie causes us to consider that, as with the rock, there must be <some> value, <some> truth there. This plays well into our self-image as measured and open-minded thinkers. Our brains compromise. We take intellectual pride in not being fooled outright by the big lie even as we congratulate ourselves for being open-minded enough to consider that some of it might or even must be true.

Second, big lies further anchor our thinking when we are exposed to a lot of them. As with individual lies, we pride ourselves in rejecting <most> of the big lies, even as we congratulate ourselves for accepting that some of them might or even must be true.

And each lie we accept, or even entertain in whole or in part, makes it easier to accept more and bigger lies.

We humans have always had the same neural networks with the very same strengths and limitations. Our neural networks have always been trained through repeated exposure and have always been susceptible to the same confounding effects such as anchoring. But it is only very recently with the advent of social media that our neural networks have been exposed to so much misinformation so incessantly.

As if that was not enough to drive us to delusion, we now have Artificial Intelligence. AI has yet to show whether its god-like powers of persuasion will nudge us toward facts and reason or plunge us further into delusion and manipulation.

And to make it even worse, our reason has been further attacked the emergence of the virulent, invasive new species called Trumpism. Trump and his allies, intentionally or instinctively, leverage the power of big lies, repeated over and over, to cause us to believe absolute nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Even democracy-ending nonsense.

Understanding the effect of big lies on us, particularly when we imagine that we are being moderate and measured in our acceptance of them, is critical. We have to understand this at a gut level, because we cannot trust our brains on this.

One final, and perhaps somewhat gratuitous comparison to make is that this “partial” acceptance of an anchored big lie is not unlike the imagined “reasonable” position of agnosticism when it comes to the completely, utterly false claim that god exists. It is perhaps not completely a coincidence that Trump’s most deluded followers are Evangelical Christians.

The Debilitating Weight of Choice

Leave a reply

While it is difficult to define happiness, it is quite easy to recognize when we are happy or unhappy. And lots of people are very unhappy nowadays. Not merely unhappy, but profoundly, chronically unhappy. You hardly need scientific data to tell you that, but studies do confirm that Americans are the unhappiest they have been in 50 years (see here).

When we think about trends in America, we often jump back to the 1950’s for before-and-after contrasts and comparisons. Aside from some nostalgic allure, life in the 2020’s is objectively far better than it was in the 1950’s. At first glance we credit technology for improving our quality of life. But while technological advances have been stunning, those technologies have largely resulted in vastly greater levels of information and choice.

Today, thanks to information technologies, we have fast and easy access to fantastically more information than our grandparents did in the 1950’s. At the same time, that explosion of information, along with other social and technological changes, has dramatically expanded the range and number of choices both known to us and available to us.

Relatively scant information was knowable or even discoverable until relatively recently. You could not just look up anything and everything on the Internet. I have only recently discovered basic information that was effectively unknowable for most of my lifetime. Today there is very little that we cannot know, or at least get opinions about, with the few clicks of a mouse.

And amongst all that information, is information about our choices. Not only information making us aware of all our choices, but endless detail, advice, and opinions about those options to help us choose between them.

We may be desensitized to it, but today we enjoy vastly wider choices in foods, in clothing, in entertainment, in our hair color, in social media, an so on and on. We have immense choice not only in consumer goods, but in our life choices. We have far more choices to make about jobs and employers, where to live, where to visit, in our religious affiliation, our political allegiance, and most every aspect of our lives, large and small.

That was not true in the 1950’s. No comparison. You largely went to your local school, lived your entire life in your town of birth, got married to a classmate, had children, got a job at the local company where everyone else got a job, read your local paper each night after meat and potatoes, retired, and hosted holidays for your clan. That was pretty much all you knew and few of your life-paths could be called choices. Our biggest decisions were whether to smoke Marlboro or Camels.

So with both information and choice being so obviously fundamental to our personal and collective happiness, how can it be that we are so increasingly unhappy, both personally and collectively?

I propose that the reason is, in part, too much information about too many choices.

A little of most anything is almost always good but too much of most anything is almost always bad. While a little sunlight is needed to illuminate the darkness, and a little more may disinfect, but too much blinds and even burns. I submit that today we are unhappy, in large part, because we are drowning in information and paralyzed by choice. Further, the two of these in combination multiply and compound the problem.

Too much choice can make people crazy. Psychologist Barry Schwartz talked about the harmful consequences of too much choice in his book, “The Paradox of Choice.” Which product should I buy? Which path should I choose? What will that say about me? What if it’s not the best choice? What if I had chosen something else? What have I missed out on in life because of my choices? Why do I have to even choose? I want it all!

Today we are confronted daily by immeasurably more choices. But it isn’t just that we have choices, as if they were merely nice options. Rather, the only choice you don’t have is not to choose. You have to choose everything. And in making those choices, you are expected to read every review and scrutinize every detail of every choice, large or small. And after having chosen, you have to deal with all the scrutiny and second-guessing from yourself and others. Did I choose the best option? Maybe I should have chosen that other option.

When we are forced to make choices about practically everything, from trivial to life-defining, choice goes from being empowering to onerously debilitating. We are confronted by information and choice in every little thing we try to do. Do you want to make that burrito a supreme? Would you like that Jalapeno spicy? Would you care to round up for charity? It goes on and on in everything we do, both explicitly and implicitly.

It makes us want to scream, “I just want a damn burrito!”

This paradox of choice is exasperated by our abundance of information. Not only do we have to choose everything, but we are aware of every opposing argument, every bit of data, every opinion. Like choice, information about anything and everything is everywhere. And like choice, it isn’t merely there if we want it. Everyone seems determined, like it or not, to fully inform us about everything to ensure that we are happy.

It’s like that with all our plethora of choices and all the information that both informs and drowns us in opportunities taken and not taken. And at every possible opportunity, other people, amplified by the media and the Internet, are constantly informing us of our choices and demanding we become better informed and choose wisely so that we can become happier than we are. But don’t choose wrong!

The cumulative effect of all that information about all those choices is the opposite of what we might hope and expect. Untaken possibilities and choices can become untold sources of hesitation, angst, self-doubt, and regret.

Too much information creates unhappiness in other ways. How can anyone enjoy any entertainment choice today, or any activity at all, when they are confronted with a million voices all telling them they should like it or they should hate it or pick apart every little detail until the entire experience is just too laden with choice and information and flaws and criticisms to have any hope of just enjoying it.

Obviously I’m not suggesting reverting to the scant information and limited choices of the 1950’s. But I do want to point out that while information and choice in moderation are required for happiness, in excess they can and are making us very unhappy indeed.

In the 1950’s we had to actively seek out information and choice to become a fuller person. But today we have to actively insulate ourselves from too much information and too many choices if we are to remain sane and happy.

Start by just being aware of the negative effects of information and choice overload. Merely understanding their combined and cumulative effect can diminish it. Consciously pay a little less attention to extraneous information and try to fret less about your choices. Strive to find that sweet spot at which information and choice help you to become a happier person and a better citizen without succumbing under the debilitating weight of information and choice overload.