I LOVE Survivor. It is one of my favourite shows of all time. If it were only animated! Dang! But seriously, it is not animated because it features real life. I know reality TV is to reality what Life cereal is to life but I like watching these folks who are usually "even better than the real thing", and in situations that are anything BUT normal because in every season there is a lot of real life. The show's creator, Mark Burnett prefers to think of it as "unscripted drama." It's not what these people would normally do since they are watched by millions. I'm sure there would be more fighting, swearing, and getting it on if they weren't. Probably even MORE lying, cheating and stealing too! But it's watered down life that I enjoy watching as a bit of a guilty pleasure.
Considering I've been in Korea, a foreign land where I can't eat what I want, can't do what I want, don't have a lot of the comforts of home, am forced to act nicely to a lot of people I don't care for, am in constant competition with other people who want the same money I want, am forced to sometimes make alliances with people I do and don't like, have watched lots of my friends go home and leave me on the peninsula, and for me and just about everyone else here, it's all about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I reckon I've been playing Survivor for 10 years. But I'd prefer the TV show to my version of it.
On the other hand, there are some things that consistently bug me about the show. A lot of them are probably because the participants can only be Americans, and not being American, some of the things they do boggle my mind! There'd probably be some of the same things and some different if there were a Canadian Survivor. Although the first prize would likely be an Amana Radar Range or a Brother Sewing Machine. Ha ha ha. Canadian game shows! So cheap! Anyhoo, here is my list of things that bug me about Survivor.
10. I like Jeff Probst. He's a good host and although a lot of his questions are most likely written for him by sociologists or whatever, I've seen him do some pretty good thinking on his feet. However, he has a speech impediment! How does a guy get the best job in the world, most of it requiring speech when he can NOT say "skull" or "ultimate" or "ultra". Skoal, oltimate, oltra. I think it was Survivor 12 in Panama when they had an Exile Island named Skull Island and the challenges often had skull themes, I nearly muted the show a few times. I kept getting an odd urge for a pinch of chewing tobacco between my cheek and gums. (Skoal) And it usually bugs me when he says the most often heard redundancy in TV, "Once again, immunity is one more time, back, again, up for grabs another time." Okay I added some but saying immunity is once again back up for grabs is like saying AM in the morning or basic fundamentals or honest truth or round circle, or soda pop or any of several that bugged people so much THIS list was made. I know it's a small thing but it's number 10.
9. During the final episodes called the reunion episodes where the people gather to read the votes and see who wins the million bucks, everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY is wearing WAY too much make-up. And it's not just because we're used to seeing them in their natural states. Survivor is never going to win any awards for make-up if there are any in TV. I know they have Academy Awards for make-up artists. Even the dudes get plastered with product. Sometimes it's so bad it looks like they used Homer Simpson's make-up gun! I think the worst two examples ever were Ozzie, who shoulda WON Survivor Cook Islands, (DAMMIT!), and Steph, ALL THREE times she was on! She is PLENTY hot enough without make-up!
8. There has never been a Survivor in which people weren't constantly talking about how they need protein or food energy to perform well in challenges, yet, aside from Survivor 14 in Fiji where it was survival vs. THRIVAL, and the team with all the luxuries like food won every challenge, I am POSITIVE, (and I've seen 'em all), that the hungry tribes have won more than their share of challenges. The survivors who go on reward challenges that include meals just don't have the killer instinct they might if they weren't recently full to satiety. This is why athletes NEVER eat before games. Fighters have been known to starve themselves in other ways, if you know what I'm saying. No nookie turns a pugilist into a murderer who might bite off your ear or threaten to eat your children.
7. I absolutely hate watching the episodes where the survivors get letters from home or relatives visiting the island or whatever. Almost EVERYBODY cries. When somebody DOESN'T cry, I am usually a much bigger fan of theirs. It's a month, probably less, away from your family. Survivor lasts 39 days and it's usually before day 30 that they have these episodes. Who among the survivors has never WISHED for a month away from their families? I always wonder if they're not just playing it up to get some sort of sympathy votes or to look sensative in the eyes of the viewing audience. For a wife or husband or especially a kid I could understand a bit more but it happens with Moms, Dads, friends, I think some of the survivors would have cried in the arms of locals that were hired because Survivor couldn't track down any loved ones. Do average American families see their Moms and Dads every month? Every single month? And if it's longer than that do they blubber and wimper like Lucille Ball when they meet? I guess this is part of that UNreality the cameras add. If it's not, it sure gives me doubts about the intestinal fortitude of the average American! If I want waterworks I'll watch the Biggest Loser. I wish they'd lose these episodes, but millions disagree. I dunno. I don't get it.
6. This one is one I'm usually entertained by, but in principal it bugs me. It's those sore losers on the jury who lambaste the final two or three for lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises and doing immoral things, BETTER or SOONER than they did. I find that people who play honest games are almost always proud of the way they played and the fact that they can sleep well at night is reward enough for them. It HAS to be cuz let's face it, they never win! The ones who make fools of themselves reading the riot act to the people who make it all the way to final tribal council are almost always people who either failed at the deceit game or didn't get a chance to employ it. I think this is A LOT like life. Probably the best example is Sue from Survivor 1 and All Stars who went ballistic on both shows.
5. There is almost always some loser at the very end who did absolutely nothing while people were falling like dominoes around, (usually), her. Someone who is useless in challenges, has no charisma, did little or no game playing or manipulating, is lacking in social skills, intelligence, athleticism and even sometimes work ethic, but made some very fortunate alliance early in the game with a powerhouse player or two who keeps, (for the most part), her around because she'll be easy to beat in the final two or three. Then when the jury criticizes her for all that she says, "I must have played the game better than you since I'm here and you're on the jury." Even Probst has said it a few times! I suppose Sue would qualify from Survivor 1. Tina won Survivor 2 because of Colby. Was voted off first in All Stars. Kim from Survivor Africa rode coattails all the way as Big Tom said. Then Survivor 4 the final TWO were people who fit the category. One coattail rider and one who flip flopped any time people came to her with a new alliance. She never proposed an alliance, never worked, naver really made friends, was terrible in challenges but because of a purple rock she got a mil. Danielle and Arse, (Aras) were a useless final two and stole the game from one of the best ever survivors: Terry. Actually, no, Arse was pretty good. Just an arse. I could go on and on... But here again Survivor is very much like life. And we'll go to number 4 for the next one...
4. The person who deserves to win almost never does. In fact the person who wins almost never deserves to. I'll give you a list that I think would be very well accepted as the people who were the smartest/most athletic/best social players/hardest workers and had a winning combinations of assets that SHOULD have won them the game. 1. Greg (9th), 2. Colby (2nd), 3. Tom (4th)though I think Ethan deserved the win, 4. Hunter (13th), 5. Brian (1st time!), 6. Matthew (2nd) 7. Rupert (6th), 8. Lex (9th), 9. Sarge (9th), 10. Tom (2nd and last time!), 11. Steph (2nd), 12. Terry (3rd), 13. Ozzy (2nd), 14. Yau Man (4th), 15. Chicken (lol okay maybe some would disagree with this), and so on. This year it'll probably be the same. But that's life.
3. As in life when people say stupid things to reason away the travesty of the inept rising to power and wealth while the worthy get shafted such as, "It's just business," "Don't take it personally," "Just trying to feed my family," or other such crap, Survivor has its own version: "It's a game!" Hey, it's NOT a game! There's a million dollars PLUS on the line. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These guys are all playing for endorsement deals, public appearances, vehicles, the easy life. It's not a game. People just say that when they've realized they don't deserve to win as much as someone else so they lied, cheated or stole. Once again, just like life! The greatest example of this was when the appropriately named Dreamz made a deal with Yao Man that in exchange for about a 60,000 dollar vehicle, if he won immunity for the final 4, he'd give it to Yao Man. Dreamz had that same money sickness that causes businessmen/women to say, "It's just business." He somehow DREAMED that after shafting the most deserving guy in the game he'd get even ONE vote from the jury. Of course he didn't and has been lying his ass off ever since saying it was his "game" strategy. I call BS because he wouldn't have sworn to God right away when Yao Man proposed the deal OR talked about how proud his kid would be of him when he turned over immunity to YM. He was only talking to the camera when he said that so it absolutely COULD NOT have been strategy. Was it his strategy to lie to the viewing audience? Dangle money in front of some people and just sit back and watch the show. A million bucks makes for some real entertainment!
2. I absolutely hate it when people ally based on sex. For the men it's a bit more understandable because they are better suited for a lot of the challenges. But the WOMAN POWER alliances really bug me. This is one of the big reasons why we end up with so many duds at the end of a lot of seasons. But even worse I hate when the races hook up. For a long time if there were two black people on Survivor, you could bank on them hooking up. Even the one time when Ghandia accused Ted of sexual harrassment, they were a brothah/sistah alliance beforehand. The most obvious example to me would be the alliance of Yul and Becky the two Koreans. They were talking about how they had such a "strong bond" from like day 2? Two things have caused that kind of "bond" in the history of Survivor: A rockin' bod and racism. And since they were very clear about not ever thinking of each other in those terms after the season ended, I think we know what it was that brought them together. And knowing Koreans and the way they feel about the importance of blood, how they have special words for racist ideas in Korean like "jeong" the special love only Koreans can share, it's a no-brainer. Quite fitting that a racist-based alliance won the season where the tribes were initially separated by race.
1. The thing I hate worst about Survivor is what I call the "blah blahs." These are those people who say stuff like, "If I put my mind to it I can blah blah blah." "I believe that there's nothing I can't do if blah blah blah." And so on. These hyperpositive and hyperconfident people almost NEVER turn out to be even close to as good or fast or socially adept or funny as they claim in their hooray-for-me, self-congratulatory back slapping. And Americans have never been accused of having too LITTLE confidence in themselves. Watching this Dunning/Kruger effect and witnessing the absolute crash and burn failure of its sufferers is almost as sweet as watching the truly good players win. I'm not actually sure which I like better. This Dunning/Kruger effect is only theory but that's why it's so fun to watch. It really looks to be evident. It's basically when someone has an illusion that they are really good when in fact they suck. But the same delusionary thinking that makes them think they're good at something is what keeps them from realizing they suck. They also judge others to be of similar judgement and ability to them. It also works in reverse with the great players. They usually underestimate their abilities and overestimate the abilities of others to be about on par with their own. Probably the best example of the former was Rocky. He won exactly nothing but if you asked him about his performance on Survivor he'd probably tell you he was dominant. And almost every season you'll have people who compare themselves in their profiles to past survivors. Like I'm as devious as Russel or as funny as Tyson. They're usually nothing close. Of course it doesn't work for everybody! Russel thought he was the smartest guy alive and it was sweet to see him proven wrong. Tyson was absolutely in love with himself too. Then there's Boston Rob. But they weren't blah blahs. They had some game to back up their cocky talk so I dislike them slightly less. But the thing I like the least is also the thing I like the most. Guys like Ozzy, Tom, Rupert, Rodger, Paschal, Ethan, Greg, Hunter, and QB Gary had the positive D/K effect. So did girls like Steph, Amanda, Danni, Kathy, Sandra, Helen, Elisabeth, Colleen. But I'm not talking about the things I like best about Survivor. The blah blahs make it tedious sometimes. Especially when watching alone and I can't slag them to someone else. Oh I still do but there's nobody around to hear me. Maybe I need a dog.
Anyhoo, that's what's got me typing this time. Nothing much happening since last entry. See ya next time.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Korea is a funny place
These days there are all kinds of ads for jobs in the major universities that don't start until March 1st. Why are they advertising so early? Because xenophobic paranoia has led to hastily enacted rules that require foreigners to jump through a lot more hoops before they can be legally employed here. New laws that are being enforced by people who think they might possibly have forgotten to actually read them but they think they can probably, almost, partly figure out the implied, intended spirit of them.
For example, the criminal record check I got 2 years ago from the Calgary Police force that accessed national records and said that I had not committed any crimes in the country of Canada is no longer any good here. In fact, I understand that even if it were valid, I'd have to get another one because 2 years is too old. Regardless of the fact that I have lived in Korea for the past 5 years so could not have committed any crimes in Canada, prior to that was employed at schools in Canada that required more stringent criminal record checks than Korean schools, and even had high level security clearance in Canada because I actually worked FOR THE RCMP, the agency at which they are forcing me to apply for my new Criminal Record Check. None of this means anything to the people of Korea because a few attrocities have been committed and rules have been broken and because they were attrocities committed and rules bent by foreigners, made big news, so now the entire country thinks there is a good chance all ESL teachers here are potential child molesters with fake degrees.
So I have to get a new CRC, which takes about 4-6 months, and I need to get my degree verified for the umpteenth time. You see every few years the Korean government notices a rash of Korean people who have attained high positions on the strength of phony degrees. So what is the appropriate thing to do? Why, get all the foreigners to have their degrees verified at their own expense, of course! It has cost me 40 bucks twice to get my degree verified at immigration. It cost me more than that once to have sealed transcripts mailed to my employer. And schools I worked for have verified my degree themselves on a few occasions. Not good enough! Now I need to get it verified, by my employer, through the Korean Council for Universities Association. No doubt this will cost me some more dough.
The cost for the new federal CRC through the Canadian RCMP will be 25 Canadian dollars. It can only be paid by certified check or money order. Well, foreigners can't get certified checks in Korea undoubtedly because one or two people sent their money home via certified check and Koreans have this drastic aversion to that practice. My Korean friend who had a business in Korea for several years is moving to Canada and has no idea how she will transfer her money there. And she's KOREAN! Foreigners can no longer use credit cards or debit cards to access THEIR money in Korean banks even though the bankers will always tell you they are international cards and even put phony Cirrus/Maestro or whatever stamps on them. They don't work. And if you take cash out of a Korean bank, go to another country and find a Korea Exchange Bank, they will not exchange the Korean cash for you.
And there are other problems too. New rules for foreigners needing their alien cards to do practically everything in this country. I couldn't even get into the country on a tourist visa without having a ticket out even though the immigration officer told me I could. YES, immigration officers and bank tellers actually ARE being trained to lie to foreigners. Not really a new practice but it IS new policy. Also, in order to use my bank account in Korea I need to continuously update my bank book. The other day I tried to do that and was asked by the teller to show her my alien card. I have no alien card but showed her my passport and my visitor's visa that is good till the end of February. She updated my book and froze my account. New policy. FURTHERMORE, if you are trying to get a job here and need the CRC you must find a bank somewhere, (and good luck with this one!), that can give you a Canadian money order. Most tellers don't know what they are and will lie to you and tell you their bank doesn't issue them. If this happens you need to go to another teller and maybe another teller, (possibly in the same bank), until you finally get one who knows what money orders are. THEN you need to ask for CANADA dollars because they don't know what Canadian dollars are. And you might even have to use the letters O.D.D. because this is the term used only in Korea for something that is used only by foreigners who have never heard of it. THEN after all of that they may ask you once again for your alien card to get the money order needed for the CRC needed to get the job needed to get the work visa needed to actually get an alien card. In short, if you don't have a job in Korea, you can't apply for one because you need an alien card to get an alien card. New policy!
But none of this matters to Koreans either. So long as they think they are safe from the .0001% of foreigners who are nasty to Koreans. Why would any foreigner be nasty to Koreans?
I, and plenty of my colleagues, am suffering through all of this craziness that almost seems designed with the sole purpose of making things as tough for foreigners as possible, for the right to work at facilities with slogans like "Global Elite," "Global Future," "Globalization For Tomorrow," "We Love Foreigners," and other such irony. I admit I made up that last one. We are stringently abiding by Korean laws, being fingerprinted, scanned and interrogated to make sure we haven't so much as jaywalked in our lives to work at institutions that routinely practice academic fraud, degree selling, cheat on standardized testing, fudge attendance and marks and ask or even REQUIRE us to do so as well. We are forced to verify our credentials on about a bi-annual basis for the honour of working at these institutions who commonly maintain 75% minimum grades for all students and hand out "diplomas" and "degrees" to people who haven't even shown up for class.
Not only that but the trend is now toward accepting only teachers with Master's degrees in related fields like TESOL, TEFL, Linguistics etc. AND they are paying less and less money.
What do you suppose will be the end result of all of this? I know, because over the 10 years I've spent here this sort of thing has just been snowballing. What is going to happen is the businesses, (and make no mistake, it is erroneous to call them schools), will need these Master's-holding teachers because they have promised them to the parents of their prospective students, (who are notoriously knocked out by letters after a person's name), but the teachers won't be available BECAUSE 1. it's too hard to jump through all the hoops, 2. Koreans don't like foreigners and make it obvious, 3. if a guy gets a good degree the first place he'll try to use it WON'T be Korea. So the businesses, not the teachers, the businesses will get to work forging fake documentation for workers they hire at their schools. The government will eventually find out but will not punish the Koreans, rather the foreigners will be disciplined and deported and it will make all the TV news reports, newspapers and Korean media and we'll be at it ONE MORE TIME. In my career here this is the 3rd discernable cycle of this that I have noticed.
It's a funny, funny place this country they call Korea! That's why some clever foreigner invented "OINK!" which means Only IN Korea!
For example, the criminal record check I got 2 years ago from the Calgary Police force that accessed national records and said that I had not committed any crimes in the country of Canada is no longer any good here. In fact, I understand that even if it were valid, I'd have to get another one because 2 years is too old. Regardless of the fact that I have lived in Korea for the past 5 years so could not have committed any crimes in Canada, prior to that was employed at schools in Canada that required more stringent criminal record checks than Korean schools, and even had high level security clearance in Canada because I actually worked FOR THE RCMP, the agency at which they are forcing me to apply for my new Criminal Record Check. None of this means anything to the people of Korea because a few attrocities have been committed and rules have been broken and because they were attrocities committed and rules bent by foreigners, made big news, so now the entire country thinks there is a good chance all ESL teachers here are potential child molesters with fake degrees.
So I have to get a new CRC, which takes about 4-6 months, and I need to get my degree verified for the umpteenth time. You see every few years the Korean government notices a rash of Korean people who have attained high positions on the strength of phony degrees. So what is the appropriate thing to do? Why, get all the foreigners to have their degrees verified at their own expense, of course! It has cost me 40 bucks twice to get my degree verified at immigration. It cost me more than that once to have sealed transcripts mailed to my employer. And schools I worked for have verified my degree themselves on a few occasions. Not good enough! Now I need to get it verified, by my employer, through the Korean Council for Universities Association. No doubt this will cost me some more dough.
The cost for the new federal CRC through the Canadian RCMP will be 25 Canadian dollars. It can only be paid by certified check or money order. Well, foreigners can't get certified checks in Korea undoubtedly because one or two people sent their money home via certified check and Koreans have this drastic aversion to that practice. My Korean friend who had a business in Korea for several years is moving to Canada and has no idea how she will transfer her money there. And she's KOREAN! Foreigners can no longer use credit cards or debit cards to access THEIR money in Korean banks even though the bankers will always tell you they are international cards and even put phony Cirrus/Maestro or whatever stamps on them. They don't work. And if you take cash out of a Korean bank, go to another country and find a Korea Exchange Bank, they will not exchange the Korean cash for you.
And there are other problems too. New rules for foreigners needing their alien cards to do practically everything in this country. I couldn't even get into the country on a tourist visa without having a ticket out even though the immigration officer told me I could. YES, immigration officers and bank tellers actually ARE being trained to lie to foreigners. Not really a new practice but it IS new policy. Also, in order to use my bank account in Korea I need to continuously update my bank book. The other day I tried to do that and was asked by the teller to show her my alien card. I have no alien card but showed her my passport and my visitor's visa that is good till the end of February. She updated my book and froze my account. New policy. FURTHERMORE, if you are trying to get a job here and need the CRC you must find a bank somewhere, (and good luck with this one!), that can give you a Canadian money order. Most tellers don't know what they are and will lie to you and tell you their bank doesn't issue them. If this happens you need to go to another teller and maybe another teller, (possibly in the same bank), until you finally get one who knows what money orders are. THEN you need to ask for CANADA dollars because they don't know what Canadian dollars are. And you might even have to use the letters O.D.D. because this is the term used only in Korea for something that is used only by foreigners who have never heard of it. THEN after all of that they may ask you once again for your alien card to get the money order needed for the CRC needed to get the job needed to get the work visa needed to actually get an alien card. In short, if you don't have a job in Korea, you can't apply for one because you need an alien card to get an alien card. New policy!
But none of this matters to Koreans either. So long as they think they are safe from the .0001% of foreigners who are nasty to Koreans. Why would any foreigner be nasty to Koreans?
I, and plenty of my colleagues, am suffering through all of this craziness that almost seems designed with the sole purpose of making things as tough for foreigners as possible, for the right to work at facilities with slogans like "Global Elite," "Global Future," "Globalization For Tomorrow," "We Love Foreigners," and other such irony. I admit I made up that last one. We are stringently abiding by Korean laws, being fingerprinted, scanned and interrogated to make sure we haven't so much as jaywalked in our lives to work at institutions that routinely practice academic fraud, degree selling, cheat on standardized testing, fudge attendance and marks and ask or even REQUIRE us to do so as well. We are forced to verify our credentials on about a bi-annual basis for the honour of working at these institutions who commonly maintain 75% minimum grades for all students and hand out "diplomas" and "degrees" to people who haven't even shown up for class.
Not only that but the trend is now toward accepting only teachers with Master's degrees in related fields like TESOL, TEFL, Linguistics etc. AND they are paying less and less money.
What do you suppose will be the end result of all of this? I know, because over the 10 years I've spent here this sort of thing has just been snowballing. What is going to happen is the businesses, (and make no mistake, it is erroneous to call them schools), will need these Master's-holding teachers because they have promised them to the parents of their prospective students, (who are notoriously knocked out by letters after a person's name), but the teachers won't be available BECAUSE 1. it's too hard to jump through all the hoops, 2. Koreans don't like foreigners and make it obvious, 3. if a guy gets a good degree the first place he'll try to use it WON'T be Korea. So the businesses, not the teachers, the businesses will get to work forging fake documentation for workers they hire at their schools. The government will eventually find out but will not punish the Koreans, rather the foreigners will be disciplined and deported and it will make all the TV news reports, newspapers and Korean media and we'll be at it ONE MORE TIME. In my career here this is the 3rd discernable cycle of this that I have noticed.
It's a funny, funny place this country they call Korea! That's why some clever foreigner invented "OINK!" which means Only IN Korea!
Saturday, October 09, 2010
"Can There Be a Science of Good and Evil?"
Lookie here, another blog entry inspired by the Daily Show! It's such a great show though! I sure hope Jon Stewart can restore sanity to the world! Recently he had on a guest who had written a new book. It was one I was particularly interested in called "The Moral Landscape." It's written by the guy who also wrote "The End of Faith," Sam Harris. He was introduced by Jon Stewart as a professional atheist. His new book is an attempt to convince you and me that science is a source of moral values. Something a professional atheist will give a completely non-biased opinion of to be sure!
I haven't read the book but I have been thinking about this issue a lot lately. I actually brought it up in conversation a few times with people I socialize with here. It's a touchy issue. Even if people AGREE with you they will argue with you on this. It's really weird. I had a guy tell me he is a scientist AND a Christian and then after a litany of argumentative points that supported exactly the opinion I had stated, he said he didn't think there WERE any scientists who didn't believe in God. Because we had already monopolized conversation I didn't mention Harris, Richard Dawkins or most recently and famously Steven Hawking. But it was a good example of how science and morality have become such enemies. Harris is trying to help the world by showing them that the answers to our problems can be found in simple science and we need not stray to the slippery slope of morality to solve our problems and maximize our well being.
He's the same age as me and judging from his education and experience I'd definitely say he's got a LOT more knowledge on this than I do but he DOES say some silly, silly things! Child-like simplicity from such an educated man that is most likely the result of the training that keeps us from seeing the truth about this whole issue. So fascinating! Maybe he has spent too much time in the classroom and not enough time actually socializing because people just don't think like this. We can't create, or arguably even conceive of a sterile environment devoid of moral decisions. Plenty of great, SCIENCE FICTION has been written about such societies but they will never exist.
He makes some great points and has a knack for turning a phrase. For example when he talks about the culture war between secular liberals and Christian conservatives he says that "a shared beleif in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides." I agree. And the word, "science," as it so often is, can be substituted here for "reason." Like the unscientific never use reason...
In his article, "Can There Be a Science of Good and Evil", he includes "mistrust of science" in a list of attributes such as "intolerance of diversity" that are generally agreed upon to be morally reprehensible and just assumes that the entire world would put it right there with him. It's so odd from a man who is a proponent of scientific skepticism to not apply his scientific skepticism to science itself! This is what I mean when I say he's fascinating. He has a degree in neuroscience. These guys have done some incredible mapping of the brain. But for some reason old Sam seems to think he's working with the mind. Trying to use the mind to explain the mind. A walking, writing fountain of irony this guy!
He lists gay marriage, stem cell research, anti-blasphemy laws, and abortion as issues that have unnecessarily distracted politicians that arise from conservative dogmatism and liberal doubt. As though conservatives have cornered the market on dogmatism and liberals on doubt. I have a strong conservative doubt that the mind will ever figure out the mind and quantify things like instinct, emotion, creativity, human nature and such. We can see it exists, even scientifically measure it, but we can't explain the first thing about why or how we do it. But liberal dogmatism consistently purports psychology, sociology, neuroscience and others as hard scientific studies of fact when all they really amount to is formulation of theories about what is going on in the mind. They preach not from the pulpit but the lectern and disguise theory as fact for the purposes of self-legitimization and to keep their courses from being offered under the faculty of arts.
Who but someone with an unshakeable faith in science could separate morality from issues like those listed above? Oh I know, a legalistic religious person. Here's a great little tidbit that ties things nicely together: a scientific study was done recently that shows most atheists know more about religion than religious people. I got that from the Daily Show too. It's all about faith. The atheist studies and finds out all he/she can about religion so he/she can scientifically disprove it in his/her mind. The legalistic religious person doesn't need to know all that stuff because he/she has God and a hard, fast list of rules. My point is, guys like old Sam Harris and all the faithful scientists are not that different from the legalistic fanatics they write off all spiritual people as. Indeed if a scientific study could be done on which of the two has MORE faith I have no doubt the scientists would win hands down.
But back to Sam Harris's reasoning. He puts forth a charming little pre-school argument in which there are only two people on the earth. He mockingly names them Adam and Eve and asks the scientific questions, "How can they flourish?" Answer: do things that have been found to be scientifically beneficial. "How can they fail?" He gives the example that they could both punch each other in the face. The answers to all questions, he posits, will come from facts that can be scientifically understood. He goes on to ask how would the difference between right and wrong disappear when we add 6.7 billion more people to the experiment? What a very well trained, and absurdly out of touch with reality, scientist he is! No need to use morality, just do the things we can agree to be for our best interests. Indeed, this may have been the way things were BEFORE Eve ate the apple, but it just ain't that way any more.
Let's just think of one of a gozillion different wrenches that can be thrown into this simplistic little piece of scientific, escapist dogma. Let's say Adam, (this time), were to wander off one day and find a tree full of delicious fruit that neither he nor Eve had ever tried before. Will he share the fruit or keep it all for himself. BOTH could be argued to be beneficial. First let's look at the results with the extra 6.7 billion people. Scientifically speaking, we have already done this experiment and the scientific evidence gleaned from the acquisitive, competitive and just plain selfish ideals that are instilled in the overwhelming majority of the 6.7 billion people of Earth indicates that Adam should keep the tree a secret. That's science.
But if it were just Adam and Eve why wouldn't Adam double the happiness or "well being" and halve the fruit? In fact the happiness he gets from the joy of sharing may outweigh the half of the fruit he lost. The fruit is renewable. And future benefits can be derived from the generous nature Eve sees in the action of sharing. Also, what if Eve discovers the secret? Adam may have to lie or change his actions to maintain the secret. He may carry some guilt about hogging all the fruit. Eve could bust him and bring to an abrupt end their peaceful coexistence. So why does Adam keep the tree a secret? You know he would if science is any indication. We can only postulate that it's greed. Maybe greed is more instinctive than sharing.
Or maybe Adam will just understand that sharing is the right thing to do and it made him feel good. This in my estimation, and those of most intellectual moralists, (who Sammy and most of his ilk seem to forget about in their teachings), is the only REAL way to make Adam and Eve thrive and maximize their well being in this instance. But there is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is in Harris' own words, "positive change in the experience of sentient creatures" and it is brought about by psychological, moral and therefore absolutely unquantifiable and unscientific decision.
And the thousands of other moral decisions Adam and Eve would have to make every single day should not be the result of a bunch of rules derived from thousands of replicated scientific studies, or a bunch of rules derived from thousands of years of religious tradition. We can not say that a newly discovered tribe in the Amazon is wrong for sacrificing their first born children to imaginary gods, nor can we say that a woman is wrong for aborting a fetus. We can only try to do the right thing. And I think if we can just separate the good teaching from the proselytization and be honest with ourselves, (that's the hard part), just about everybody has it in themselves to make the right decisions.
Who even knows if what's wrong for me might be the right thing to do for someone else? I think maybe one of the most important moral decisions we can ever make is not to be judgemental. As you can see, I have yet to gain the spiritual maturity to become comfortable with that one. I should just let Sam Harrison believe his scientific legalism and say a salut! Good for you. Do what makes you happy. We all really should, shouldn't we? Unless what makes you happy is bad for somebody else, like fighting wars, or making a billion dollars a year through slave labour, or depleting the world's resources for personal financial gain, or participating in corrupt governments, or...
Why are the rich depressed and the poor so happy? At what stage of development does a person become a person so that killing them is wrong? How much does a person have to bug me before I can morally commit post natal abortion? Is euthenasia okay? When should I allow my daughter to date? How old do I have to be before dating a 20-year-old becomes creepy, and how much oldER do I have to be before it becomes cute again? Is suicide bombing a meeting of the richest 100 people in the world an immoral fantasy? I certainly don't want to trust any of these decisions to science. I can't even see how science could be very much help. There will always be a need for moral decisions to be made and there will always be those who disagree and worse, those who disagree and want to force you to agree with them. The trick is to try to take joy in the trials of existence. If we could all live a life of moral relativism where every behaviour was mandated by rules, life would be a stone cold drag and I think it would be purposeless.
So the best answer to your question, Sammy boy, is NOPE.
But that's just my opinion.
I haven't read the book but I have been thinking about this issue a lot lately. I actually brought it up in conversation a few times with people I socialize with here. It's a touchy issue. Even if people AGREE with you they will argue with you on this. It's really weird. I had a guy tell me he is a scientist AND a Christian and then after a litany of argumentative points that supported exactly the opinion I had stated, he said he didn't think there WERE any scientists who didn't believe in God. Because we had already monopolized conversation I didn't mention Harris, Richard Dawkins or most recently and famously Steven Hawking. But it was a good example of how science and morality have become such enemies. Harris is trying to help the world by showing them that the answers to our problems can be found in simple science and we need not stray to the slippery slope of morality to solve our problems and maximize our well being.
He's the same age as me and judging from his education and experience I'd definitely say he's got a LOT more knowledge on this than I do but he DOES say some silly, silly things! Child-like simplicity from such an educated man that is most likely the result of the training that keeps us from seeing the truth about this whole issue. So fascinating! Maybe he has spent too much time in the classroom and not enough time actually socializing because people just don't think like this. We can't create, or arguably even conceive of a sterile environment devoid of moral decisions. Plenty of great, SCIENCE FICTION has been written about such societies but they will never exist.
He makes some great points and has a knack for turning a phrase. For example when he talks about the culture war between secular liberals and Christian conservatives he says that "a shared beleif in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides." I agree. And the word, "science," as it so often is, can be substituted here for "reason." Like the unscientific never use reason...
In his article, "Can There Be a Science of Good and Evil", he includes "mistrust of science" in a list of attributes such as "intolerance of diversity" that are generally agreed upon to be morally reprehensible and just assumes that the entire world would put it right there with him. It's so odd from a man who is a proponent of scientific skepticism to not apply his scientific skepticism to science itself! This is what I mean when I say he's fascinating. He has a degree in neuroscience. These guys have done some incredible mapping of the brain. But for some reason old Sam seems to think he's working with the mind. Trying to use the mind to explain the mind. A walking, writing fountain of irony this guy!
He lists gay marriage, stem cell research, anti-blasphemy laws, and abortion as issues that have unnecessarily distracted politicians that arise from conservative dogmatism and liberal doubt. As though conservatives have cornered the market on dogmatism and liberals on doubt. I have a strong conservative doubt that the mind will ever figure out the mind and quantify things like instinct, emotion, creativity, human nature and such. We can see it exists, even scientifically measure it, but we can't explain the first thing about why or how we do it. But liberal dogmatism consistently purports psychology, sociology, neuroscience and others as hard scientific studies of fact when all they really amount to is formulation of theories about what is going on in the mind. They preach not from the pulpit but the lectern and disguise theory as fact for the purposes of self-legitimization and to keep their courses from being offered under the faculty of arts.
Who but someone with an unshakeable faith in science could separate morality from issues like those listed above? Oh I know, a legalistic religious person. Here's a great little tidbit that ties things nicely together: a scientific study was done recently that shows most atheists know more about religion than religious people. I got that from the Daily Show too. It's all about faith. The atheist studies and finds out all he/she can about religion so he/she can scientifically disprove it in his/her mind. The legalistic religious person doesn't need to know all that stuff because he/she has God and a hard, fast list of rules. My point is, guys like old Sam Harris and all the faithful scientists are not that different from the legalistic fanatics they write off all spiritual people as. Indeed if a scientific study could be done on which of the two has MORE faith I have no doubt the scientists would win hands down.
But back to Sam Harris's reasoning. He puts forth a charming little pre-school argument in which there are only two people on the earth. He mockingly names them Adam and Eve and asks the scientific questions, "How can they flourish?" Answer: do things that have been found to be scientifically beneficial. "How can they fail?" He gives the example that they could both punch each other in the face. The answers to all questions, he posits, will come from facts that can be scientifically understood. He goes on to ask how would the difference between right and wrong disappear when we add 6.7 billion more people to the experiment? What a very well trained, and absurdly out of touch with reality, scientist he is! No need to use morality, just do the things we can agree to be for our best interests. Indeed, this may have been the way things were BEFORE Eve ate the apple, but it just ain't that way any more.
Let's just think of one of a gozillion different wrenches that can be thrown into this simplistic little piece of scientific, escapist dogma. Let's say Adam, (this time), were to wander off one day and find a tree full of delicious fruit that neither he nor Eve had ever tried before. Will he share the fruit or keep it all for himself. BOTH could be argued to be beneficial. First let's look at the results with the extra 6.7 billion people. Scientifically speaking, we have already done this experiment and the scientific evidence gleaned from the acquisitive, competitive and just plain selfish ideals that are instilled in the overwhelming majority of the 6.7 billion people of Earth indicates that Adam should keep the tree a secret. That's science.
But if it were just Adam and Eve why wouldn't Adam double the happiness or "well being" and halve the fruit? In fact the happiness he gets from the joy of sharing may outweigh the half of the fruit he lost. The fruit is renewable. And future benefits can be derived from the generous nature Eve sees in the action of sharing. Also, what if Eve discovers the secret? Adam may have to lie or change his actions to maintain the secret. He may carry some guilt about hogging all the fruit. Eve could bust him and bring to an abrupt end their peaceful coexistence. So why does Adam keep the tree a secret? You know he would if science is any indication. We can only postulate that it's greed. Maybe greed is more instinctive than sharing.
Or maybe Adam will just understand that sharing is the right thing to do and it made him feel good. This in my estimation, and those of most intellectual moralists, (who Sammy and most of his ilk seem to forget about in their teachings), is the only REAL way to make Adam and Eve thrive and maximize their well being in this instance. But there is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is in Harris' own words, "positive change in the experience of sentient creatures" and it is brought about by psychological, moral and therefore absolutely unquantifiable and unscientific decision.
And the thousands of other moral decisions Adam and Eve would have to make every single day should not be the result of a bunch of rules derived from thousands of replicated scientific studies, or a bunch of rules derived from thousands of years of religious tradition. We can not say that a newly discovered tribe in the Amazon is wrong for sacrificing their first born children to imaginary gods, nor can we say that a woman is wrong for aborting a fetus. We can only try to do the right thing. And I think if we can just separate the good teaching from the proselytization and be honest with ourselves, (that's the hard part), just about everybody has it in themselves to make the right decisions.
Who even knows if what's wrong for me might be the right thing to do for someone else? I think maybe one of the most important moral decisions we can ever make is not to be judgemental. As you can see, I have yet to gain the spiritual maturity to become comfortable with that one. I should just let Sam Harrison believe his scientific legalism and say a salut! Good for you. Do what makes you happy. We all really should, shouldn't we? Unless what makes you happy is bad for somebody else, like fighting wars, or making a billion dollars a year through slave labour, or depleting the world's resources for personal financial gain, or participating in corrupt governments, or...
Why are the rich depressed and the poor so happy? At what stage of development does a person become a person so that killing them is wrong? How much does a person have to bug me before I can morally commit post natal abortion? Is euthenasia okay? When should I allow my daughter to date? How old do I have to be before dating a 20-year-old becomes creepy, and how much oldER do I have to be before it becomes cute again? Is suicide bombing a meeting of the richest 100 people in the world an immoral fantasy? I certainly don't want to trust any of these decisions to science. I can't even see how science could be very much help. There will always be a need for moral decisions to be made and there will always be those who disagree and worse, those who disagree and want to force you to agree with them. The trick is to try to take joy in the trials of existence. If we could all live a life of moral relativism where every behaviour was mandated by rules, life would be a stone cold drag and I think it would be purposeless.
So the best answer to your question, Sammy boy, is NOPE.
But that's just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
