Did you blog about the "Fan Reactions to Character Death" panel at Gally? If so, please link me to it; I'd like to do a roundup.
It's super good to be home. Claudette (who we may be renaming Cricket) is a lot more confident and Pretty seems happier although there is occasional hissing. Meanwhile, Patty is the awesome.
Opening to weirdest email I've written in a long time: "Dear Virgin America: I was on flight VX 406 out of LAX yesterday, and -- and I know this is bizarre -- there were ants on it."
For those of you not paying attention to the sheer WTFery in New York State, we've gone from an ineffectual state government run by legislators who can't agree on anything and never ever get voted out (even the guy who slashed his girlfriend's face and then got censured and kicked out of office by the rest of the senate -- he's now suing AND running for reelection; I'm not even kidding) and a governor who came to power due to the former governor's sex scandal to a state government that can't get anything done because of all of the above and the fact that now it turns out that that governor interceded to try to stop the ex-gf of one of his aides from pressing her own domestic violence charges. FAIL.
On the Internet, I would also argue that everyone is a potential reality TV show. Which is a little scary. You wouldn't believe the ideas I come up with and cull.
The Ford campaign baffles and infuriates me. I wonder who sat Ford down and told him they had a room full of well funded, heroin addicted opposition researchers who would be denied their armful of sunshine unless they tore Ford into bite sized pieces. He didn't seem inclined to end his campaign on his own no matter how badly the public was receiving him.
I'm sure the line about not wanting to have the winner come out of the democratic primary so badly damaged that they would be knocked out by the GOP candidate waiting on the sidelines was not his own.
My guess is that Merrill Lynch told him that if he lost, his $1 million job (the duties of which I've never heard described in any detail) wouldn't be waiting for him. As far as public reaction goes, he probably went for a while on the hope that, if only people got to know him, they'd love him so much more than Gillibrand. (I know that's not a lot to go on, but this is someone who managed to change a lot of people's opinions of him even though he got elected to the House straight out of law school and purely on the strength of his family's political machine; I was living in Memphis at the time, and I was one of those who hoped that Junior might be the one decent Ford in the whole bunch.)
I wonder how much depression is amplified for Americans by living in a culture where everyone is supposed to be busy, happy, and sociable all the time.
In any case, I'm rather cheered by Darwin saying that he could only work one day in three-- it just goes to show what can be accomplished if you really pay attention some of the time over a long period.
Here's the transcript to an interesting radio interview that says some of what you're saying: Gary Greenberg on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/1/gary_greenberg_manufacturing_depression_the_secret).
I just finished it, and I'm not sure if I'm pissed about it or if I agree with it. Having suffered from nasty depression, I'm just not sure.
Thank you. I feel really out of my depth with this sort of thing. On the one hand - yeah! Life does suck and that makes some of us depressed. On the other hand - When I was super depth of despair depressed, I'm pretty sure that life was pretty OK besides that.
Oh, I hope I didn't sound like I was ordering you on how to feel - the evo psych dudes just touch on several activist issues, and I've heard basically all their arguments.
If you like, when it's not 3.00 AM in the morning, I can dig up some material on deconstructing why these dudes are utterly wrong, and why they think like they do.
If you happen to agree with them, that's okay. I'll just be over on the other side of the fence yelling at the evo-psych team.
Oh no! I was genuinely thankful. It's not an argument that I'd heard before, so it was really helpful for someone to give it some context. (Random googling when I read it didn't help all that much.) I would be interested in reading stuff about it, if you have a chance! I've heard the term before, but it's certainly not something I would even say I was passingly familiar with.
I'm sorry this is so late! I only remembered your post last night!
Links to easy to understand essays are hard to find, though, but I tried:
Darwi-fraggin-ists (http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=309) -- on why calling evo-psych Darwinism (or evoloutionary biology, for that matter) is wrong, and why it doesn't work.
oh goody, it’s another evo-psych article; or, as it’s more commonly known: “science for douchebags” (http://pinstripebindi.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/oh-goody-its-another-evo-psych-article-or-as-its-more-commonly-known-choad-based-science/)
Two Minutes’ Hating on Evo Psych (http://www.tobascodagama.com/?p=613)
Bingo Card (Not Particularly Accessible, as it comes up in an AJAX Window) (http://jezebel.com/5512676/the-evolutionary-psychology-game-bingo)
That depression article commits the fallacy of not allowing some that traits can be neutral in evolution - they stay in a population because there's no particular evolutionary pressure to lose them, not because they're actively advantageous. It's a common error, when you're looking for reasons why in evolution, to assume an ultimate purpose where there isn't one; it's about competing pressures on populations, not about designing the perfect individual model. We're far from perfect models anyway, our physical structure is bizarrely harmful and inefficient. There's no particular reason why our brain structures shouldn't come with similar hiccups.
None the less - and I say this as someone who has been at the deep end of depression - I think it raises some interesting ideas about depression potentially being a moving or a creative force. Certainly I have done things, or taken decisions that were motivated by a bad brain state that turned out to be ultimately for the good. But then a lot of negative life experiences can have that effect, and depression can also have entirely the opposite effect. The whole theory assumes a very uniform and generalised view of the action of depression, as well as being over-simplistic about the causes within an individual - inheritance can play a part, but it's expression is extremely situational.
TL;DR I think there were some good points buried in there somewhere, but ultimately trying to explain something very diverse and complicated in such simplistic terms is doomed to fail. It's sort of "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" written out in longer words.
Additionally, even if a trait isn't evolution-neutral, evolution is SLOW. We've radically changed most of the basic cognitive features of our environment in less than 200 years. We're trying to do highly detailed jobs using hardware optimized for making monkeys go.
Some people feel better (my mother included) when they can repeat to themselves, "I'm sure it's for a reason, and that something better will come out of this." While I'm all for looking on the bright side, no. This is no more a useful feature than malfunctioning sinuses.
[I do respect that there are nonneurotypical conditions that may have distinctive benefits. I have yet to discover any of these benefits for depression.]
Yes indeed. Even if something had a purpose once, doesn't mean it does now - or that it's not backfiring and providing an active hinderance now our environment has changed so radically. Like the curling up action that hedgehogs evolved to protect themselves from predators (if you'll excuse the teleological wording ;) now makes them vulnerable to the far bigger killer on the roads.
I have been known to say I think Evolutionary Psychology is a misunderstood field - unfortunately, I think it's frequently misunderstood even by the people who work in the field.
That depression article commits the fallacy of not allowing some that traits can be neutral in evolution - they stay in a population because there's no particular evolutionary pressure to lose them, not because they're actively advantageous.
Well said. To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits. Mostly I see it being used to attempt to explain how modern western ideas about sex and gender are "natural" & inevitable, but you also have a strong current of certainty that every trait is both separate from every other trait & each of these traits must be adaptive in and of itself. The result is usually nothing more than a series of evolutionary "just-so stories".
To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits.
Exactly, and reverse engineering doesn't work, because it's not like a streamlined machine where every piece has a vital and efficient function brought together for an ultimate purpose; you're looking for reasons in a process that doesn't have reasons. And, as you say, making the really poor assumption that traits evolve in isolation from each other and so can be reduced to a single cause, which is nonsense. I really feel quite strongly people who study something that has "evolution" in the name should have a better understanding of how it actually works.
Interested in your thoughts on the depression article once you've read it. To me it felt like yet another attempt to put a rosy glow on something that ranges from unpleasant to life-threatening, but it seemed reasonably well-balanced.
RE: Chile, that's what they said about the quake that caused the Tsunami in 2005 - that the Earth tilted a bit, I'd be inclined to agree as I feel the weather has been especially out of whack since then.
The privacy issue is an interesting one, I see a lot of parallels between U.S notions and Israeli ones - the flirting with totalitarian methods is very scary. Not to mention that the whole dichotomy between "Private" and "Public" is pretty much out the window in this day and age, if it ever really stood other than ideology.
You're a very handsome Jack, I'm sure Jack and Reinette have a lot to talk about.
Got to read the rest (I am the worst reader in the history of my flist, I think) but that picture was squee worthy. Even though, I have been told, I am To Old To Squee. It's adorable.
Oh, and you couldn't imagine how much shit would hit the fan if Patterson resigned. Turns out that the New York State Constitution didn't have a provision for replacing a lieutenant governor mid-term if the governor resigned. Patterson eventually said "screw it" and unilaterally appointed one over the summer and the courts allowed it, but now whoever that is could become our next governor without being approved by either the voters OR the legislature. Yikes.
I have a lot I could say about that depression-related article, but since I'm tired and numb in the brain, I'll boil it down to YES, YES, YES, maybe-sort, no, YES. Mostly yes.
The biggest yes for me: depression leading to higher performance. During my first major depressive and suicidal episode, my grades shot up and I was on the honor roll for the first time. I'd always found that fascinating and rather contradictory to my expectations of the effects of depression on performance in general.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 03:07 pm (UTC)I'm sure the line about not wanting to have the winner come out of the democratic primary so badly damaged that they would be knocked out by the GOP candidate waiting on the sidelines was not his own.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 03:42 pm (UTC)In any case, I'm rather cheered by Darwin saying that he could only work one day in three-- it just goes to show what can be accomplished if you really pay attention some of the time over a long period.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 07:34 pm (UTC)I just finished it, and I'm not sure if I'm pissed about it or if I agree with it. Having suffered from nasty depression, I'm just not sure.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-04 02:29 pm (UTC)(Those guys are the same dickhead white dudes that say coloured people are doomed to suffer, and that women aren't good at math.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-04 04:05 pm (UTC)Thank you for the heads up.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-04 04:28 pm (UTC)If you like, when it's not 3.00 AM in the morning, I can dig up some material on deconstructing why these dudes are utterly wrong, and why they think like they do.
If you happen to agree with them, that's okay. I'll just be over on the other side of the fence yelling at the evo-psych team.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-04 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-17 08:58 am (UTC)Links to easy to understand essays are hard to find, though, but I tried:
Darwi-fraggin-ists (http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=309) -- on why calling evo-psych Darwinism (or evoloutionary biology, for that matter) is wrong, and why it doesn't work.
oh goody, it’s another evo-psych article; or, as it’s more commonly known: “science for douchebags” (http://pinstripebindi.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/oh-goody-its-another-evo-psych-article-or-as-its-more-commonly-known-choad-based-science/)
Two Minutes’ Hating on Evo Psych (http://www.tobascodagama.com/?p=613)
Bingo Card (Not Particularly Accessible, as it comes up in an AJAX Window) (http://jezebel.com/5512676/the-evolutionary-psychology-game-bingo)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:12 pm (UTC)None the less - and I say this as someone who has been at the deep end of depression - I think it raises some interesting ideas about depression potentially being a moving or a creative force. Certainly I have done things, or taken decisions that were motivated by a bad brain state that turned out to be ultimately for the good. But then a lot of negative life experiences can have that effect, and depression can also have entirely the opposite effect. The whole theory assumes a very uniform and generalised view of the action of depression, as well as being over-simplistic about the causes within an individual - inheritance can play a part, but it's expression is extremely situational.
TL;DR I think there were some good points buried in there somewhere, but ultimately trying to explain something very diverse and complicated in such simplistic terms is doomed to fail. It's sort of "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" written out in longer words.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:41 pm (UTC)Some people feel better (my mother included) when they can repeat to themselves, "I'm sure it's for a reason, and that something better will come out of this." While I'm all for looking on the bright side, no. This is no more a useful feature than malfunctioning sinuses.
[I do respect that there are nonneurotypical conditions that may have distinctive benefits. I have yet to discover any of these benefits for depression.]
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:51 pm (UTC)I have been known to say I think Evolutionary Psychology is a misunderstood field - unfortunately, I think it's frequently misunderstood even by the people who work in the field.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 01:17 am (UTC)Well said. To much evo psych is about trying to concoct explanations for various traits. Mostly I see it being used to attempt to explain how modern western ideas about sex and gender are "natural" & inevitable, but you also have a strong current of certainty that every trait is both separate from every other trait & each of these traits must be adaptive in and of itself. The result is usually nothing more than a series of evolutionary "just-so stories".
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 01:49 am (UTC)Exactly, and reverse engineering doesn't work, because it's not like a streamlined machine where every piece has a vital and efficient function brought together for an ultimate purpose; you're looking for reasons in a process that doesn't have reasons. And, as you say, making the really poor assumption that traits evolve in isolation from each other and so can be reduced to a single cause, which is nonsense. I really feel quite strongly people who study something that has "evolution" in the name should have a better understanding of how it actually works.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 05:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 06:09 pm (UTC)The privacy issue is an interesting one, I see a lot of parallels between U.S notions and Israeli ones - the flirting with totalitarian methods is very scary. Not to mention that the whole dichotomy between "Private" and "Public" is pretty much out the window in this day and age, if it ever really stood other than ideology.
You're a very handsome Jack, I'm sure Jack and Reinette have a lot to talk about.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 07:22 pm (UTC)Some of the other news, like our silly governor, not so happy.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 02:16 am (UTC)The biggest yes for me: depression leading to higher performance. During my first major depressive and suicidal episode, my grades shot up and I was on the honor roll for the first time. I'd always found that fascinating and rather contradictory to my expectations of the effects of depression on performance in general.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 03:41 am (UTC)