The spring semester starts tomorrow, and this term I’m teaching three classes: one I’m familiar with, one I haven’t taught in four years, and another one I’ve never taught. It’s going to be a busy busy busy term.
But then I had an idea. If I could just lecture like this…
…then I could probably finish off the whole semester’s teaching load this week. The students won’t mind, will they?
Awesome. Italian police caught someone trying to smuggle away an ancient piece of Roman statuary, and traced him back to find…The Lost Tomb of Caligula. That should have been the title of the last Indiana Jones movie — at least it would have promised a little more excitement.
In my previous post about an absurd NIMBY protest in Canada, I suggested that it would be far worse to live next to a pig farm than a hospice. I was not aware of the sordid story of Canadian serial killer and hog farmer Robert Pickton and the rather traumatic associations people in that region have between death and pig farms. No such connection was intended, and my apologies to anyone who thought I was making any implications between dying in a hospice and being murdered by a vile criminal.
Not in my backyard! I wouldn’t want a hog farm to be built upwind of me, because of the stench. I wouldn’t want an airport built next door, because of the noise. I don’t want a church in my neighborhood, because of the traffic in stupidity (but too bad, I’m stuck with several of them). There are lots of reasons some kinds of properties are incompatible with residential living, but here’s a new one. Tenants in a pricey Vancouver highrise are protesting the construction of a hospice nearby. I’d love to have a hospice go up next door; they tend to be quiet, tasteful, well-maintained, and good contributors to the community. But these residents are objecting because of the unpleasant effluvia the hospice would produce.
Wait, what? What could a hospice produce to poison a neighborhood?
“‘Death is the Yin and ‘Live’ is the Yang,” it [a letter to the hospital] read. “If the Yin and Yang are near to each other, ‘Death’ will bring bad luck, meaning sickness and even death . . . The ghosts of the dead will invade and harass the living.”
That’s right. Upscale residents of a condominium complex with units worth about a million dollars are afraid of ghosts. Dying people must be tucked away somewhere remote where they can haunt the place of their death without their restless spirits stinkin’ up the good neighborhoods.
I’m hoping that these complaining, over-privileged superstitious nitwits remember this when they are old and dying — as they most likely will be someday — and courteously excuse themselves to go gasp out their last breaths in some place where civilized people won’t be troubled.
I recommend the hog farm. It might expedite their departure from this planet if those final breaths are taken somewhere where the soft breezes waft over a fecal lake before arriving at the rickety bed in the drafty shack in which they lay dying. Their ghosts probably won’t want to hang around long afterwards, either.
The Edge annual question and its answers are out. This year, John Brockman asked, “What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit?” He got 158 people to send in answers.
I was one of them. If you like my answer, you might also like Sean Carroll’s and Carl Zimmer’s — we seem to have made similar points. Carl has a thread on the topic, and so does Sean: I think I like his original title of dysteleological physicalism better, never mind Carl’s post deploring jargon.
There are days when I simply cannot bear the entire field of evolutionary psychology: it’s so deeply tainted with bad research and a lack of rigor. And that makes me uncomfortable, because the fundamental premise, that our behaviors are a product of our history, is self-evidently true. It’s just that researchers in this field couple an acceptance of that premise to a deep assumption of adaptive teleology, the very thing that they should be evaluating, and produce some of the most awesomely trivial drivel.
I’ve just finished reading an article titled “Darwin’s Rape Whistle: Have women evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault?“, and it’s everything I despise about evolutionary psychology. It’s nothing but sloppy thinking and poor science propped up by a conviction that plausibility is sufficient support for certainty.
I could fulminate for a few hours over this crap, but fortunately Jerry Coyne has calmly criticized the mess, so I’ll just make a few points.
The story is that women have evolved specific adaptive responses to the threat of rape. In support of this conclusion, the author cites various studies that claim to show that ovulating women show stronger handgrip strength (the better to fight off men who want to assault their eggs with sperm), that ovulating women are more suspicious of men, that ovulating women are more likely to avoid risky behaviors, and that ovulating white women become more fearful of black men. I’m unimpressed. All of the studies involve small numbers, typically of college students at American universities (and even more narrowly, of psychology students), and all involve responses to highly subjective stimuli. When you examine the literature cited in these papers, you discover that different investigators get different results — the handgrip study even admits up front that there are conflicting results, with other papers finding no differences in performance across the menstrual cycle. None test anything to do with inheritance, none try (or even can) look at the genetic basis of the behaviors they are studying. Yet somehow evolutionary psychologists conclude that “women may have been selected during human evolution to behave in ways that reduce the likelihood of conception as a consequence of rape.”
Another way to look at it is that they are hypothesizing that women are more likely to behave in ways that invite physical attack and brutal abuse when they aren’t ovulating. That is a remarkable assertion. It also carries the strange implication that the consequences of rape can be measured by the likelihood of immediate fertilization, rather than by the toll of physical injury and emotional trauma, a peculiar thing for psychologists to neglect. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a general hypothesis that people, men and women, who can avoid violence at any time in their life, are more likely to be reproductively successful and thereby pass on their genes to subsequent generations? That’s all they’re saying, essentially, and the straining to sex it up by tying globally useful behaviors to reproductive cycles is unconvincing.
And of course they’re looking at culturally conditioned behaviors and responses in a narrow subset of the modern human population. How likely is it that a close-knit tribe of 30 hunter-gatherers has a serious problem with rape? Wouldn’t the nature of the culture be of far greater effect in determining the frequency of pregnancy due to rape than variations in handgrip strength or variations in fearfulness in women?
Then many of the studies that are described with such enthusiastic certainty as having definitive results turn out to be subjective, pointless messes. For instance, Jesse Bering concludes that sperm competition had to have been a very significant factor in our profligately promiscuous ancestors, and that the shape of the human penis has been selected specifically for a function in extracting competitor’s sperm from the vaginal canal. Unfortunately, when you look at the actual research cited for this semen-scooping function, it’s underwhelming.
To test this hypothesis, Gallup, Burch, Zappieri, Parvez, Stockwell, and Davis (2003) simulated sexual encounters using artificial models and measured the magnitude of artificial semen displacement as a function of phallus configuration, depth of thrusting, and semen viscosity. The displacement of simulated semen was robust across different prosthetic phalluses, different artificial vaginas, different semen recipes, and different semen viscosities. The magnitude of semen displacement was directly proportional to the depth of thrusting and inversely proportional to semen viscosity. By manipulating different characteristics of artificial phalluses, the coronal ridge and frenulum were identified as key
morphological features involved in mediating the semen displacement effect.Under conditions that raise the possibility of females engaging in extra-pair copulations (i.e., periods of separation from their partner, allegations of female infidelity), Gallup et al. (2003) also found that males appear to modify the use of their penis in ways that are consistent with the displacement hypothesis. Based on anonymous surveys of over 600 college students, many sexually active males and females reported deeper and more vigorous thrusting when in-pair sex occurred
under conditions related to an increased likelihood of female infidelity.
Got that? They have studies that show that a piston displaces fluids more effectively in proportion to the depth of movement, and that college students report that when they suspect their partner of infidelity, they screw harder. They don’t have any evidence that this behavior actually affects the fertilization rate of one partner’s sperm over another, they don’t have any indication of morphological differences in human populations that make some individuals better semen-scoopers, they don’t have any evidence that this behavior has had a differential effect in human history. It’s all a teetering pyramid of stacked “couldas” and guesses that it woulda had an influence on evolution, if there were any variation and heritable factors involved in this function.
Whenever I see this kind of tripe from evolutionary psychologists, I reflexively reach for a counter-example, and recommend that everyone read one excellent book: The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution, by Elisabeth Lloyd. It’s a wonderful example of solid, rigorous, scientific thinking about an evolutionary phenomenon. Lloyd analyzes a score of adaptive just-so stories about the female orgasm, carefully scrutinizing the evidence for each, and discovers that the substance is wanting. Too often investigators start with the assumption that a feature absolutely must have been selected for, or it wouldn’t be there, and then contrive elaborate rationalizations for processes that could have favored its preservation in our ancestry…and the aura of plausibility is then sufficient to conclude that it must be so, even in the absence of any supporting evidence, and sometimes even in the face of contradictory evidence.
I should reread it now — if nothing else, to wash that nasty tincture of evolutionary psychology out of my brain.
It sounds like Ricky Gervais was wonderfully caustic in his turn hosting the Golden Globes awards last night — so brutally acerbic that I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t many celebrities lined up to complain about their treatment to the organizers. I wonder if he’ll ever host an award show ever again?
Among the amusements, though, was his closing thank yous. God finally gets the credit he deserves.
How long can the immortal thread go on? It probably won’t have the longevity of this piece of music, composed in about 1400BCE, and preserved in cuneiform for 3400 years.
(Current totals: 11,700 entries with 1,246,452 comments.)
Ken “The Squealing Piglet” Ham is irate again. The Louisville Courier-Journal ran an article today (a print-only exclusive, so I haven’t been able to read it) in which they had independent experts review Ham’s claims about prospective attendance at his silly theme park. The headline is “Ark park attendance claims exaggerated, theme-park experts say”, so I can guess at the gist of the analysis.
Ham is complaining about how the newspapers dare to question his estimates.
Mark Looy, our CCO, has sent me a report on how the two state newspapers have been misrepresenting the project and are determined, apparently, to move it out of the state and take millions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs with it. How is that for responsible journalism when they not only horribly misrepresent the Ark Encounter, but do so in a time with a shaky economy and so many people unemployed?
And then he accuses the newspapers of being on a vendetta.
Today a terrible anti-Ark Encounter article (actually, a “non-story”) has appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper, Kentucky’s largest-circulation paper. They just don’t let up in their anti-Christian agenda driven vendetta against this phenomenal project. We are preparing a response that will be our lead article on the www.AnswersInGenesis.org website. As we are composing the rebuttal now, we’ll take my blog item from Saturday and update and adapt it as our response to a newspaper that seems to want to have the Ark be built in another state — and apparently doesn’t care about the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars that would end up elsewhere. Not very pro-Kentucky, is it, for a Kentucky paper?
He keeps insisting that the people who oppose his theme park are doing it because they’re anti-Kentucky. They aren’t. The writers at the Courier-Journal are pro-Kentucky. I’m pro-Kentucky. I’ll even agree that Ken “The Squealing Piglet” Ham is probably pro-Kentucky. Where we differ is that we think ideas about economic improvement for the state ought to be based on sound, objective financial estimates rather than surveys of dubious value authored by a close friend of the benificiary and relying entirely on conflating pro-religion values with the likelihood of attending his folly, and that maybe a putative educational and entertainment attraction build around the disproven premise that the earth was destroyed by a god 4,000 years ago isn’t the best use of state money, even if it were profitable.
If anyone has read that newspaper today, a brief summary in the comments would be appreciated!
