Showing posts with label New Scientist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Scientist. Show all posts

Friday, 30 August 2013

Tweet Tweet

One of the great things about being retired is that I have a lot of time to waste, and  I waste a lot of it on Twitter. When I first heard about Twitter I was very sceptical. That's because I have a regretable tendency to intellectual snobbery, and I'm sorry. I am now a convert. 

I have 15 followers. Not a great number, to those among us who boast thousands, but I'm happy with my 15. The comings and goings of my Followers affords me a fair amount of amusement. I reckon I must be one of a very small minority of the human race that has been 'Unfollowed' by Cheltenham. Today, 'Planetproblems ' took off too, which caused me much introspection. Am I not serious enough? Did my photo of a baby octopus cause affront? Did the planet disapprove of my mistaking the Caspian Sea for The Mediterranean? I'll never know. (I admit I should have spotted an absence of Cyprus, but you know, we all make mistakes, and it's not as if I'm looking to bomb anyone... .) 

You can say what you like on Twitter, and that's just as it should be. Sometimes I read things I don't like, but only because I choose to. It's interesting, I think, as I do, to grab an insight into ghastly people's thought processes, even if only as an excuse to repeat the hypocrite's  prayer. ( 'I thank you Lord, that I'm not like HIM') 

One of my Followers ReTweeted this:

@FreeRepublicTXT: Minimum wage employees who whine about their pay should re-think their decision  (to) have illegitimate children by sperm donors who disappear.

This interested me more than somewhat because I had, within the hour of reading this piece of shit listened to a young father who worked four jobs at four different fast food joints to earn enough to keep his family. Seventy hours a week. Not including travelling time. 

But, to be fair Mr TXT, I have to admit poor people do make some very stupid decisions ( I do to, but let's assume Mr TXT doesn't, for a moment.) 

I use Twitter as a contact point for my online serious stuff: I found the Higgs Boson there, without having to study astrophysics and get a job in Geneva ( which is Out of Bounds). I pick up my daily meditation there, and a wealth of visual images that will, one day, be poems, or jigsaws.

I also access, via Twitter,  'The New Scientist'  - the only online stuff I actually pay for - which is where, today, I found this article:

@newscientist: Poverty can sap people's ability to think clearly http://t.co/Dfa68vPRel

It's the cruel cycle of poverty. The many challenges that come with being poor can sap people's ability to think clearly, according to a new study. The findings suggest that governments should think twice before tying up social-assistance programmes in confusing red tape.

Sociologists have long known that poor people are less likely to take medications, keep appointments, or be attentive parents. "Poor people make poorer decisions. They do. The question is why," says Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But does bad decision-making help cause poverty, or does poverty interfere with decision-making?

To explore this question, psychologist Eldar Shafir at Princeton University and his colleagues took advantage of a natural experiment. Small-scale sugar-cane farmers in Tamil Nadu in southern India receive most of their year's income all at once, shortly after the annual harvest. As a result, the same farmer can be poor before harvest and relatively rich after. And indeed, Shafir's team found that farmers had more loans, pawned more belongings, and reported more difficulty paying bills before the harvest than after.

IQ drop

The researchers visited 464 farmers in 54 villages both before and after harvest. At each visit, they gave the farmers two tests of their cognitive ability: a multiple-choice pattern-matching test, and one in which they had to declare the number of digits shown rather then their value: seeing "5 5 5" but saying "three", for example.

The farmers scored significantly lower on the tests before the harvest, when money was tight, suggesting that their worries made it harder to think clearly. In fact, worrying about money impaired the farmers' thinking almost as much as going without sleep for a full night, and was the equivalent of a 13-point drop in IQ.

Looking at the same individuals before and after they received their pay packet meant that the team controlled for other factors that likely contribute to cognitive abilities, such as family background, childhood nutrition, limited education and exposure to lead or other toxins.

Mental bandwidth

The most likely explanation for the results is that people have a limited amount of "mental bandwidth", and financial worries leave less available for other cognitive tasks, says Shafir. If so, then poor people's bad decision-making may be at least partly a result of their circumstances, not due to any intrinsic lack of intelligence, says Smeeding, who was not involved in the study.

Shafir's study is an important advance, says Ann Stevens, an economist who directs the Center for Poverty Research at the University of California, Davis. If poverty makes people think less clearly, then even small social programmes to improve their lot may let them devote more attention to staying healthy, being better parents and the like. That could bring social benefits that are not usually counted in cost-benefit analyses of welfare programmes, she says.

Limited mental bandwidth also means governments should be careful not to add too much paperwork to poor people's burden. "A typical poor citizen comes to you poor in money and poor in bandwidth," says Shafir. "When you give them a 30-page application form [for social assistance], you're putting a pretty massive charge on their bandwidth." 

I think it would be wonderful to engage the brain of Mr TXT with the science that refutes his ideology ... But he's incapable of taking it in. I've chosen to read some if his other stuff, and I know this. This man is a fascist and a fool. His bandwidth is taken up with inflating his pathetic little  ego with ignorant ranting. I like to think my ranting has a little more class... . 

But I know, and can now explain what poverty does to a person's ability to function, and whether this makes any difference doesn't matter. It's that HIS  isn't the only opinion out there that matters. A lot. 



Tuesday, 30 April 2013

What's That, God?

I think you'll have to shout a bit louder.

A really really sensational series of books that hit the US best-seller lists a while ago, were Donald Walsch's. 'Conversations With God'. I read all three.

I read them with interest and a great deal of enjoyment, because this chatty God, who answered all Donald's questions with commendable frankness, was a very likeable Divine Presence.

I read them with a great deal of scepticism because this new revelation of All-Holiness said some pretty radical things.

At the end, it all came down to: Love the things you desire, and they will be drawn to you. That's it - You have created who you are, and you go on doing just that, so create something you REALLY want to be.

Lots of people will attest to having pulled the Universe into their hand, and become richer, better-loved, more beautiful, more gainfully employed and with better health... And good luck to them.

I never tried it, not once. Maybe I Am who I really want to be?

Or lazy. Yes, lazy. Think about it: if I had more money, I'd be obliged to find ways of spending it, if I ruled the world, I'd need to find things for people to do, if I were young and beautiful, I'd be beating suitors off with a stick... All too much trouble, I'm afraid.

Somewhere deep though, something stuck. This must have been the beginning of my belief that you can believe what you like and get away with it. Ultimately, the realisation that God as Revelation, is Open To Negotiation.

I watch my lovely fundamentalist friends having not too much fun at all, tying themselves into knots trying to reconcile into one indivisible truth, the revelation of God as a vindictive old tyrant, and a universally loving Spirit.

Either? Neither? Or Both?

It's entirely up to you.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Alongside reading the New Scientist on the nature of consciousness. I'd love to watch my own neurons fire, I think that would be pretty amazing, but what I observe from looking at pictures of other people's, is, that the subconscious sorts everything out, then the conscious bit ( let's call it 'you') just does as it's told. I tell you it's pretty scary stuff. The subconscious self makes quite a lot of it up as it goes along, so the reality you think you're experiencing, isn't really real at all. And, furthermore, holds together what you think of as 'you' for about three seconds.

THREE SECONDS. We are all about three seconds long, which is no time at all if you ask me.

I have about 2.5 seconds to let my subconscious inform me as to where we're going with this. Ah yes, Talking to God.

You want to capture a few Hittites and batter their brains out? In about three seconds time, God will tell you to do it. You want to love your neighbour as yourself? Ditto.


God! I hope I'm wrong!







Monday, 4 March 2013

Having An Off Day




I am full of myself today.



That's  the thing. I have been reading three texts concurrently. The New Scientist, on 'Self' ( 'Where is it, if it's there at all?' ) Fr Richard Rohr on 'The Search for Our True Self' ('It's there, you just have know where to look for it') and, for light relief, 'The Tablet' on the Poping Drama now being played out at the Vatican. ('Who..?' No, it's no good, the machinations of Papal politics defy summation.)



(Pause for a swig of tea, which, because that paragraph took so long to construct, has now gone cold.)

I am thinking hard about myself and what that means. I was asked to leave the philosophy class when at college, so I must apologise for my ignorance about a subject that's been chewed over for millennia, on occasions with pebbles in the mouth, so I believe, but I shall plough on as if ignorance is  bliss.

The NS report begins:

'As you wake up each morning, hazy and disoriented, you gradually become aware of the rustling of the sheets, sense their texture and squint at the light. One aspect of your self has reassembled: the first-person observer of reality, inhabiting a human body.

As wakefulness grows, so does your sense of having a past, a personality and motivations. Your self is complete, as both witness of the world and bearer of your consciousness and identity. You.

This intuitive sense of self is an effortless and fundamental human experience. But it is nothing more than an elaborate illusion. Under scrutiny, many common-sense beliefs about selfhood begin to unravel. Some thinkers even go as far as claiming that there is no such thing as the self. '

Due to the fortuitous consequence of being ejected from the philosophy class, I am not burdened with being a 'thinker' , so I cannot claim, ' that there is no such thing as the  self.'

I have a heavy cold that has settled on my chest and has reduced me to a fractious and demanding individual not fit for company. 'This is it!' I  unthink to my self, 'If I am NOT, then who the hell has this bloody cold?

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Write To Your Representative

Twenty-one trillion dollars are stashed away in off-shore bank accounts worldwide, by just 92,00 people.  That's just 0.001 per cent of the world's people holding assets greater than the combined GDP of both the USA and Japan. Now this really isn't fair.

These figures are quoted not in 'Lefty Today' or 'Marxism for the Minority', but in the highly respectable, 'New Scientist' journal published weekly in the UK. (newscientist.com) The science in question, is of course, psychology, and the editorial ('An Appeal To Fairness' 28 July 2012) gives an account of research in the field of society's attitude to inequality.

Why do we stress out sick people by trying to force them back to work they are demonstrably unable to do, or blame homeless people for their inability to make it - people at the bottom of the pile, struggling in  a system weighted against them - whilst remaining silent about this particular obscenity? The NS editorial  might be read as a homily in our churches. It wouldn't be though. Too radical perhaps?

The editor is strightforward about his belief that, 'There is no authority to whom we can simply wail about unfairness in the hope of restitution. We are the responsible adults now.' I don't censure him for this; on the contrary, I am delighted that he brings the issue of fairness in our society into prominence, what I do question is why we citizens of faith aren't making more of a noise. Too comfortable perhaps?

Whatever our stance we ARE the responsible adults. We do have a say in what laws shape our society. We can make a difference.